论文部分内容阅读
本文分析了香港回归以来全国人大常委会对香港基本法三次解释中所采用的法律解释方法,包括文本解释、结构解释和立法原意解释等。文章强调“人大释法”在娴熟地采用这些法律解释方法时对法理学说的运用。文章指出,在居港权案中,特区终审法院与人大释法在法律解释方法上的分歧主要在于确定体现立法原意的权威本文的过程中,究竟是采取程序主义的形式审查,还是实质主义的意图推定,这不仅是法律解释方法的不同,而且是法理学说和政治立场的不同。在此基础上,文章批评了立法者不适宜解释法律的流行偏见,呼吁将基本法纳入到国家宪政体制中来理解。
This article analyzes the legal interpretation methods adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress since the return of Hong Kong to the three interpretations of the Hong Kong Basic Law, including the interpretation of texts, the interpretation of structures and the interpretation of the original intension of laws. The article emphasizes the application of the theory of jurisprudence when “people’s congress interpret the law” is skillfully adopted by these legal interpretations. The article points out that in the ROA case, the discrepancy between the HKSAR CFA and the NPC interpretation of the law in the interpretation of the law mainly lies in the process of determining the authoritative expression of the original legislative intent, whether it is to take a formal examination of proceduralism, or substantive Intention to presume, this is not only the legal interpretation of different methods, but also the difference between jurisprudence and political position. On this basis, the article criticizes the legislator unfit to explain the popular prejudice of law, and calls for the understanding of the basic law into the constitutional system of the country.