The abiding images of yesterday's day of judgment on the right of abode will be the tears of the parents who lost and the joy of those who won. But their children, who fought for the right to remain, are the means through which a much bigger battle is being fought.
At stake is the extent to which the SAR's top court will be able to freely determine the outcome of sensitive constitutional cases. The outcome will be a key factor in establishing just how much autonomy Hong Kong has.
This was clearly appreciated by the Court of Final Appeal judges in January 1999, when they delivered the first landmark abode rulings. They established rules which would have ensured that most, if not all, cases involving the rights of Hong Kong people would be determined by the court, instead of by Beijing.
If allowed to stand, the judgments could have eased much of the uncertainty over the future of Hong Kong's legal system. When the Government had the decisions overturned by Beijing, amid concerns about an influx of migrants, confusion reigned. The court was put on the defensive, and public confidence sank.
But if the Government thought it had got the judges where it wanted them, yesterday's rulings suggest it was wrong. Having secured the reinterpretation from Beijing in June 1999, government lawyers sought to use it to change the legal landscape.
Courts were told they should adopt approaches used by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. It was argued that the law said one thing, but meant another. Applications were made for the top court to refer cases to Beijing.
