所謂嘅外交豁免權,其實只係應該適用於做緊 state affairs 嘅時候先至可以享用。你剛果當年同人地間公司所做嘅只係個 business deal,而並非國家事務,所以自然要遵照 contract law 嘅精神來做。人地做咗野但你剛果就唔俾錢,咁就哽係追你數啦?好喇,家陣人地發現其實你有錢,咁再走來追埋條尾數,咁又有幾奇怪?如果唔係咁做嘅話,咁吓吓啲國家都走來搵你幫手做野,然後做完就唔俾錢,咁咪好撚着數?成件事一直都只係商業上嘅金錢瓜葛,但你阿爺就夾硬為咗買起剛果響國際社會嘅呢一票,而要老屈香港,粗暴干預同嚴重破壞香港法治。
Not quite, it depends on how well those foreign officials behave...
Just like in HK, every time where there are new US warships visiting HK, some of the soldiers are having mis-conduct after drinks, most of the time HK police will just keep "one eye open, one eye shut" when the US embassy ask for help.作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-8-26 09:55
你咁撚醒,咁點解你唔話俾我聽,外交豁免權係咪即係可以無法無天,殺人放火、姦淫擄掠,食完飯唔俾錢呀?
...
Lik 發表於 2011-8-26 09:47
書又不肯讀還有面皮在此撒無賴。 真是要寫個服字比你先得。
你真是無藥可救了。 一個崇尚自由民主和尊重平等與事實的國度竟然培養出一個意識形態獨裁專政,不承認事實且顛倒是非黑白的廢物。 可惜可惜。作者: Lik 時間: 2011-8-26 10:00
LOL~
What good does it do when all you can manage is to throw out empty accusations without anything to back it up? If you can explain to me why diplomatic immunity should extend beyond state affairs to cover business dealings and criminal activities, I would love to hear it.
Otherwise, shut the fxxk up la, PK~
-Lik作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-8-26 10:07
LOL~
What good does it do when all you can manage is to throw out empty accusations without anythin ...
Lik 發表於 2011-8-26 10:00
Do you own homework la, idiot. 飯是自己吃,書是要自己讀。
Why don't you tell us the reasons to support your claim (based on 外交豁免權) after you have done your homework (not your own imaginary BS)?作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-8-26 10:10
According to The Basic Law, they do not say yes, at the same time, they do not say no either. Since it is out of the scope, that's why the Court of Final Appeal need an clear explanation from the NPC.