_edited.png)
Weird and does not conform to common sense. It turns out that there are also provisions in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 7, paragraph 6, states that "a country shall not adopt a system of straight baselines so that the territorial sea of another country is cut off from the high seas or the exclusive economic zone." Therefore, if Hong Kong is an independent country, China's practice will cut off Hong Kong's territorial waters from the high seas, which is of course inconsistent with the Convention. xnaphotostwo242303 Photo Credit: Newscom / Dazhi Image Of course, Hong Kong is not a country.
But one step further, another telemarketing list problem arises. In May 1996, when China announced the baseline of its territorial waters, Hong Kong was still "Hong Kong British", and it was more than a year before the handover. Hong Kong was not part of China at this time. Therefore, strictly speaking, when China promulgates this territorial sea baseline, the United Kingdom can protest and ask China to use a normal baseline instead of a straight baseline, thereby leaving Hong Kong with a direct "outlet" to the high seas. Why didn't the UK do this? The author is still unclear. It can be inferred that it is very likely that Hong Kong's return is imminent.
At that time, the UK and China had already broken down on Hong Kong, so these things are difficult to manage. Moreover, after the return of Hong Kong, it is part of China. Disputes over territorial sea baselines no longer exist. Why should Britain be a villain? In the same way, China's territorial sea baseline at that time also blocked the "exit to the sea" that was still Portuguese Macau at the time. Why didn't the Portuguese and Macau government protest? Probably the same reason. I won't go into too much detail here. Speaking of the Wanshan Islands, the author has always advocated that Hong Kong should strive for Beijing to place the Wanshan Islands under the jurisdiction of Hong Kong.