Source
​
​Authors: 

​​Author(s): Lena Man (LLB, Year 4), Rableen Kaur (LLB, Year 3), Jisu Park (BSocSc (Govt&Laws) & LLB, graduated), Christine Chuang (BBA (Law) & LLB, Year 4), Ziyue Zhou (LLB, Year 2)

Picture: PinkNews (https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/08/05/hong-kong-jimmy-sham-tsz-kit/)

Introduction
There is a saying, that ‘The only sexual orientation exists on planet Earth is where your heart orientates’. Indeed, be they boys or girls, straights or gays, you are entitled to love the one you love. It might seem to be normal for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, to afford all the rights conferred by the law equally, as they should be equal in the eye of the law. Yet, the cruel fact is that they do not. There are rights which can be enjoyed by some but not the others, for instance the right of marriage of homosexual couples.    

所謂「這個世上唯一的性取向，是心之所向」，每個人----不論男女、無論是異性戀還是同性戀----都有權利去愛他們所愛的人。無論性取向如何，每個人都應該平等享有法律賦予的權利。然而，在現實中是否真的如此呢？在當今社會中，某些權利仍對部分人觸不可及，包括同性伴侶的婚姻權利。
        
It is an obvious feature of social life that individuals form relationships as couples. Some couples, be they homosexual or heterosexual, might enter into committed loving and stable, long-term relationships in which they wish to make their lives together for the rest of their lives. The law has provided heterosexual couples a right of getting married, an institution carrying with a bundle of rights and responsibilities conferred to the couple. Of course, they can, as they see fit, choose to stay together and found a family without getting married. However, as the courts have stressed many times in different judgments, that under Hong Kong law, homosexual couples do not have access to marriage for the legal rule of lex specialis (see below for further). It is for the legislature, which is more institutionally and constitutionally equipped than the court, to amend the law and legalise same-sex marriage in Hong Kong.

與伴侶攜手共經營一段關係，大抵是每個人人際關係中必修的功課。不論是同性戀還是異性戀，有些伴侶希望進入一段承諾、相愛且穩定的長期關係，並希望能共度餘生。法律不但賦予了異性戀伴侶結婚的權利，還連帶著一系列的權益和責任。當然，異性戀伴侶也可以根據個人意願選擇在未婚的狀態下共同生活並建立家庭。然而，香港法院曾在多個判決中強調，有鑑於「特別法原則」（lex specialis）的法律原則（詳見下文），同性戀伴侶無法透過婚姻獲得法律保障。是故，修訂法律並合法化同性婚姻的責任，應該由立法機構承擔，而非法院。

Undesirable and hopeless as it may seem, the handing down of judgment by the Court of Final Appeal on the case Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice [2023] HKCFAR 28 brought a glimpse of hope thereto. It was held, by a majority of 3 to 2, that the government has a positive obligation under Article 14 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights to establish an alternative framework for legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, and the government violated it. Notwithstanding the fact that homosexual couples cannot get married in Hong Kong, they now (at least in 2 years of time) have access to an alternative framework for legal recognition for their relationship. The court found the necessity of the government to devise such an alternative framework for such recognition is required to meet the basic social needs similar to those experienced by different-sex couples in stable relationships, and non- recognition is discriminatory and demeaning to same-sex couples.

雖然現實不盡理想且合法化同性婚姻看似遙遙無期，然而香港終審法院在《岑子杰訴律政司司長》（下稱“《岑子杰案》”）一案的判決中帶來了一線希望。該案以三比二的多數裁定，政府在香港人權法案條例第14條下負有積極義務建立承認同性伴侶的法律替代框架，而政府違反了這一義務。儘管同性伴侶在香港無法結婚，但他們現在（至少在兩年內）可以獲得一個法律承認他們關係的替代框架。法院認為政府有必要設計這樣一個替代框架，以滿足同性伴侶的基本社會需求，且不承認同性伴侶關係是具有歧視和貶低的含義。

This judgment is indeed a landmark achievement for the LGBTQ+ community and a step towards a more equal society that we all long for. However, how did the court reason to reach such conclusion? Is the alternative framework the best result we can get from our legal system? Is gay marriage in Hong Kong something too remote, given the constitutional background and current state of affairs? And, what exactly is the alternative framework? Who to devise it, what to be included in it, and how much margin of appreciation is to be given to the government when devising it and why? We will turn to these questions one by one below. 

這個判決誠為LGBTQ+社群畫下了里程碑，向更加平等的社會邁出一步。然而，法院如何推論出這個結論？替代框架難道真的是最佳結果嗎？在香港的憲法背景和現狀下，同性婚姻是否太遙遠？另外，究竟什麼是替代框架？由誰來制定它、應該包括什麼內容、政府在制定它時應該給予多少自由裁量權？以下，我們將逐一探討這些問題。

Backgrounds 背景
Despite persistent advocacy and vocal support for sexual minorities, same-sex marriage remains prohibited in Hong Kong as of 2023. This battle for same-sex partners to have the same marital rights as heterosexual couples has deep historical roots, tracing back to 1991 when specific same-sex acts were decriminalized with the introduction of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. It was only after many years did the concept of same-sex marriage surfaced to be a matter of importance in the legal landscape, with one of the key developments signified by the case of Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice [2005] 3 HKCU 1158. In this case, Leung challenged the differential treatment of the age of consent law in Hong Kong, which prohibited sexual activity between men under the age of 21, whilst the age of consent for heterosexual and lesbian couples was 16 or above. This case not only signified the equalization of consent laws in Hong Kong but also encouraged more same-sex couples to voice out their need to equalize same-sex rights.

儘管多年來已有很多不同強而有力的聲音支持和倡議性小眾的權益，直至2023年為止，同性婚姻仍未在香港合法化。這場為同性伴侶爭取和異性伴侶一樣的婚姻權利的鬥爭其實有很深刻的歷史根源，可以追溯到去1991年；當時，隨着香港人權法案條例的引入，某些同性行為亦隨之被去刑事化。但可惜，同性婚姻這個概念經過很多年才成為在法律議題上一個重要的事項，而其中一個重要的發展，則在梁TC威廉．羅伊對律政司司長一案中體現。在這一案中，梁挑戰了有關徵求同意方面的法律對於年齡的差別待遇。在當時的法律，男同性戀的合法性行為的同意年齡為21歲，但異性戀或女同性戀的則是16歲。這一案不單止象徵了香港有關徵求同意方面的法律的平等法，也鼓勵了更多同性伴侶去發聲提出他們平權的需要。
 
The precedent set by Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice has emboldened more same-sex couples to speak out about the lack of legal protection for same-sex partnerships in Hong Kong. For instance, in the case of W v Registrar of Marriages [2013] HKCFA 39, the Court of Final Appeal affirmed the right of transgender individuals to marry according to their affirmed gender rather than the gender assigned at birth. Quickly followed was the landmark case of QT v Secretary of Justice [2018] HKCFA 28, in which the Court of Final Appeal ruled in favour of granting a dependent visa to QT, whose same-sex civil partner in Britain had moved to Hong Kong. While same-sex couples have witnessed positive developments in their pursuit of partnership rights, the full realization of same-sex marriage has yet to be achieved.

梁TC威廉．羅伊這一案例是更多香港的同性伴侶有勇氣去提出關於香港缺乏對同性伴侶的法律保護的訴求。例如，在W對婚姻登記官一案中，終審法院裁定了變性人有權以變性後的性別，而不是以其出生時的生理性別結婚。緊隨其後的另一單重要案例是QT訴入境事務處署長，終審法院裁定批准授予QT(一名女同性戀者，其伴侶由英國移到香港）受養人簽證。儘管同性伴侶在追求他們的權利這方面見證了一些正面的發展，但真真正正的同性婚姻卻仍未能實現。
 
There are several barriers impeding same-sex couples from obtaining full marriage rights in Hong Kong. Despite acknowledging that same-sex couples also deserve equal rights to dependent visas, taxes and housing rights, courts have been reluctant to expand the reading of “marriage” within Article 37 of the Basic Law to include same-sex couples. Article 37 elicits the freedom of marriage of Hong Kong residents, and numerous cases such as MK v HKSAR [2019] HKCFI 2518 and the lower courts Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary of Justice had attempted to raise the unconstitutionality of excluding same-sex marriage in the definition of “marriage” as included in Article 37. In both cases, the court held that same-sex marriage had not been contemplated when drafting the Basic Law, and there lies a need to protect the sanctity of the traditional marriage framework between a man and a woman. The court shall not easily depart from the traditional marriage framework unless there are strong and compelling reasons to do so.

一直以來都有一些障礙阻止了同性伴侶在香港獲得完整的婚姻權利。儘管法庭已裁定同性伴侶亦和異性伴侶一樣，有權享有受養人簽證，有關繳稅和房產方面的權利，但法庭一直不願意擴大「婚姻」在基本法第37條的解釋，使「婚姻」亦包含同性伴侶的婚姻。基本法第37條保障了香港居民婚姻自由的權利，而在很多不同的案件中，包括MK對律政司司長案以及在下級法庭的審理的岑子杰對律政司司長，原訴人嘗試提出就基本法第37條內「婚姻」一詞的定義下不包括同性婚姻的不合憲性。在兩單案中，法庭均裁定在草擬基本法的時候同性婚姻未被考慮在內，同時亦有保障傳統一男一女婚姻的神聖性。法庭認為他們不應該輕易偏離傳統婚姻的框架，除非他們有一個強而有力的原因。

It was not until September 2023, when Jimmy Sham brought his case up to the Court of Final Appeal, that a breakthrough occurred in this seemingly repetitive pattern of denying same-sex marriage. 

直至到2023年9月，當岑上訴至終審法院，否認同性婚姻這個看似不停重複的規律才有被打破的跡象。


Implications of the judgment 判決之含義
In September 2023, the Court of Final Appeal handed down a landmark decision in Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice. Sham argued differently in proposing that the absence of alternative means of legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Hong Kong amounts to a violation of the constitutional right to privacy as enshrined in the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (cf the argument provided by the appellant for the Court in MK v Government of HKSAR [2019] HKCFI 2518) . The Court of Final Appeal ruled in favour of Sham by a 3-2 decision and has since imposed a 2-year deadline for the government to establish a new alternative legal framework to legally recognize same-sex partnerships.The ruling was hailed as “a giant leap forward for LGBT rights'' by some, praising the Court for taking such a liberal step. However, one must also note that it was said in the same judgment that “there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Hong Kong.” This begs the question - does the Sham Tsz Kit judgment help the LGBTQ+ community in Hong Kong?

在2023年9月，終審法院在岑子杰對律政司一案中，頒下了一個標誌性的判決。有別於MK一案中的爭議論點，岑提出香港缺乏同性關係的法律認可的替代框架等同侵犯了香港人權法案條例第14條中所保障的私生活保護權。終審法院以三比二裁定岑獲得勝訴，且命令政府需在兩年內確立替代框架，讓同性伴侶關係獲得法律承認。這判決被一些人認為是「性小眾平權的一大步」，稱讚法庭這個判決是一個自由且明智之舉。儘管如此，我們仍要提醒自己法庭在判詞中亦清楚地強調「香港是沒有同性婚姻的憲法權利」。那麼，問題來了，究竟岑一案這判決究竟對香港的性小眾團體有沒有實質幫助？

On the surface, the judgment seems to lean in favor of the LGBTQ+ community. Mr Justice Ribero PJ and Mr Justice Fok PJ acknowledged the need for an alternative framework.

“We have accepted the existence of the need experienced by same-sex couples for access to an alternative framework conferring legal recognition on their relationship in order to meet basic social requirements and to provide them with a sense of legitimacy, dispelling any sense that they belong to an inferior class of persons whose relationship is undeserving of recognition,” they said, referring to the Strasbourg Court’s jurisprudence on privacy rights.

就表面來看，判決的而且確是偏向性小眾團體的一方的。終審法院常任法官理義和常任法官霍兆剛認為有確立替代框架的必要。

他們根據歐洲人權法院就私隱權的法理學，說：「我們認同同性伴侶感受到有確立替代框架的必要，以使他們達到基本的生活需求以及給予他們一種正當性的感覺，使他們摒棄一種他們覺得自己低於那些在被法律承認的伴侶關係中的人。」

The Court accordingly declared that the government is to provide for legal recognition such as in the form of civil partnerships or civil unions to ensure that their positive obligation is being carried out. If the government follows the timeframe given by the court, the city could see an alternative framework in place for same-sex couples, who will be able to enjoy the same rights as opposite-sex couples save for the right to marry. Housing rights, inheritance rights, social benefits etc would be open to same-sex couples to enjoy without the hurdles they face in the current system.

