Recently, there are growing voices in Britain claiming that London still holds responsibilities for Hong Kong.

They said that their argument is based on the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. The British Foreign Affairs Committee even clamored to send a delegation to Hong Kong for an "inquiry" into the implementation of the joint declaration. But does the argument have any legal basis?

The answer is no. The joint declaration makes distinctions about rights and obligations of China and Britain, according to which, London has accomplished its responsibilities for the region of Hong Kong.

The joint declaration consists of eight articles and three annexes. In the first and second articles, which are the core terms of the declaration, it is clearly stated that China and Britain would finish the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong on July 1 1997. Unilateral declarations under Article III and Annex I clarify the basic policies that the Chinese government adopts on Hong Kong. This part has no bearing upon the British side.

Under Articles IV, V and VI and Annexes II and III, China and Britain made a joint announcement of the arrangements during the transitional period, such as the establishment and operation of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group. Those contents have been carried out along with the return of Hong Kong to China.

The last two articles are about the ratification of the joint declaration.

It's clear-cut that there is no article regulating that Britain still has responsibilities over Hong Kong after China recovered its sovereignty. Britain has no right to claim any rights or obligations over Hong Kong based on the joint declaration.

As early as at the preliminary stage of the negotiations on the joint declaration, the British side claimed that it was responsible for Hong Kong. But such rhetoric ended with failure due to the firm opposition from the Chinese side.

In September 1982, Britain proposed an exchange of sovereignty for administration, and a China-British joint administration in Hong Kong. They claimed that the British government had moral responsibility for Hong Kong for over a century and that Hongkongers also pinned their hope on the British administration.

However, the Chinese government decisively refused these proposals, contending that whatever policies were adopted over Hong Kong, it was China's domestic affairs; China welcomed helpful suggestions from Britain, but the British government had no right to interfere in China's decision-making.

Due to China's strong rebuttal, the British side ultimately clearly stated that it wouldn't propose any suggestions contradictory to the premise that both the sovereignty and administration of Hong Kong should be returned to China.

Britain also promised that it wouldn't intend to establish any reporting linkage between the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government and the British government after 1997. This is the prerequisite for the joint declaration.

Now, some in Britain re-trumpeted the British "moral responsibility" over Hong Kong, but such attempts to mislead public opinion are doomed to fail.

After Hong Kong has returned to China, and the basic policies and principles over Hong Kong which are unilaterally declared by the Chinese government have been written into and carried out by the Basic Law.

Britain has no sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of supervision over Hong Kong, and there is no such thing as "moral obligation."

If we have to say that Britain has some responsibility, then it does have the obligation of complying with the commonly agreed international norm of noninterference in others' internal affairs.

The author is an observer of international affairs. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn 

(For the latest China news, please follow @PDChina on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/PDChina and @PeoplesDaily on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/PeoplesDaily)