Advertisement

Formalism and Commitment in Hong Kong’s Constitutional Development

  • Yu Xingzhong
Chapter
  • 228 Downloads

Abstract

Constitutional formalism stresses the formal aspects of constitutionalism, such as constitutional rules, procedures, and conventions and not the substantive aspects of constitutionalism, such as constitutional ideals, values, and principles. The pedigree thesis of legal positivism, a well-known jurisprudential perspective, sees the validity of legal rules purely in terms of the source of power and holds that the ultimate criterion in a legal system resides only in the explicitly articulated power system or rule system within a given jurisdiction.1

Keywords

Central Authority Chinese Communist Party Constitutional Formalism Legal Positivism Judicial Independence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Kenneth Einar Himma, “The Epistemic Sense of the Pedigree Thesis,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 80, no. 1 (1999): 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    See Weiyun Xiao, “Why the Court of Final Appeal Was Wrong: Comments of the Mainland Scholars on the Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal,” and Bing Ling, “The Proper Law for the Conflict between the Basic Law and Other Legislative Acts of the National People’s Congress,” in Hong Kong’s Constitutional Debate, ed. Johannes M. M. Chan, H. L. Fu, and Yash Ghai (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2000). This useful book contains detailed discussions on the CFA decisions and has an appendix of the relevant documents. See alsoGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert H. Y. Chen, “The Interpretation of the Basic Law—Common Law and Mainland Chinese Perspectives,” Hong Kong Law Journal 30 (2000): 380–431. See also press release by the New China News Agency; Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration (1999) 1 HKC 291.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960).Google Scholar
  5. 10.
    H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 81.Google Scholar
  6. 12.
    Hart, The Concept of Law, 99; J. Raz, The Concept of a Legal System, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. L. Fuller, The Morality of Law, rev. ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969);Google Scholar
  8. Kent Greenawalt, “The Rule of Recognition and the Constitution,” Michigan Law Review 85 (1987): 621;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jules Coleman, “Negative and Positive Positivism,” Journal of Legal Studies 11 (1982): 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 13.
    Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law, trans. Max Knight (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), 214–15.Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    P. Beirne and R. Sharlet, eds., Pashukanis: Selected Writings on Marxism and Law (London: Academic Press, 1980).Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    Raymond Wacks, “One Country, Two Grundnormen? The Basic Law and the Basic Norm,” in Hong Kong, China and 1997, ed. Raymond Wacks (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  13. 19.
    PRC constitutions have been enacted by the NPC under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). By convention, the CCP has the power to change the constitution, as has been demonstrated by the four amendments to the constitution introduced since the reform. For a detailed discussion of the CCP’s relation to PRC Constitution and the constitutional revisions, see Jihong Mo, A Constitutional Primer for the Government and the Citizens (Beijing: Zhongguo Renmin Gongan Daxue Chubanshe, 1999).Google Scholar
  14. 20.
    Hong Kong seems moving toward this direction, as evidenced by the move of the government to make a law to elaborate the Basic Law provisions on crimes against the state. See further Hualing Fu, Carole J. Petersen, and Simon N. M. Young, eds., National Security and Fundamental Freedoms: Hong Kong’s Article 23 Under Scrutiny (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  15. 21.
    For instance, Jerome Bentham was one who did not think very highly of the common-law tradition, preferring a more systematic presentation of common-law rules. See Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  16. 23.
    Jed Rubenfeld, Revolution by Judiciary: The Structure of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 12–13.Google Scholar
  17. 27.
    Kyle L. Kreider, review of Revolution by Judiciary: The Structure of American Constitutional Law, by Jed Rubenfeld, Law and Politics Book Review 15 (2005): 867–71.Google Scholar
  18. 28.
    For a discussion on the center and periphery relationships in China, see Michael Davis, “The Case for Chinese Federalism,” Journal of Democracy 10 (1999): 124–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 29.
    Albert H. Y. Chen, “The Interpretation of the Basic Law—Common Law and Mainland Chinese Perspectives,” Hong Kong Law Journal (2000) 30: 380–431.Google Scholar
  20. 30.
    Michael Davis, “Constitutionalism under Chinese Rule: Hong Kong after the Handover,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 27 (1999): 275.Google Scholar
  21. 31.
    Edward Samuel Corwin, Court over Constitution: A Study of Judicial Review as an Instrument of Popular Government (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1938).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hualing Fu, Lison Harris, and Simon N. M. Young, eds. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu Xingzhong

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations