Virginia Lee says the city’s long-term stability is guaranteed through faithful implementation of its constitutional responsibilities
The white paper — Hong Kong: Safeguarding China's National Security Under the Framework of One Country, Two Systems — highlights a significant jurisprudential development by establishing a clear interpretive framework that contextualizes institutional actions since June 2020 within China’s constitutional order. This framework is essential for understanding how security governance aligns with constitutional principles, positioning it as a normalization of constitutional responsibility embedded in the Basic Law and sovereignty. This approach underscores that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s stable administration and high degree of autonomy are outcomes rooted in the foundational security framework.
A central contribution of the white paper is its clarification of the constitutional relationship between sovereignty and local governance with a high degree of autonomy. It argues that autonomy is exercised within the boundaries of national unity and territorial integrity, and that the protection of these fundamentals is neither optional nor politically contingent. In this account, safeguarding national security is not framed as a constraint imposed from outside the special administrative region but as an integral component of the constitutional design that makes the “one country, two systems” framework viable. Security is therefore treated as a public good that ensures the conditions for protecting rights, maintaining market confidence, and effective public administration.
The white paper also provides a structured explanation of the risks created by Hong Kong’s prolonged absence of comprehensive national security legislation. For many years, the unfulfilled obligation to enact a national security law under Article 23 of the Basic Law left institutional gaps that reduced the city’s capacity to address activities involving secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with external forces. The events surrounding the 2019-20 unrest demonstrated how social disorder can escalate rapidly when legal tools are incomplete and enforcement is fragmented. This period exposed vulnerabilities that could be exploited by organized actors seeking to destabilize governance and challenge the constitutional order, emphasizing the need for comprehensive legislation.
Against this background, the enactment of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) is a constitutionally grounded measure to restore effective governance. The white paper portrays the decision as a response to a practical reality: Hong Kong lacked the political conditions necessary to complete national security legislation promptly, yet the risks to public order and national security had intensified. The NPCSC’s move is justified as a form of responsible constitutional oversight intended to close legislative gaps and to reestablish predictable rules for political and civic life. In the document’s formulation, this step strengthened the legal foundations of the “one country, two systems” framework by preventing the framework from being undermined through legal ambiguity.
The enactment of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance by the Legislative Council in March 2024 is described as the culmination of this institutional reconstruction. It is framed as the fulfilment of a longstanding constitutional duty and as evidence of a maturing governance capacity in the SAR. The white paper emphasizes that the ordinance complements the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law and helps create a more comprehensive legal framework for preventing and addressing serious offenses that threaten sovereignty and public safety. It also underscores that modern security risks include not only physical violence but also covert financing, information operations, and digital intrusion, requiring statutes that can address contemporary forms of interference while remaining anchored in legal procedure.
The white paper further asserts that the credibility of the rule of law depends on the existence of enforceable legal norms protecting the constitutional order. In this view, the rule of law is not limited to protecting individual rights in isolation, but also includes safeguarding the legal system from coercion, intimidation, and attempts to paralyze public institutions. The text maintains that national security enforcement targets a narrow category of conduct that threatens the community, and that ordinary residents benefit when public order is restored and predictable governance is maintained. The relationship between security and rights is therefore described as mutually reinforcing in practice, because rights are most meaningful when people can exercise them without fear and without social chaos.
Political reform is considered an additional pillar of stable governance in Hong Kong. The white paper depicts the principle of “Patriots Administering Hong Kong” as an ordinary requirement of sovereign states, grounded in the expectation that holders of public power accept and uphold the constitutional order. From this perspective, electoral improvements are seen as measures that protect governance from obstruction and prevent public institutions from being used to challenge sovereignty. The intended outcome is a political environment where disagreement can occur within constitutional bounds and where the focus of administration returns to livelihoods, development, and social well-being. The white paper suggests that institutional functionality is strengthened when public offices are occupied by those committed to the long-term interests of the country and the SAR.
The white paper also connects the restoration of public order with renewed socioeconomic momentum. It argues that economic vitality depends on stability, policy predictability, and an environment conducive to uninterrupted commercial activities. The indicators cited support the assertion that Hong Kong’s role as an international financial, trade, aviation, and shipping hub remains strong, attracting investment and professional services. This underscores that markets value a stable legal environment, and confidence is reinforced when social conflict is minimized. Development and security are thus presented as mutually reinforcing priorities.
International criticism is addressed through a comparative framing that emphasizes the universality of national security legislation. The white paper points out that every jurisdiction maintains laws against acts that endanger sovereignty and public safety, and that national security governance should be assessed with attention to legal practice across different systems. It notes that some external commentaries apply selective standards that overlook comparable measures in other jurisdictions. The document further maintains that enforcement actions target serious offenses and that protecting the majority’s lawful rights is advanced when violent or coercive behavior is restrained. On this account, restoring order is seen as a prerequisite for a society in which rights can be exercised meaningfully and peacefully.
Taken together, the white paper outlines a trajectory in which Hong Kong’s governance enters a stage characterized by institutional completeness and clearer constitutional boundaries. The central thesis is that the “one country, two systems” framework is sustained through the integration of security governance, effective administration, and economic development. By repairing earlier legislative gaps and strengthening political stability, the document suggests that Hong Kong is better positioned to address longstanding social issues through orderly policymaking. The future described is one in which the SAR continues to benefit from openness and connectivity, while remaining protected against risks that could exploit that openness to the detriment of the national interest. In this vision, national rejuvenation and local prosperity are mutually supportive, and Hong Kong’s long-term stability is secured through faithful implementation of its constitutional responsibilities.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
