Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11861/10595
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCHAN Shiu-Chung, Johnen_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-18T02:01:18Z-
dc.date.available2024-11-18T02:01:18Z-
dc.date.issued2024-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of the History of International Law, 2024, vol. 26(3), pp. 285-311.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1571-8050-
dc.identifier.issn1388-199X-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11861/10595-
dc.description.abstractDespite the wealth of research on cross-border activities between China proper and Hong Kong, little has been discussed about the ‘civil fugitives’ who fled from one side to the other during Hong Kong’s early colonial period. Chinese debtors who absconded to China created jurisdictional problems for Hong Kong. The addition of Article 23 in the Treaty of Tientsin was an attempt to solve this issue, and this article explores what the discussions on Article 23, particularly those from 1905 to 1907 among British colonial officials and diplomatic agents, reveal about the characteristics of colonial jurisdiction under international law. In this case, colonial jurisdiction was limited solely to the territory of Hong Kong. Proposals to amend Article 23 attempted to remove the territorial barrier and establish personal jurisdiction for the colonial government in Hong Kong, similar to extraterritorial rights in Qing China.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of the History of International Lawen_US
dc.titleUnequal treaty in practice: A story about Article 23 of the treaty of Tientsinen_US
dc.typePeer Reviewed Journal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1163/15718050-12340231-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Law and Business-
Appears in Collections:Law and Business - Publication
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Impact Indices

Altmetric

PlumX

Metrics


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.