In 2023, Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal (CFA) ruled that the government must establish a legal framework for recognising same-sex partnerships, setting an October 2025 deadline. In July 2025, the government responded with a proposal to recognise only same-sex partnerships registered overseas, granting limited rights in areas such as healthcare and post-death matters. However, for the first time since the electoral reform, Hong Kong’s legislature has rejected the government’s bill. If that limitation were not enough, the government also failed to create a domestic registry to allow local same-sex couples to formalise their relationships—raising the question: why not? The answer may lie in history. In 1999, the CFA issued a landmark judgment on the right of abode for mainland-born children of Hong Kong residents. Rather than implement the ruling, the government asked Beijing to reinterpret the Basic Law, effectively overriding the court. That precedent continues to shape how the government handles politically sensitive legal issues today. On the very first day after the 1997 handover, hundreds of mainland-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents gathered outside the Immigration Department, demanding recognition of their right of abode. They based their claim on Article 24 of the Basic Law, which grants permanent residency to individuals born outside Hong Kong if their parents are Hong Kong permanent residents. This reflects Section XIV of Annex I of the Joint Declaration.

Yet neither text clarified whether the parents had to already hold permanent residency at the time of the child’s birth. The Immigration Department rejected their claim. A legal challenge followed, ultimately reaching the CFA. On 29 January 1999, the court ruled that mainland-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents were........

© E-International