“One country, two systems” is a constitutional guideline proposed by Deng Xiaoping, who recommended that there would be just a single China, yet particular Chinese locales such as Hong Kong and Macau could hold their own financial and administrative frameworks, while the rest of China uses the communism system (Fong 2017). Under the guideline, every one of the two locales could keep on having its own specific legislative system, budgetary affairs and even incorporating trade relations with foreign nations. The two SARs of Hong Kong and Macau would be in charge of their domestic undertakings including the judiciary, immigration and customs, currencies and extradition (Fong 2017). Essential social impacts are exclusion of the SARs from territory laws which command the utilization of simplified techniques in distribution of government funded schools and a good number of broadcasting houses. International political relations and territorial defense of the both Hong Kong and Macau however, is the duty of the Central People’s Government in Beijing in as much as Hong Kong keeps using English common law (Fong 2017).
Nonconformity emerging from historical and ethnic issues has turned into a global problem. Nations around the globe, particularly the bigger nations have experienced, to fluctuating degrees, difficulties of managing domestic protests and protecting national unity. The affected nations have embraced different methodologies and techniques, such as allowing more prominent independence zones who wish for division. (Mey & Ladegaard 2015). In most cases, such methodologies have prompted different results. Nonconformist movements around the globe posture genuine challenges adverse to national unity and regional integrity of countries. The three main challenge of this policy include economic, political and environmental setbacks which are faced by China.
First, it has been predicted that China’s economy will collapse in the near future if they continue using the ‘One-Country-One System’ Policy. Amidst all these, there have been no major changes in the Chinese system, hence raising eyebrows of whether they will stand the test of time. Second, concerning politics, people are getting more and more concerned about their political rights in China. A good example is lawlessness and environmental issues which were witnessed before and the ‘One-Country-One System’ Policy did not handle properly. As people become wearier, the ‘One-Country-One System’ Policy is getting poor receptions in current global forums and needs to be adjusted for the sake of China and its territories. Lastly, the ‘One-Country-One System’ Policy is in play in states which are faced by pollution. However, in as much as the main contributor of air pollution is China, the ‘One-Country-One System’ Policy that they are holding on to does not seem to provide reliable solutions on pollution. This situation renders the ‘One-Country-One System’ Policy unreliable in the eyes of affected citizens and leaders.
Along these lines, discovering answers for the issue of ‘One-Country-One System’ Policy has been an undertaking for concerned national governments as well as researchers in political science, law and different disciplines, calling for theoretical advancements. The “One Country, Two Systems” theory was first proposed as an answer for national unification, which is suited to China’s national conditions, as well as has given essential motivation to different nations handling issues of nonconformity and national unity (Mey & Ladegaard 2015). One might say that the “One Country, Two Systems” theory has historical and worldwide noteworthiness and has to a certain degree changed the conventional thought of China. In the first place, the “One Country, Two Systems” hypothesis separates ideological boundaries, changing the established relations between the state and corresponding philosophy hence enormously enhancing the Marxist theory on the state (Scott 2017). Classical writings regarding the state and ideology by mainstream Marxist journalists have additionally addressed this issue.
Second, the model of ” unified state sovereignty and separate administrative authority” gives helpful reference to different nations around the globe in handling issues of nonconformity. The connection between the central government and local regions can be a prickly issue around the world, especially in nations encountering issues of rebellion, where legitimate treatment of relations between the central government and territories requesting detachment represents an enormous test for national governments (Scott 2017). The “One Country, Two Systems” hypothesis gives an answer for guaranteeing unified sovereignty by giving a high state of independence to local regions, which is not hypothetically important on the development of political and legal sciences. The “One Country, Two Systems” hypothesis is suited to taking care of chronicled issues in China, yet in addition gives critical lessons to the international community for guaranteeing national unity and handling issues of nonconformity.
The SAR framework, outlined by the principle of “One Country, Two Systems”, is a compelling way to defend national solidarity in any country. The “One Country, Two Systems” hypothesis is a commitment to the political advance of mankind at the theoretical level, as well as in the advancement of global politics (Scott 2017). The SAR framework has changed the customary model of connection between the Central Government and local regions and made a one of a kind institutional course of action to take care of authentic issues, a plan that is not quite the same as that between the government and member states in a federal elected structure and successful in protecting national unity inside a unitary state (Petersen & Cheung 2016). The composite territory of China is coming to fruition and the theory identifying with it is proving to be fundamental (Lu et al. 2018).
Fong, B.C., 2017. One Country, Two Nationalisms: Center-Periphery Relations between Mainland China and Hong Kong, 1997–2016. Modern China, 43(5), pp.523-556.
Lu, A., Cai, S., Zheng, S., Hu, H. and Song, P., 2018. Stereotype and National Attachment in Hong Kong Chinese Context: A Moderated Mediation Model of Perceived Inter-group Relationship and Age. Social Indicators Research, 135(1), pp.357-371.
Mey, J.L. and Ladegaard, H.J., 2015. Discourse, democracy and diplomacy: a pragmatic analysis of the Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong. Word, 61(4), pp.319-334.
Petersen, C.J. and Cheung, A.Y., 2016. Academic Freedom and Critical Speech in Hong Kong: China’s Response to Occupy Central and the Future of One Country, Two Systems. NCJ Int’l L., 42, p.665.
Scott, I., 2017. “One country, two systems”: the end of a legitimating ideology? Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 39(2), pp.83-99.