法庭亦裁定政府需要提供法律應受的途徑，例如以文字伴侶或文字結合的方式來呈現，以使政府的積極責任得以履行。如果政府根據由法庭所提供的時間線，那麼香港市民就可以親眼看見替代框架被同性伴侶使用，而這些同性伴侶亦終能享有和異性伴侶一樣的婚姻權利。房產權，繼承權，社會福利等會開放給予同性伴侶，使他們不用面對現在系統下他們正在面對的難關。

On the other hand, the Court expressly denied a right to marry to same-sex couples. “As a matter of domestic statute law, Hong Kong law has always defined marriage in terms of the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, requiring the parties to a valid marriage to be respectively male and female,” said Chief Justice Cheung. “Similarly, under the common law of Hong Kong, marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” The Court has been adamant in insisting that marriage is for heterosexual couples only, arguing that the general right to marry would be inconsistent with the specific provision that allows for heterosexual marriage. The Court’s blatant refusal to grant same-sex couples the right to marry under the common law shows that Hong Kong will still lag behind the West when it comes to granting rights to the LGBTQ+ community. 

另一方面，法庭明確地否認了同性伴侶的婚姻權利。「在本地城文化下，香港的法律一直都定義『婚姻』為一男一女自願終身結合，在一個受認可的婚姻，雙方必須是一個男性和一個女性。」張舉能首席法官如是說道，他續說：「同樣地，在香港的普通法下，婚姻是男一女排除所有其他人之外的自願終身結合。」法庭的這個立場一直都是堅定不移的，一直強調婚姻只是異性伴侶所享有的權利，並提出如果給予同性伴侶婚姻的權利，那麼這就會和有關只允許異性婚姻的特別條文不相容。法庭在普通法下就給予同性伴侶婚姻權利，這方面提出直白的拒絕正正反映了香港在性小眾平權這一方面仍然大大落後於西方。

Constitutional limits 憲法限制
One of the constitutional limits regarding to same-sex marriage relates to how far could the court interpret Basic Law on the extent of the social attitudes and how the court should strike a balance between social attitudes and the existing laws. In W v Registrar of Marriages [1], The majority in CFA held that the Basic Law should be seen as a “living instrument” so as to invest fundamental rights with an updated meaning if the social attitudes towards marriage have changed. However, the dissenting judgement argues that a firm line should be drawn between giving an updated meaning to a constitutional provision and making new policy [2]. It if is about the making of new policy, then the Legislature, instead of the Judicature, is more constitutionally and institutionally equipped, and much margin of appreciation is to be granted. To put it plainly - the latter one is not the business of the Court. In order to trigger the former function, there should be sufficient evidence that shows it is necessary for the court to interpret BL 37 differently compared to the time when it was drafted. However, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the social attitude towards same-sex marriage has changed to such an extent that they accept that kind of marriage [3]. Therefore, the key issue is to decide whether the present circumstances in Hong Kong allows the court to invest updated meaning in marriage so that the court can follow the social attitudes regards to LGBTQ+ rights.

其中一個有關同性婚姻的憲制規限，包括究竟法庭可以就公眾態度寬容地解釋基本法去到哪一個程度，以及法庭應該如何在公眾態度和現行法律之間取一個平衡。在W對婚姻登記官一案中，終審法院以大多數裁定基本法應該被視為一個「生命工具」，使得在公眾對於同性婚姻的態度有改變的時候，基本權利能一直有一個與時並進的解讀。但不同意見書則認為法庭應該在給予憲法條文一個更新的解讀和制定新政策之間或一條清晰的界線。如果是有關制定新政策的，那麼應該是立法機關，而非司法機關，更能於憲制上和機能上更能完善地面對，並且應給予立法機關更多的酌情判斷餘地。簡單來說─制定新政策與法庭毫無關係。如要更新憲法條文的意義，那麼就必須要有足夠的證據證明法庭有別要就基本法第37條作出一個與當時法律條文被起草時不同的解釋。可惜，這裏並沒有足夠的證據證明公眾對於同性婚姻的態度已經改變到一個他們已經接受這種婚姻的程度。因此，關鍵在於究竟在現時香港的情形下用不容許法庭就基本法第37條作出一個更新的解讀，使之能與公眾對於性小眾權益的態度一同改變。

