Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Critique of Hong Kong Nativism

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    FACV 4/2012.

  2. 2.

    FACV 14/1998.

  3. 3.

    FACC 4/1999.

  4. 4.

    FACV 26/2000.

  5. 5.

    FACV 9/2008.

  6. 6.

    FACV 4/2012.

  7. 7.

    FACV 4/2012.

  8. 8.

    FACC 1/2006.

  9. 9.

    FACC 1/2006.

  10. 10.

    FACV 12&13/2006.

  11. 11.

    FACC 1/2006.

  12. 12.

    FAMV 30/2006.

  13. 13.

    FACV 26/2000.

  14. 14.

    FACV 14/1998.

  15. 15.

    FACC 4/1999.

  16. 16.

    FACV 14/1998.

  17. 17.

    FACV Nos 5, 6, 7/2010.

  18. 18.

    FACV Nos 19, 20/2012.

  19. 19.

    FACV Nos 19, 20/2012.

  20. 20.

    FACV 4/2012.

  21. 21.

    FACV 14/1998.

  22. 22.

    FACC 12/2006.

  23. 23.

    FACV 12/2006.

  24. 24.

    FACV 12/2006.

  25. 25.

    FACV 12, 13/2006.

References

  • Albert Chen Hung-yee (1998) The constitutional review power of the Hong Kong Courts. Peking Univ Law J 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong Likun, Zhang Shudian (2010) The basic law review power of the HKSAR Courts. Chinese J Law 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu Siming (2001) The judicial review power of Hong Kong Courts. Law Sci Mag 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Han Depei (1997) New theories of private international law. Wuhan University Press, Wuhan, p 447

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans Kelson (1996) General theory of law and state (trans: Shen Zongling). The Commercial Press, Beijing, p 141

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu Jinguang (2007) On the judicial review power of Hong Kong Courts. Juris’s Rev 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Shuzhong, Yao Guojian (2012) The basic law review power of Hong Kong Courts. Chinese J Law 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Weihua (2011) How Hong Kong Courts established the basic law review power. Polit Sci Law 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael C. Davis (1998) Constitutionalism under Chinese rule: Hong Kong after the handover. Denver J Int Law Policy 27

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael Ramsden, Oliver Jones (2010) Hong Kong basic law: annotation and commentary. Sweet&Maxwell, Hong Kong, p 224

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 157–164

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • P. Y. Lo (2011) The Hong Kong basic law. LexisNexis, Hong Kong, p 483

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin Qianhong, Huang Mingtao (2012) The interpretation under the common law judgment rules: starting from the Chong Fung-yuen case. Stud Law Bus 1

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Shucheng (2011) Judicial passivism and Hong Kong constitutional review power: centered on ‘one country, two systems’. Polit Sci Law 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu Geng (2004) Interpretation and application of the constitution. San Min Publishing House, Taipei, p 399

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao Guojian (2013) The binding effect of the interpretation of 1999 on Hong Kong Courts. Stud Law Bus 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Jie (2010) Foreign constitutions. Wuhan University Press, Wuhan, p 157

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Zhu, J., Zhang, X. (2019). Practice and Effects of Law Scrutiny Adopted by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. In: Critique of Hong Kong Nativism. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3344-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3344-6_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3343-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3344-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics