引渡逃犯風波 美國輸打贏要

<轉載自2018年6月1日 明報 社評>

美國國務院《香港政策法》報告透露，去年10月，港方拒絕應華府要求將一名逃犯引渡到美國。美方將事件扯上關乎一國兩制的高度，特區政府則強調依法辦事。港美引渡協定加入多項豁免條款，就算拒絕交人也毋須詳細說明，當年美國參議院也認為，有關條款符合美方利益，未有異議。今次特區政府援引豁免條款，看不到有違協定，遑論衝擊一國兩制，現在華府批評港方，有輸打贏要之嫌。港美關係受中美關係大局影響，中美角力加劇，華府打「香港牌」勢必增加，未來香港遇上的涉外糾紛，恐將愈來愈多。

引渡協定加豁免條款 港拒絕交人未違承諾

5年前，港美也曾鬧出移交逃犯風波，事件主角是美國中情局前僱員斯諾登。當年白宮批評港府「放走逃犯」，特區政府反駁稱，美方法律文件資料不全，港方無法限制斯諾登離境。相比之下，今次風波性質甚為不同，特區政府是明確援引港美引渡協定（下稱《協定》）的豁免條款，拒絕交人。初步資料顯示，當事人為澳門黑客，伙拍同黨入侵美國律師行伺服器竊取資料，在股市進行內幕交易。美方知悉他身處香港，要求港方協助。特區政府一度將他扣留，惟他其後獲釋。

根據美方說法，港方鑑於中央也展開獨立法律行動，所以拒絕引渡，並將疑犯交予內地。美方形容港方做法「前所未見」，質疑特首林鄭月娥是按「中央指令」不交人。港方則駁斥，美方暗示特首並非按照《協定》辦事，表述不確。政府又強調，香港與內地沒有移交逃犯安排，所以沒向內地移交逃犯。從法律角度看，港方做法沒有任何不妥，如果當事人在港沒有犯事，放人並不出奇；從政治角度看，美方簽訂《協定》時已深知中國政府並非沒有角色，沒理由因為看到港方引用豁免條款便輸打贏要。

1996年港美簽署《協定》，美國參議院外交事務委員會（下稱外委會）提交文件，建議參議院確認《協定》。外委會提到，《協定》性質獨特，因為香港本身並非主權國，條款經由中方同意，授權特區政府依法執行。由於中美政治制度不同，亦沒有引渡協議，所以《協定》加入不少特別條款，容許雙方拒絕引渡要求，例如美方有權以「牽涉政治動機」不交人。另外，《協定》亦對「交出本國公民」設有限制。如果華府認為涉及美國國防、外交或重大公眾利益或政策，美方有權不交出涉案美國人。

至於港方亦有類似權利，條款唯一分別在於，如果事態涉及中國政府（而非締約方香港）的國防外交或重大公眾利益，香港可以拒絕交人；即使美方引渡對象並非港人，而是身處香港的中國公民，如果中國政府開始了調查程序，特區政府也有權不引渡。這兩項豁免規定，實際已暗示中方在《協定》有重要角色﹕美方引渡要求，會否涉及中方的國防外交或重大公眾利益，港方不可能自行判斷，一定會跟中央溝通。當年美國參議院通過《協定》，對此已有充分了解，外委會也認為條款沒問題，足以保障被引渡人士，免受中方可能干預香港司法制度影響，現在美方沒理由質疑港方做法有損一國兩制。

美方找中國麻煩 香港恐淪為磨心

根據外委會文件，當年港方談判代表明言，加入相關豁免交人條款，是中方同意港美簽署引渡協議的前提，如果沒有相關酌情權，港方不會簽署。文件表示，雖然美方一向不贊成以「引渡對象國籍」作為拒絕交人理由，惟《協定》加入相關豁免條款，對美方也有好處，一旦出現特殊情况，可用來保護美國公民免受引渡。美方說法反映，一旦華府認為有需要援引豁免條款，絕不會「忍手」，沒理由美方可以引用有關條文，港方引用就有問題。文件提到，港美談判代表強調有關酌情權會盡量少用。今次是港方20年來首次援引，說不上違反承諾。

一國兩制令香港擁有獨特國際地位，美國國會通過《香港政策法》，處理港美政經貿易關係，也是基於香港奉行一國兩制，有別於內地，可享特殊待遇。一國兩制容許特區與外國簽署協議，惟一切源於中央授權。本港對外事務，哪些可以由特區政府處理、哪些由中央決定，界線並不清晰。當國際形勢穩定、中美互動良好，一國兩制的「創造性模糊」，有利香港拓展對外關係，爭取最大利益；可是一旦國際環境歪變、中美角力升級，有心人就可能拿這些「模糊」做文章，找香港和中方麻煩。

今次引渡風波，美國有否循外交途徑跟北京交涉，外界無從得知，然而美方一味拿香港作為磨心，也於事無補。隨着中美關係轉壞，香港亦難以置身事外。華府鷹派勢將加緊打「香港牌」，作為向中方施壓手段。美方質疑在港註冊貨輪違反制裁朝鮮禁令、推動《香港人權及民主法案》、批評港方未按安理會反恐決議進行本地立法，還有今次引渡風波，在在令人關注香港有可能捲入中美博弈漩渦之中。

HK's refusal to surrender fugitive to US

IN the latest Hong Kong Policy Act Report compiled by the US Department of State, it is disclosed that last October the Hong Kong government refused to extradite a fugitive to the United States as requested by Washington.

