This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Although Hong Kong and Macau form parts of the People's Republic of China, the people of the two Special Administrative Regions enjoy a "high degree of autonomy" under " One Country Two Systems" as guaranteed in the Basic Laws. Provision is also made in the PRC Constitution that the two SARs can set up their own systems that are different and independent from the one in mainland China.
In this connection, law courts in Hong Kong and Macau are indeed not "PRC courts". The judiciaries of Hong Kong and Macau are independent and are not subordinate to the PRC judiciary. It is inaccurate and wrong for the template to label all the three court systems as "PRC court system" and to display the court systems of Hong Kong and Macau as if they were inferior.
"PRC Courts" should only be used to specifically refer to all ranks of the People's Courts in the mainland that are formed under " The Organic Law of the People's Courts of the People's Republic of China" (which is indeed inapplicable to Hong Kong and Macau). That is why I remove the court systems of Hong Kong and Macau from the template. -- Clithering ( talk) 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I've changed CPG back to mainland, since you edited the page without responding to my argument above. Actually it makes a lot of sense for the IP editor to remove HK and Mo altogether: that'll end our debate here forever :) Der yck C. 05:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to this discussion, it's really appreciated.
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Although Hong Kong and Macau form parts of the People's Republic of China, the people of the two Special Administrative Regions enjoy a "high degree of autonomy" under " One Country Two Systems" as guaranteed in the Basic Laws. Provision is also made in the PRC Constitution that the two SARs can set up their own systems that are different and independent from the one in mainland China.
In this connection, law courts in Hong Kong and Macau are indeed not "PRC courts". The judiciaries of Hong Kong and Macau are independent and are not subordinate to the PRC judiciary. It is inaccurate and wrong for the template to label all the three court systems as "PRC court system" and to display the court systems of Hong Kong and Macau as if they were inferior.
"PRC Courts" should only be used to specifically refer to all ranks of the People's Courts in the mainland that are formed under " The Organic Law of the People's Courts of the People's Republic of China" (which is indeed inapplicable to Hong Kong and Macau). That is why I remove the court systems of Hong Kong and Macau from the template. -- Clithering ( talk) 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I've changed CPG back to mainland, since you edited the page without responding to my argument above. Actually it makes a lot of sense for the IP editor to remove HK and Mo altogether: that'll end our debate here forever :) Der yck C. 05:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to this discussion, it's really appreciated.