This paper offers an analysis of the approaches employed in the three interpretations of the Basic Law of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong by the Standing Committee of the National People＇s Congress （...This paper offers an analysis of the approaches employed in the three interpretations of the Basic Law of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong by the Standing Committee of the National People＇s Congress （NPC） after the return of Hong Kong to China, including textualism, structural reading and originalism. The paper stresses the application of jurisprudential theory in the skilful employment of these methods in the NPC interpretations. In the case of ＂the right of abode＂ in Hong Kong the differences between the interpretations by the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong and by the NPC rest mainly in whether a formalist procedural review or a substantivist presumption of intent should be adopted in the process of determining an authoritative text that embodies the original intention of the legislation. That is not just a difference of legal interpretation but also one of jurisprudential theory and political stance. Based on the above considerations, this paper criticizes the common misconception that it is not appropriate for legislators to undertake legal interpretation, and calls for an understanding of the Basic Law in the framework of Chinese constitutional government.展开更多
文摘This paper offers an analysis of the approaches employed in the three interpretations of the Basic Law of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong by the Standing Committee of the National People＇s Congress （NPC） after the return of Hong Kong to China, including textualism, structural reading and originalism. The paper stresses the application of jurisprudential theory in the skilful employment of these methods in the NPC interpretations. In the case of ＂the right of abode＂ in Hong Kong the differences between the interpretations by the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong and by the NPC rest mainly in whether a formalist procedural review or a substantivist presumption of intent should be adopted in the process of determining an authoritative text that embodies the original intention of the legislation. That is not just a difference of legal interpretation but also one of jurisprudential theory and political stance. Based on the above considerations, this paper criticizes the common misconception that it is not appropriate for legislators to undertake legal interpretation, and calls for an understanding of the Basic Law in the framework of Chinese constitutional government.
