Coordinate and Simplify to Uphold the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ Principle

Analysis

On December 10, 2023, the State Council of the People’s Republic of China approved the General Development Plan for the Construction of the Deepened Cooperation Zone between Guangdong and Macau in Hengqin. This document includes several provisions, outlined in Articles 56 to 65, which aim to gradually build an institutional system for civil and commercial rules that link Macau with international standards (Art. 56). It also mentions creating an integrated law enforcement system (Art. 59), developing mechanisms for resolving commercial disputes—such as litigation, arbitration, and mediation in international commercial matters—through internationally accepted commercial arbitration mechanisms (Art. 61). Additionally, it emphasizes the integrated development of legal services between Guangdong and Macau, including legal advocacy, notarization, and legal assistance, which is a reasonable and solid principle.

However, during the opening session of the 2024/2025 judicial year, Song Man Lei, the acting president of the Court of Final Appeal and its presumable future head, mentioned the visits made to nine courts in the Greater Bay Area. These visits focused on deepening judicial cooperation between Macau and Guangdong, as well as efforts to establish a “People’s Court of the Deepened Cooperation Zone (…) to carry out a pilot project of appointing non-permanent Macau judges, forming a joint court with mainland China judges to handle civil and commercial cases.”

These are commendable efforts with good intentions that do not go unnoticed by residents. However, they also highlight the weight of bureaucratic decision-making mechanisms and the complexities required to achieve something concrete and beneficial.

There seems to be, although I may be mistaken, a sense of disjointed actions without clear coordination or understanding of how this cooperation between Macau and Guangdong will also align with Hong Kong. If these three regions are working toward the same goals and are part of the same geographic area, it would be vital for their efforts to be coordinated and for there to be full collaboration.

First and foremost, the distinct legal systems of these three regions must be harmonized, which seems to be lacking. The legal development in Macau and Hong Kong differs from that in mainland China, reflecting different legal traditions. Addressing this would be a crucial first step, rather than prematurely creating courts and judicial teams to handle cases without establishing such harmony.

Ideally, there should be, secondly, some uniformity in commercial, administrative, and judicial procedures, with an approach that considers the different realities of these regions. Leveraging the legal and international experience of the Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of Macau and Hong Kong could help in developing Guangdong’s legal system, giving it both domestic and international credibility.

Otherwise, these efforts may prove as ineffective as previous attempts, such as arbitration and mediation initiatives in Macau, whose only centers are underutilized. In fact, they were barely mentioned in a recent conference held at the University of Saint Joseph, which included representatives from Portuguese-speaking countries.

Engagement and the exchange of ideas are valuable, but if these initiatives do not yield results and fail to attract foreign investment or promote the internationalization of the entire Pearl River Delta region, we may see another failure similar to the Macau Forum. For over twenty years, it has tried to achieve something without significant results, as evidenced by the near-zero utilization of a credit line created by the Central People’s Government for credible projects.

Thus, I believe a tripartite working group should be established, involving all three parties—Macau, Guangdong, and Hong Kong—along with a qualified representative appointed by the Central Government to coordinate efforts. This group should be given the freedom to prepare a credible, common legal framework that could gain international acceptance in the shortest possible time. Such a compilation of regulations would greatly contribute to the international standing of the region, simplifying bureaucracy, and reducing uncertainties about the future.

Macau and Hong Kong SARs are well-prepared, with significant international legal experience, to provide a decisive push for the development of the Greater Bay Area (Guangdong/HK/Macau). This could then serve as an example and a catalyst for the rest of the country. However, for this to happen, it is essential to allow freedom in planning, creation, and coordination, leaving the democratic centralism to other areas where it may be less detrimental to the long-term economic development of the People’s Republic of China. Here too, a wise, informed, and commanding voice is needed. By Sérgio Almeida Correia, Lawyer, Political Scientist