Hong Kong Basic Law Interpretation Power: Controversy And Response

After the return of Hongkong in July 1,1997,the "basic law of Hongkong",which embodies the creative "one country,two systems",has been implemented for more than 20 years.In the meantime,because of the natural differences between the continental law system and the common law system,the implementation of the basic law of Hongkong has caused many controversies,and the dispute about the power of interpretation of the basic law is one of them.158 th the provisions of the basic law interpretation of structured,interlocking,not only conforms to the legal culture China legislature enjoys absolute interpretation of tradition,but also the common law court has accepted culture in Hongkong Special Economic Zone enjoys the power of judicial interpretation of the tradition,is "one country,two systems" under the framework of the law of innovative interpretation specification.In the premise of affirming the rationality of the allocation of the right to interpret the basic law,we can sort out the controversial issues and analyze the focus of disputes,and finally give a response to the controversial issues.So far,the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress has made five interpretations of the basic law,and the court of final appeal of the Hongkong Special Administrative Region has exercised the right of interpretation of the basic law for many times.The two levels of interpretation of the law caused a lot of controversy,such as "Ma Weikun" case,the right of abode "Wu Ka-ling case","Zhuang Fengyuan" case and the chief executive of Hongkong "25 term election dispute".The focus of the controversy is mainly focused on the following aspects: first,the right of final interpretation of the National People’s Congress violated "Hongkong basic law" and "Joint Declaration" in the relevant provisions of independent judicial power and commitment;second,the second paragraph of article 158 th of the Hongkong basic law "specific content range" is what ".Division of autonomy" and "autonomy" actually "self explanation";third,the Hongkong court is authorized to enjoy in the power of interpretation of the basic law case,Hongkong court could of course entitled "violation of the basic law review right".According to the above of these disputes,this paper will respectively use three cases to raise the question through the case analysis,combined with the principle of law,the basic law and the legislative intent with foreign judicial practice comparison and demonstration,and contact the actual situation of Hongkong SAR,multi angle response to the dispute,in order to maintain the authority of the Hongkong basic law,the the basic law interpretation can be more smoothly,the exercise of "one country two systems" services,which provide a solid foundation for the development of the constitutional stability and prosperity to the society of Hongkong.