自决在香港是个“伪命题”
Self-Determination in Hong Kong Is a Non-Issue
驻香港公署特派员 宋哲
Song Zhe, Commissioner of the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Hong Kong
近来，“自决”这个话题在香港很热，身边一些朋友也来问我的意见。作为外交官，我想从国际关系和外交的角度讲讲“自决”的来龙去脉及在香港谈“自决”的误导性和迷惑性。
Some people in Hong Kong lately have been advocating for, or talking about, “self-determination.” In my view, from the perspective of international relations and diplomacy, their argument is confused and misleading.
“自决”是个有特定涵义的国际法语汇。从其产生到应用的历史看，都涉及到国际关系的理论和实践。从时间段上看，可以简单分为二战前、二战后和冷战结束后几个阶段。“自决”的精神可追溯到美国“独立宣言”；在20世纪初，列宁写过一本《论民族自决权》；第一次世界大战后，美国总统威尔逊在其“十四点和平原则”中提及“民族自决权”。因此，从起源看，“自决”指的就是“民族自决”。
In international law, the term “self-determination” carries special meaning. Its inception and use concerned, in theory, “national self-determination,” and can be traced back from the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Vladimir Lenin’s “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination” in 1914 and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s proposed rights of oppressed nations in his Fourteen Points following World War I.
二战后，《联合国宪章》、联合国大会《给予殖民地国家和人民独立宣言》、1966年“人权两公约”等一系列国际法律文件确认了“自决权”，一批亚洲、非洲等地的殖民地国家获得了独立。因此，从实践看，“自决”就是殖民地人民争取独立的权利。同时，联合国大会也明确表示，“任何旨在部分或全部分裂国家团结和破坏其领土完整的企图都与联合国宪章原则相违背”，对自决权加以限制。
After World War II, a series of international legal documents reaffirmed the “right to self-determination.” These include the Charter of the United Nations and subsequently the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, as well as two international covenants on human rights. Thanks in part to these principles, a group of colonial countries in Asia and Africa were able to achieve independence.
In practice, “self-determination” refers to the rights of people in colonial countries seeking independence. But the U.N. General Assembly also set clear restrictions on this right, declaring that “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
冷战结束前后，“自决”概念出现滥用和扩大化迹象，与“分离”混同起来。一些国家的地区以“自决”为借口提出“分离”要求，但这些所谓“自决”要求不具备国际法基础，不被本国大多数人民支持，也未得到国际社会广泛认可。联合国前秘书长吴丹曾表示，联合国“不会接受所谓会员国特定区域有权从母国分离的原则”。
After the Cold War, “self-determination” was increasingly abused and confused with the concept of “secession.” Certain regions within some countries asked for secession in the name of “self-determination.” Yet such requests have no legal basis in international law. They neither received the support of the majority of people in the countries concerned nor were widely recognized by the international community.
无论意味着“独立”还是“分离”，“自决”都与香港隔着十万八千里远。从历史讲，香港在鸦片战争前一直在中央政府连续有效管辖之下。从法理讲，1997年7月1日中央政府恢复对香港行使主权，国家宪法和基本法明确规定了香港是国家不可分离的一部分。从文化讲，香港与内地同宗同源、血脉相连，同属“中华文化”。既然从来没有什么“香港民族”，香港也非外国统治下的殖民地，根本就不存在什么“自决”问题。
Regardless of whether it means “independence” or “secession,” “self-determination” is completely irrelevant to Hong Kong. In historical terms, Hong Kong was under the effective jurisdiction of the Chinese central government, without interruption, before the Opium War. In legal terms, Beijing resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong on July 1, 1997, and it is clearly stated in China’s Constitution and Hong Kong’s Basic Law that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China.
In cultural terms, the people of Hong Kong and the mainland share the same origin. Bound by blood ties, they both belong to the Chinese culture. Since there has never existed a Hong Kong nation, and Hong Kong is not a colony under foreign rule, there is no issue of “self-determination” in Hong Kong.
此外，还有两个迷惑性的错误概念与“自决”相关。一是“后2047问题”，另一个是“民主自决”问题。
Two other topics relating to “self-determination” have also caused confusion. One concerns the “post-2047 arrangements,” and the other is “democratic self-determination.”
“一国两制”五十年不变，指的是香港的资本主义制度和生活方式五十年不变，“一国”则是永远不变。“后2047前途”应是香港在“一国”前提下实行什么样的政治、经济和社会制度问题。这属于中央授权的高度自治范畴，根本不存在“民主自决”问题。
According to the Basic Law, the “one country, two systems” principle will remain unchanged for the 50 years following 1997. This means that Hong Kong’s lifestyle and capitalist system is to remain in place for a set period. Yet the “one country” aspect is to remain for good.
What needs to be discussed regarding the “post-2047 arrangements” is the kind of political, economic and social system that will be adopted in Hong Kong under the prerequisite of “one country.” This falls into the purview of a high degree of autonomy mandated by Beijing, not “democratic self-determination” as has been claimed by some.
在英国殖民统治的一百多年里，香港同胞从未享有过当家作主的权利。香港回归祖国后，在“一国两制”政策安排下，香港同胞才能真正当家作主，实现“港人治港”、高度自治。这种高度自治，是很多联邦制国家内的联邦主体都不享有的。如香港享有独立的司法终审权，中央政府不在香港征税；而美国的州既无司法终审权，也要向联邦政府缴税。
During Hong Kong’s 150 years under British rule, its people never exercised rights as masters of the city. It was only after the return of Hong Kong to the motherland in 1997 under the “one country, two systems” principle that Hong Kong began to be administered by its residents with a high degree of autonomy.
Such autonomy is unique and not practiced by subnational units within many federal countries. For example, Hong Kong enjoys the power of final adjudication and pays no taxes to the central government. Even in the U.S., no state is entitled to such a privilege.
在这种情况下，如果有人还在香港大谈“自决”，只有两种可能：或是对“自决”有模糊或错误认识；或是别有用心，故意偷换概念，混水摸鱼。
如果是前者，希望本文能够帮助其澄清认识；如果是后者，只会将香港引向极其危险的未来，损害国家和香港的根本利益，这是注定要失败的。
If someone continues to advocate “self-determination” in Hong Kong, he or she might not have a correct understanding of the term. To them, I hope this article will help clarify the concept.
But there are also others who are deliberately confusing this concept as a way to stir up trouble. I am afraid that such an attempt will lead Hong Kong onto a dangerous path and undermine the fundamental interests of the country and Hong Kong.
对香港而言，当前最紧迫的任务是集中精力发展经济、改善民生，并充分发挥自身优势，找好“国家所需、香港所长”的结合点，在与国家共同发展中迎来新机遇，而不是炒作一些似是而非、有害无益的错误概念。
For Hong Kong, the most pressing task is to remain focused on improving its economy and livelihood, bringing into full play its advantages. It is our hope that Hong Kong will embrace new opportunities while developing together with the rest of the country. To play up certain erroneous ideas is in no one’s interest.