Even though the court should not go beyond social attitudes when interpreting existing laws, the court should give a more generous interpretation of a fundamental rights. However, it is arguable whether a right to marry constitutes to fundamental right, or so-called ‘absolute right’. The absolute right does not need to be invoked by proving there is a breach to other rights since it will be invoked automatically. Some argues that the right to marry might not be characterized as an absolute right, as government is given the power to regulate the institution of marriage and may limit the rights for the sake of pursing legitimate public policy goal [4]. In Sham Tsz Kit, the court held that the constitutional freedom of marriage that guaranteed under Basic law only applies to opposite-sex marriage. This indicates the scope of the right to marry in Hong Kong only confines to opposite-sex marriage on the grounds of the Lex specialis principle, which means that a law governing a specific subject matter (lex specialis) overrides a law governing only general matters (lex generalis). The Hong Kong courts have also used the ICCPR to interpret the scope of Basic Law rights from time to time. On this basis, BL 37 and BORO 19(2) only create rights for opposite-sex couples, because of the explicit reference to gender in Article 19 [5]. Therefore, BL 37 should be read narrowly and it should be also read with BORO 19(2). This also means that it is not permissible to interpret the equality rights under BL25 and BORO22 as conferring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage or to recognition of foreign same-sex marriage. Hence, the specific provisions relating to opposite-sex marriage exclude the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. This is more likely to be a direct application of the existing legal principles without any justification of why same-sex marriage itself should be excluded from the protection regarding the specific provisions. It seems the strongest reason provided by the Court is that the extent of marriage does not cover same-sex marriage. For instance, one of the justifications is that same-sex marriage does not serve the social purpose regarding to procreation and children rearing. However, even opposite-sex marriage couples do not consider procreation as the purpose of getting together nowadays. Therefore, it is unjust not to recognize the same-sex marriage simply based on procreation. 

就算法庭在解讀現行法律時不應該超越社會態度，法庭應該給予基本權利一個更寬容的解讀。可是，究竟婚姻權利是不是一個基本權利（亦稱為絕對權利）是值得斟酌的地方。絕對權利不需要在證明有侵犯其他權利時才能被援引，因為他會自動地被換。有些人則認為婚姻權利也許不應被界定為絕對權利，因為政府有權去規管婚姻的制度，以及限制這些權利以達到合理的公眾政策目標。在岑一案中，法庭裁定基本法所保障的憲制婚姻自由只適用於異性婚姻。這代表了香港婚姻權利的範圍只限於異性婚姻。背後的原因是一個叫「特別法優先於普通法」的法律原則（lex specialis, 長名為generalia specialibus non derogant)，只管轄特定範疇的法例 (特別法lex specialis)，應優先和凌駕於謹管轄一般事務的法例（普通法lex generalis)。法庭亦會間中引用了公民權利及政治權利國際公約來解讀基本法權利的範圍。在這基礎上，基本法第37條和香港人權法案條例第19條（2）只保障了異性伴侶的權利，因為基本法第19條明確地就婚姻中雙方的性別提出了指引。因此，基本法第37條應該被狹異地解讀，且應與香港人權法案第19條（2）一起解讀。這代表着是不可能就平等權利方面，以解讀基本法第25條和香港人權法案第22條作為給予同性伴侶同性婚姻，或認受海外同性婚姻的權利的基礎。在這而言，這更似乎只是直接地引用現行的法律原則，而沒有真真正正地去解釋為何同性婚姻不應該受現行的特別法律條文所保護。似乎法庭所提供最強的理由是婚姻這個詞語並不包含同性婚姻。例如，其中一個解說是因為同性婚姻不能達到有關生育或養育小孩的公眾目的。可是，在當今世代，也有很多異性伴侶不是生育作為結婚的目的。因此，因為同性伴侶不能生育而不承認同性婚姻是不公的表現。

Alternative framework 替代框架
Although the CFA in Sham Tsz-kit affirmed the lower court's rulings of denying recognition of same-sex marriage, it at the same time held that the government bears a positive obligation to establish an alternative legal framework that recognizes same-sex partnerships, such as civil partnerships. The court recognized that the lack of recognition for same-sex partnerships, despite their commitment and stability equivalent to a heterosexual couple , imposes hardships on individuals in their daily lives and is “fundamentally discriminatory and demeaning”.

雖然終審法院在《岑子杰案》中確認了下級法院對同性婚姻不予承認的裁決，但同時也認為政府有積極責任建立一個替代框架，以承認同性伴侶關係，例如公民伙伴關係。法庭指出，儘管同性伴侶之間的承諾和穩定程度與異性伴侶相當，但由於法律不承認同性伴侶關係，為他們的日常生活構成不便。如此一來，是「根本上具有歧視性和貶低性」的。

This judicial ruling marks a significant step forward in the protection of homosexual rights in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, the specific details of the alternative framework, including the rights and obligations it would encompass, are yet to be determined by the government. The government will have a certain margin of appreciation, considering Hong Kong's unique social and cultural contexts, to determine the most suitable form for the framework. In the following section, we will provide a general overview of civil partnerships available and explore how such a framework could be implemented in Hong Kong.

這項裁決標誌著香港在保護同性戀權益方面邁出了重要的一步。然而，替代框架的具體細節，包括其中涵蓋的權益和義務，尚待政府敲定。考慮到香港獨特的社會和文化背景，政府將有若干酌情判斷餘地，以確定最適合的框架形式。在下一部分，我們將一體概述公民伙伴關係，並探討此框架如何在香港實施。

Civil partnership 公民伙伴關係
Civil partnerships and marriage are both the types of civil union between the two people. In many European and western jurisdictions, the partners are allowed to enter into civil partnership or marriage regardless of their respective sexes, according to their preferences. Both types of civil unions guarantee similar legal and social rights to both partners, such as but not limited to tax benefits, social security benefits, proprietary interests. Though without a precise definition, civil partnership is commonly referred to as a contract between two adults of different or of the same sex. Civil partnership differs from the marriage mainly from the fact that marriage is considered as a solemnized ceremony of the union of two individuals while civil partnership is merely a civil registration of the signed civil contracts between the two individuals. Thus, the offense of bigamy does not apply to civil partnerships and its dissolution does not involve divorce. Civil partnership is recognised only in the jurisdiction in which the partners registered the partnership agreement while marriage is recognised regardless of the jurisdiction.

公民伙伴關係和婚姻皆是二人間之公民伙伴關係。在許多歐洲和西方司法管轄區，不論其生理性別，伴侶都可以根據自己的選擇進入公民伙伴關係或婚姻。這兩種民事結合形式都保障了伴侶類似的法律和社會權利，包括但不限於稅收優惠、社會保障福利和財產權益。儘管沒有明確定義，公民伙伴關係通常指兩個成人（無論異性還是同性）之間的契約。公民伙伴關係與婚姻主要的不同在於，婚姻被視為兩個人結合的莊嚴儀式，而公民伙伴關係僅僅是兩個人之間簽署的民事合同的民事登記。因此，重婚罪不適用於民事伴侶關係，且其解除不涉及離婚程序。公民伙伴關係僅在註冊伴侶關係的司法管轄區得到承認，而婚姻則不受司法管轄區的限制。

Civil Solidarity Pact 民事互助契約
Civil Solidarity Pact (Pacte civil de solidarité “PACS”) was adopted by the French national assembly in October 1999 as a reaction to the modern transformation in family types and private life. It was a fruit of a long-lasted combat for the recognition of homosexuality and the subsequent diversification of forms of partnerships. It aims to transform the treatment and the social perception towards homosexuality. At its inception, it faced fervent opposition from the religious and conservative parties who refused homosexuality and believed it to bring about demolition of traditional marriage institutions. 100,000 people gathered in Paris in opposition to the implementation of Civil Solidarity Pact. The rightist parties vetoed the act. However, after its implementation PACS has shown to be of a huge success. By the end of 1999, 62000 people signed PACS. The number of partners who decide to enter into PACS is increasing every year.

民事互助契約（Pacte civil de solidarité，縮寫為PACS）於1999年10月經法國國民議會通過，以回應現代家庭種類與私人生活的轉型，既為長期爭取認同同性戀的成果，也是對伴侶關係多元化的體現。它的目標是改變同性戀者的對待和社會認知。在初期，它遭到了宗教和保守派政黨的激烈反對，認為承認同性戀等同破壞傳統婚姻制度，更有十萬人在巴黎集會反對實施民事團結契約。最終，在1998年，右翼政黨否決了這項法案。然而，PACS施行後取得了巨大成功。到1999年底，已有6.2萬人簽署了PACS。每年選擇締結PACS的伴侶人數正在增加。

Any two people who live together as a couple of the same sex or of different sex regardless of the nationality could enter into PACS provided that both partners are not married or PACSed to others and that they are not closely related, per se, family and relatives. PACS endow the partners with the similar legal and social rights as those who are married. The PACS partners may declare their taxes jointly. They are guaranteed the same social security and health care benefits as the married spouses. The property is assumed to be jointly owned unless there is a proof that they belong to only one of them. However, PACS partners cannot jointly adopt a child. They are also considered as a sole proprietor of income during the PACS. Additionally, they do not automatically inherit the pensions and the estates of their partner unless there has been a valid will. 

