Advertisement

Practice and Effects of Law Scrutiny Adopted by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal

  • Jie Zhu
  • Xiaoshan Zhang
Chapter

Abstract

Article 8 and Article 158 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (hereafter referred to as the Basic Law) introduced the two kinds of constitutionalism for Hong Kong SAR: Article 8, by a general recognition of the previous colonial laws, continues to put Hong Kong constitutionalism under the shadow of common law system (Michael Dowdle 2008) and Article 158, by interpretations of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (hereafter referred to as the NPCSC), introduced in the constitutionalism of statute law. Although some scholars raised challenges as to whether the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (hereafter referred to as the CFA) is entitled to conduct law scrutiny (Fu Singming 2001; Dong Likun and Zhang Shudian 2010), it is still an undoubted fact that the CFA is conducting law scrutiny in Hong Kong. The power of law scrutiny of the CFA is undoubtedly under the dual framework of common law constitutionalism and statute law constitutionalism. The features of common law system have decided that the Hong Kong constitutionalism is shaped and contained in the long legal tradition ever since the colonial age, or to some extent, it even dates back to the “Counterformation” of English constitutionalism (Michael Dowdle 2008). The statute law elements embodied in the Interpretations of the NPCSC, at the same time, impose a limit on the Hong Kong constitutionalism, setting up boundaries for Hong Kong constitutionalism. Under these circumstances, the role of the CFA is quite limited, either subject to common law constitutionalism or restricted by the statute law constitutionalism. However, it is exactly this arrangement that renders the CFA a chance of connotative development. Despite some radical attempts, the CFA has generally strike the right balance while implementing the Basic Law; it has played a positive and leading role in the Hong Kong constitutional order constructed by the Basic Law. The intricate role has decided that the CFA must deal with cases regarding law scrutiny with prudence. In practice, the CFA has developed a set of approaches based on judicial reason, prudently conducting law scrutiny, trying to secure the uniformity and stability of Hong Kong legal institution on the delicate balances. If we were to say that in the early days after the handover, this practice based on judicial reason can only be partly demonstrated in cases regarding the right of abode, then a decade after the handover, we can say that this practice has been meticulously systematized. In this chapter, the author tries to analyze the cases regarding law scrutiny adjudicated by the CFA and give a theoretical description of this meticulous system so as to disclose the practice and effects of law scrutiny adopted by the CFA under dual constitutionalism.

References

  1. Albert Chen Hung-yee (1998) The constitutional review power of the Hong Kong Courts. Peking Univ Law J 5Google Scholar
  2. Dong Likun, Zhang Shudian (2010) The basic law review power of the HKSAR Courts. Chinese J Law 3Google Scholar
  3. Fu Siming (2001) The judicial review power of Hong Kong Courts. Law Sci Mag 1Google Scholar
  4. Han Depei (1997) New theories of private international law. Wuhan University Press, Wuhan, p 447Google Scholar
  5. Hans Kelson (1996) General theory of law and state (trans: Shen Zongling). The Commercial Press, Beijing, p 141Google Scholar
  6. Hu Jinguang (2007) On the judicial review power of Hong Kong Courts. Juris’s Rev 3Google Scholar
  7. Li Shuzhong, Yao Guojian (2012) The basic law review power of Hong Kong Courts. Chinese J Law 2Google Scholar
  8. Li Weihua (2011) How Hong Kong Courts established the basic law review power. Polit Sci Law 5Google Scholar
  9. Michael C. Davis (1998) Constitutionalism under Chinese rule: Hong Kong after the handover. Denver J Int Law Policy 27Google Scholar
  10. Michael Ramsden, Oliver Jones (2010) Hong Kong basic law: annotation and commentary. Sweet&Maxwell, Hong Kong, p 224Google Scholar
  11. Michael W. Dowdle (2008) Constitutionalism in the shadow of the common law: the dysfunctional interpretive politics of article 8 of the Hong Kong basic law. In: Hualing Fu et al (eds) Interpreting Hong Kong’s basic law: the struggle for coherence. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  12. P. Y. Lo (2008) Rethinking judicial reference: barricades at the gateway? In: Hualing Fu et al (eds) Interpreting Hong Kong’s basic law: the struggle for coherence. Palgrave Macmillan, Hong Kong, pp 157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. P. Y. Lo (2011) The Hong Kong basic law. LexisNexis, Hong Kong, p 483Google Scholar
  14. Qin Qainhong, Huang Mingtao (2011) Text, target and context: cohesion and flexibility of the interpretation approach of Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. Modern Law Sci 1Google Scholar
  15. Qin Qianhong, Huang Mingtao (2012) The interpretation under the common law judgment rules: starting from the Chong Fung-yuen case. Stud Law Bus 1Google Scholar
  16. Tian Yao (2012) On the constitutional review power of Hong Kong Courts and its limits: starting from the Na Ka-ling case. J Comp Law 6Google Scholar
  17. Wang Shucheng (2011) Judicial passivism and Hong Kong constitutional review power: centered on ‘one country, two systems’. Polit Sci Law 5Google Scholar
  18. Wu Geng (2004) Interpretation and application of the constitution. San Min Publishing House, Taipei, p 399Google Scholar
  19. Yao Guojian (2013) The binding effect of the interpretation of 1999 on Hong Kong Courts. Stud Law Bus 4Google Scholar
  20. Zhu Jie (2010) Foreign constitutions. Wuhan University Press, Wuhan, p 157Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jie Zhu
    • 1
  • Xiaoshan Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of LawWuhan UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations