A comparison between the autonomy situations in the People’s Republic of China （as concerns Hong Kong and Macau） and Finland （as concerns the Åland Islands） is facilitated along several features. In both cases，international commitments exist behind the national rules. In addition，the international commitments were incorporated into national law in a somewhat similar fashion，through two separate Basic Laws in China，one for Hong Kong and one for Macau，and the Guaranty Act in Finland for the Åland Islands. In both countries，the creation of autonomies is a result of a confirmation of national sovereignty over the areas concerned，but in both countries，the creation of autonomies also resulted in the assignment of exclusive law-making powers to the legislative assemblies of the autonomous entities. Finally，the systems of competence control created with respect to the autonomies in the two countries are asymmetrical. The great difference in law is that the international commitment of China is of a temporal nature. However，the international supervision of the Finnish commitment disappeared and left the Åland Islands arrangement to depend on domestic actions of the State. The possibilities for and the forms of legal continuity of the Chinese autonomy arrangements beyond the expiry of the international commitment is therefore a challenge de lege ferenda in the same way it used to be for Finland. In addition to these similarities in law，some similarities in fact can also be referred to. The autonomous areas are of a similar size in the national context，around or less than 0.5 percent of the population，which means that the national governments are probably not viewing these areas as primary governmental matters in the everyday politics. These autonomous areas are also relatively wealthy in comparison with the rest of the national territory.