民事互助契約是由兩個同性或異性的同居伴侶所締結。不論國籍，只要他們沒有與第三者結婚或締結民事團結契約，也不是近親，就符合資格。民事互助契約賦予伴侶的法律和社會權利與婚姻相似。他們可以共同申報稅款和享有與已婚配偶相同的社會保障和醫療保障福利。除非有證據表明某項財產只屬於其中一人，否則該財產被視為共同所有。然而，他們無法共同收養孩童。在民事互助契約有效期間，他們也被視為收入的獨資擁有者。此外，除非有有效的遺囑，否則民事互助契約伴侶並不會自動繼承其伴侶的退休金和財產。

Local application 本地施行
Due to the constitutional constraints imposed by BL and the BOR, as discussed earlier, same-sex couples in Hong Kong do not have protected access to marriage. Consequently, the rights afforded to partnerships through civil partnerships in Hong Kong are narrower in scope compared to those protected within the institution of marriage. Instead of replicating all the rights and obligations of traditional marriage, an alternative framework would need to distinguish between "core rights" and "supplementary rights." The European Court of Human Rights' decision in the case of Oliari and Others v Italy, which was cited by CFA in Sham Tsz Kit, provides guidance on making such a distinction when determining the content of the alternative framework. This differentiation could be useful in the Hong Kong context, where the constitutional limitations make it unlikely to replicate the full range of rights and obligations associated with marriage.

如上所述，由於《基本法》和《香港人權法案》的憲制局限，香港法律不保障同性伴侶締造婚姻的權利。，倘若本港施行公民伙伴制度，任何替代框架在法律上所涵蓋的權益及責任難及婚姻制度。替代框架將需區分「核心權利」和「附加權利」。在Oliari and Others v Italy（下稱《Oliari案》）一案中，歐洲人權法院對這兩種權利的區分有助於確定替代框架的範圍，而且亦及後被香港終審法院援引。香港可以借鑒這種區分原則。

In Oliari, "core rights" were defined as rights that pertain to the "general need for legal recognition and the core protection of same-sex couples" and are considered integral aspects of an individual's existence and identity. The government should have a narrower margin of discretion in determining the status through which these core rights are conferred upon same-sex couples since failure to protect these core rights would undermine the original intent of the framework to safeguard the privacy rights of same-sex couples. Examples of core rights that should be protected include parental rights, such as the right to guardianship of children, entitlement to spousal benefits, and spousal responsibilities like maintenance obligations. The alternative framework should ensure the protection of at least the "core" rights to establish the primary rights of a same-sex union. While not encompassing every aspect of rights, a legal framework still provides a consistent and uniform starting point for courts to assess differential treatment in cases involving additional rights.

根據《Oliari案》，「核心權利」是指同性伴侶對於法律承認的普遍需求和基本保護，這對於他們個人的存在和身份認同不可或缺。如果法律無法保護這些核心權利，就會損害到保護同性伴侶隱私權的替代法律框架之原意。因此，當政府在決定同性伴侶任何核心權利時，應該有更少酌情判斷餘地。政府應保護「核心權利」，諸如同性伴侶作為父母的權利，包括對子女的監護權，享受配偶福利的權利以及配偶責任，例如贍養義務。對於同性伴侶關係，替代法律框架應該至少保護核心權利，確立他們的主要權利。雖然法律框架無法涵蓋所有權利的各個方面，但它提供了一個統一且一致的基礎，供法院評估與其他權利有關的不平等待遇案件。

Regarding "supplementary rights," these extend beyond core protection and involve considerations of local policy constraints. The government would have a wider margin of discretion in determining the specific forms through which these rights are protected, as it possesses greater institutional capacity to make such decisions. Examples of supplementary rights include labor and social insurance laws, passport and registration issues, and laws governing administrative procedures. In drafting the framework, the government should have more flexibility in determining how these rights are conferred.

有關「附加權利」方面，這些權利超出了核心保護的範圍，並涉及到地方政策的考慮。政府在確定這些權利的具體保護形式上擁有更大的酌情判斷餘地，因為它更有能力做出相關決策。「附加權利」的例子包括勞工和社會保險法律、護照和登記問題，以及行政程序的法律。在制定框架時，政府在確定如何授予這些權利方面應該具有更大的靈活性。

Numerous statutory schemes for same-sex unions or civil partnerships exist as valuable reference models. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 in the United Kingdom is one such model, particularly helpful for determining the requirements to form such a union. These requirements may include age limitations, cohabitation requirements, and whether the union would be open to heterosexual couples. Other considerations include rules regarding property arrangements, mutual support and maintenance, and the dissolution of the union. 

