自1997年香港回归以来,《基本法》确立施行了立法、司法与行政等三权相互制衡的治理原则,并配以相应的具体制度作实施保障。然而,有不少声音因未实现一人一票普选特首而质疑三权分立制衡的有效性,部分激进派议员利用《立法会条例修订》的机会对草案提出多达千项的修订意见,让立法会就这些修订项陷入持久辩论的拉锯状态,即“拉布”;鉴于此,立法会主席作出终止辩论的决定,即“剪布”;议员不服、就此提起诉讼并被法庭驳回。本文对其关涉的法律争议进行了解析,认为“拉布”不是宪制权利,法庭对议会至上原则不予干预,一并指出“拉布”之不可取及其带来的消极后果,同时介绍了可借鉴的域外经验,值得有关各方深思。 Since the return of Hong Kong to Hong Kong in 1997, the Basic Law has established the principle of governance that checks and balances the legislative, judicial, and administrative powers with each other and is accompanied by corresponding specific systems for safeguarding. However, many voices have questioned the effectiveness of the separation of powers and checks and balances because the one-person, one-vote universal suffrage has not been realized. Some radical legislators have used the opportunity of the amendment of the “Legislative Council Ordinance” to propose as many as one thousand amendments to the Bill, In view of this, the amendment will fall into a see-saw situation of enduring debate, that is, “Rabe”; in view of this, the President of the Legislative Council made a decision to terminate the debate, that is, “Cloth Cloth”; . This article analyzes the legal dispute concerning it and holds that Rabe was not a constitutional right and that the court did not intervene in the supreme principle of parliament and pointed out the unfriendliness and the negative effect brought by Rabe Consequences, at the same time, introduce the extraterritorial experience that can be borrowed from, which deserves the consideration of all parties concerned.