Rule of law ill served by Hong Kong's decision to let Snowden leave
Surya Deva questions the government's explanation for allowing Snowden to leave Hong Kong, as it seems to have acted according to Beijing's dictates, rather than in line with the rule of law
Edward Snowden's escape from Hong Kong on Sunday was dramatic to say the least. Several people are coming forward to claim credit for facilitating his exit, which avoided a potentially long and unpredictable legal battle against extradition to the US.
It seems, however, that the key player behind Snowden's escape is not disclosing its identify. This key player appears to be the central government, which wanted to gain political mileage out of the saga, but did not wish to keep this "hot potato" within Chinese territory.
Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has defended the Hong Kong government's role, saying: "The people of Hong Kong and our friends in the international community expect us to follow the laws of Hong Kong itself. They expect us to uphold our rule of law and, equally importantly, they expect us to follow procedural fairness and procedural justice."
But if the central government actually intervened as an invisible hand - which seems very likely under the circumstances - and the Hong Kong government acted under its dictation, then the rule of law did not really prevail.
Beijing can, of course, intervene in extradition matters if they have a "significant" effect on China's defence or foreign affairs. However, in this case, the opportunity for Beijing to exercise that power did not arise because committal proceedings had not yet begun under Hong Kong extradition law.
Predictability, an important facet of the rule of law, is undermined when the decision-making authority starts taking into account extraneous considerations. The way the Hong Kong government acted in the Snowden case is likely to dent the trust of other states that have extradition agreements with Hong Kong.
The legal requirements to make an extradition request under Hong Kong law are straightforward and it seems implausible that the US government did not consult local lawyers to satisfy these requirements and provide crucial information.