世界各地很多法定制度可以作為同性伴侶或公民伙伴關係的參考模型，而英國的Civil Partnership Act 2004便是其中之一，其有助於了解組成公民伙伴關係的要求。這些要求可能包括年齡限制、同居要求，以及是否對異性夫妻開放，其他考慮因素亦包括財產安排、相互支持和照護，以及伴侶關係的解除。

Ending and Future Prospect 結語及未來展望
HKCFA’s decision in Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice marked a giant step forward in advancing the legal rights of same-sex couples by mandating that the Government establish a new alternative legal framework for same-sex partnerships within a two-year period. However, the Court also explicitly denied same-sex couples the right to marry. [1] This decision was influenced by constitutional restrictions, including societal attitudes [2] and the legal principle of Lex specialis. As of now, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage has gained widespread acceptance in Hong Kong society. The principle of Lex specialis, which states that specific laws take precedence over general laws, also contributed to the court's decision. Legal recognition of same sex marriages still seems to be a long way off.

香港終審法院在《岑子杰案》中的判決，對於推進同性伴侶法律權益來說是一個重大進步。判決中法院命令政府在兩年內建立一個新的法律框架予同性伴侶選擇。然而，法院也明確否定了同性伴侶結婚的權利。這個判決受到憲制局限的影響，包括社會態度和「特別法原則」。目前還未有足夠證據表明同性婚姻在香港社會得到廣泛接受。根據「特別法原則」，特別法優先於一般法律，這也對法院的判決起了一定的影響。同性婚姻的法律承認似乎還需要很長的時間才能實現。

While the court's ruling mandates the establishment of a new legal framework, it does not specify the exact nature of this framework. Same-sex couples acquire legal rights through a civil partnership, which inherently differ from marriage. Alternative frameworks need to distinguish between core and supplementary rights, rather than replicating all the rights and obligations of traditional marriage. While the government would have less discretion in respect of the core rights, it would have more freedom to decide on the details of the supplementary rights.When establishing the legal framework, Hong Kong's legislation may draw inspiration from practices in other jurisdictions. For example, the Civil Solidarity Pact in France and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in the United Kingdom provide valuable models. It is also important to consider the unique social and cultural context of Hong Kong. What works in one jurisdiction may not necessarily be suitable for another, and it is essential to tailor the legal framework to fit the needs and values of Hong Kong society.

雖然法院的裁決要求建立一個新的法律框架，但並未具體指明該框架的具體性質。伴侶通過公民伙伴關係所獲得的權利和婚姻相比，存在著本質上的不同。替代框架需要區分「核心權利」和「附加權利」，而不是複製傳統婚姻的所有權利和義務。雖然在「核心權利」方面，政府的酌情判斷餘地較小，但在「附加權利」的細節方面則有更大的自由。在建立法律框架時，香港的立法可以參考其他司法管轄區的做法，如法國的民事互助契約和英國的Civil Partnership Act 2004便極具參考性。同時，政府亦需要考慮香港獨特的社會和文化背景，因為在一個司法管轄區適用的做法未必適用於另一個司法管轄區，因此政府必須根據香港社會的需求和價值觀量身定制法律框架。

Looking towards the future, it is reasonable to anticipate further progress in advancing the rights of same-sex couples. There is a growing social acceptance and openness towards the idea of same-sex marriage, both globally and in Hong Kong. Legal advancements and societal attitudes are intertwined. A well-developed legal system not only protects individual rights but also fosters the growth of social culture. In turn, as societal attitudes evolve and become more accepting, the law must adapt to reflect these changes. In order to achieve true equality, it is not enough to rely solely on precedents and legal principles. It is essential to delve deeper and explore the reasons behind the exclusion of same-sex marriage by specific provisions. The principle of equality before the law, as enshrined in human rights instruments, should guide our efforts. By upholding this principle, we can work towards a brighter future filled with justice and equality for all.

展望未來，日後同性伴侶權利勢將有更大進步。隨著全球和香港對同性婚姻的概念日趨開放，且法律進展和社會態度相互交織。一個健全的法律制度不僅保護個人權益，也促進社會文化發展。同理，當社會態度日益開放，法律必須適應這些變化。為了實現真正的平等，單靠判例和法律原則乃九牛一毛，社會應深思以律法排除同性婚姻的原因。我們應以人權巻宗所載的平等原則為依歸，攜手朝著充滿正義和人人平等的美好未來邁進。