A similar episode involving the handover of a fugitive happened between Hong Kong and the US five years ago. The incident back then was centred around Edward Snowden, a former employee of the CIA. In that incident, the White House criticised the HK government for "setting free a fugitive". The HK government countered that the US had failed to supply complete legal documents, so much so the HK government could not have possibly barred Snowden from leaving the territory. The latest controversy, by comparison, is quite different in nature, as it is clear that the HK government has invoked the exception clauses under the extradition treaty between Hong Kong and the US in its refusal to surrender the fugitive. Information at this early stage shows that the person in question is a hacker from Macao, who, acting with his associates, invaded a server of a US law firm to steal information so as to engage in insider trading in the stock market. Knowing that he was in Hong Kong, the US government enlisted the Hong Kong authorities' help. The man was remanded in custody by the HK government but was then released.

The US claims that the HK government refused the extradition request as the Chinese authorities had initiated their own legal proceedings. The HK government, claims the US, then handed the fugitive over to the mainland. The US describes the HK government's action as the first such instance, arguing that Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive, refused the extradition request "at the behest of the Central Government". The HK government counters that the US has misrepresented the truth by implying that the Chief Executive did not act in accordance with the treaty, stressing that it did not hand the fugitive over to the mainland as there is not an arrangement for doing so between Hong Kong and the mainland.

Hong Kong and the US signed the treaty in 1996. Back then the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations submitted documents recommending the Senate approve the treaty. The committee mentioned that the treaty was special in nature, as Hong Kong was not a sovereign state. It was the Chinese government that agreed to its terms and authorised the SAR government to enforce them in accordance with the law. Since China and the US have different political systems and there is not an extradition agreement between them, the treaty comes with many special clauses that allow either side to refuse an extradition request. The US, for example, can refuse to hand over a fugitive citing the involvement of a political motivation.

Hong Kong enjoys similar rights as well. The only difference between the clauses for the two sides is that if the incident involves the national defense and diplomatic matters of the Chinese government (rather than Hong Kong, a signatory of the treaty) and the nation's enormous public interest, the Hong Kong government can refuse an extradition request. Even if the subject requested by the US government is not a Hongkonger but a Chinese citizen in Hong Kong, the HKSAR government has the right to refuse an extradition request as well if the Chinese government has started an investigation.

Amid a deterioration in relations between China and the US, Hong Kong might find it difficult to distance itself from the repercussions. Predictably, the hawks in the White House will waste no time in playing the "Hong Kong" card to exert pressure on China. The US has argued that some Hong Kong-registered cargo ships are in violation of the sanction against North Korea. It has advanced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. It has criticised Hong Kong for failing to enact local laws in accordance with the UN Security Council's resolution on counterterrorism. All this, together with the latest extradition saga, has raised concern that Hong Kong might be dragged into the whirlpool of the rivalry between China and the US.

引渡逃犯風波 美國輸打贏要

美國國務院《香港政策法》報告透露，去年10月，港方拒絕應華府要求將一名逃犯引渡到美國。

5年前，港美也曾鬧出移交逃犯風波，事件主角是美國中情局前僱員斯諾登。當年白宮批評港府「放走逃犯」，特區政府反駁稱，美方法律文件資料不全，港方無法限制斯諾登離境。相比之下，今次風波性質甚為不同，特區政府是明確援引港美引渡協定（下稱《協定》）的豁免條款，拒絕交人。初步資料顯示，當事人為澳門黑客，伙拍同黨入侵美國律師行伺服器竊取資料，在股市進行內幕交易。美方知悉他身處香港，要求港方協助。特區政府一度將他扣留，惟他其後獲釋。

根據美方說法，港方鑑於中央也展開獨立法律行動，所以拒絕引渡，並將疑犯交予內地。美方形容港方做法「前所未見」，質疑特首林鄭月娥是按「中央指令」不交人。港方則駁斥，美方暗示特首並非按照《協定》辦事，表述不確。政府又強調，香港與內地沒有移交逃犯安排，所以沒向內地移交逃犯。

1996年港美簽署《協定》，美國參議院外交事務委員會（下稱外委會）提交文件，建議參議院確認《協定》。外委會提到，《協定》性質獨特，因為香港本身並非主權國，條款經由中方同意，授權特區政府依法執行。由於中美政治制度不同，亦沒有引渡協議，所以《協定》加入不少特別條款，容許雙方拒絕引渡要求，例如美方有權以「牽涉政治動機」不交人。

至於港方亦有類似權利，條款唯一分別在於，如果事態涉及中國政府（而非締約方香港）的國防外交或重大公眾利益，香港可以拒絕交人；即使美方引渡對象並非港人，而是身處香港的中國公民，如果中國政府開始了調查程序，特區政府也有權不引渡。

隨着中美關係轉壞，香港亦難以置身事外。華府鷹派勢將加緊打「香港牌」，作為向中方施壓手段。美方質疑在港註冊貨輪違反制裁朝鮮禁令、推動《香港人權及民主法案》、批評港方未按安理會反恐決議進行本地立法，還有今次引渡風波，在在令人關注香港有可能捲入中美博弈漩渦之中。