违基审查20年：香港法院宪制功能的检视、省思与前瞻

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (9)

Download: PDF (549 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Hong Kong’s Basic Law in the past two decades has been implemented in parallel with the review of the violation of the law by the courts of HKSAR (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region). Through the review, the courts of HKSAR have established their roles in Hong Kong’s new constitutional system, ensured the constitutional legal position of Hong Kong’s Basic Law in HKSAR, safeguarded the basic rights of Hong Kong people, interpreted the relationship between the central government and HKSAR, and engaged in the establishment of the new political system in HKSAR. In this process, the choices of the elements or positions such as the judicial philosophy of activity or humility, discretion priority or order priority in judgment, jurisprudences within and outside HKSAR, and the interest between the central government and HKSAR not only affect the court judgment and decision, but also demonstrate the court’s consideration of its constitutional functions. Sometimes, the aggressive judicial activity, choice of discretion priority, excessive dependence upon the jurisprudence outside HKSAR, and HKSAR-oriented judgment position of Hong Kong’s courts make their judgments not entirely positive to the implementation of Hong Kong’s Basic Law. It is a reasonable choice for the courts of HKSAR in reviewing the violation of Hong Kong’s Basic Law to maintain proper prudence, develop a separate jurisprudence of HKSAR, and maintain balance between discretion and order, between the interest of the central government and HKSAR.

Key words： the courts of HKSAR review of the violation of Hong Kong's Basic Law constitutional functions judicial activity judicial humility

Received: 08 December 2016

D676.58

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	YAO Guo-jian

Cite this article:

YAO Guo-jian. Twenty-year Review of the Violation of Hong Kong’s Basic Law: Examination, Reflection and Prospect of the Constitutional Functions of Hong Kong’s Courts[J]. , 2017, 34(1): 44-52.

URL:

https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/Y2017/V34/I1/44

[1] 立法会六题：《香港人权法案条例》[DB/OL].香港特区政府政制及内地事务局网站.http://www.cmab.gov.hk/gb/legco/questions20110518.htm.
[2] 陈弘毅.公法与国际人权法的互动：香港特别行政区的个案[J].中外法学,2011,（1）.
[3] Chong Fung Yuen v. the Director of Immigration[M].HCAL 67/1999, para.65.
[4] 姚国建.论1999年“人解释”对香港法院的拘束力[J].法商研究,2013,（4）.
[5] 许崇德.略论香港特别行政区的政治制度[J].中国人民大学学报,1997,（11）;肖蔚云.论以行政为主导的特别行政区政治体制[A].载氏.论香港“基本法”[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003.829.
[6] 吴霭仪.法庭对立法会的司法管辖权[N].明报,2014-07-29.
[7] Swati Jhaveri and Anne Scully-Hill. Executive and Legisla-tive Reactions to Judicial Declarations of Constitutional Invalidity in Hong Kong: Engagement, Acceptance or Avoi-dance?[J].International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Apr. 2015), 507-529.
[8] 郝建臻.论香港特别行政区行政与立法的关系[D].中国政法大学博士学位论文,2008.64.
[9] 王宜.司法复核成反对派争拗利器[J].紫荆,2006,（10）：56.
[10] Yash Ghai. The Intersection of Chinese Law and the Common Law in the Hong Kong Special Administration Region: Question of Technique or Politics?[M].37 Hong Kong L. J. 363.
[11] 王书成.司法谦抑主义[J].政治与法律,2012,（01）.
[12] 马道立提三大法治要素.强调法庭无权解决政经问题[DB/OL].http://news.cntv.cn/20110111/111634.shtml.2016-12-23访问。
[13] 王振民,孙成.香港法院适用中国宪法问题研究[J].政治与法律,2014,（4）.
[14] Anthony Mason.The Place of Comparative Law in Developing the Jurisprudence on the Rule of Law and Human Rights in Hong Kong[M].(2007) 37 HKLJ 299,p302-303.
[15] R. v. Cheung Ka Fai[M]. CACC198/1992 para58.
[16] Kwan Kong Company Ltd v.[M].Town Planning Board HCMP No.1675 OF 1994 para82-85
[17] Tam Ming Yee v[M].Wu TAI Tai Wai, CACV118/1991 para19.
[18] 李树忠,姚国建.香港特区法院的违基审查权[J].法学研究,2012,（2）.
[19] P Y Lo, The Hong Kong Basic Law[M].LexisNexis,2011, 195.
[20] Albert H. Y. Chen, Constitutional Adjudication in Post-1997 Hong Kong[J].Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal,2006,（15）：627-682.