The Agreement entered into force on 27 May 1985 and was registered by the Chinese and British Governments with the United Nations on 12 June 1985. The recent implementation of hong Kong`s national security law has led to unprecedented mass arrests and the exclusion of pro-demacratic candidates from elections. Despite strong opposition from their Chinese counterparts in mainland China, many international politicians see the law as a serious violation of the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration, which preceded Hong Kong`s return to Chinese control. This naturally leads to the question of whether, from an international perspective, China can be held responsible for violating an international treaty. (This article is intended as a technical discussion and does not reflect the opinions and opinions of the author.) Thirty-five years ago today, on December 19, 1984, the governments of the United Kingdom and China reached an agreement on the Hong Kong issue. The Sino British Joint Declaration, as it is called, was registered at the United Nations on 12 June 1985 as a legally binding international treaty, which is still in force today. One of the major achievements has been to ensure the continuity of independent justice in Hong Kong, including agreements in the areas of commercial shipping, civil aviation, nuclear materials, whaling, underwater telegraph, space and many others. It also approved a network of bilateral agreements between Hong Kong and other countries. Within the framework of these agreements, the continued application of some 200 international conventions to the HKSAR after 30 June 1997 was concluded.
Hong Kong is expected to continue to participate in various international organizations after the handover. In 2014, in the context of China`s Umbrella Revolution, Britain`s Foreign Affairs Committee was barred from entering Hong Kong during its planned visit in December as part of its investigation into progress in implementing the Sino-British Joint Declaration. During an emergency parliamentary debate on the unprecedented ban, committee chairman Richard Ottaway revealed that Chinese officials consider the joint statement « now null and void and only cover the period from the 1984 signature to the 1997 handover. »