| 617 | 3 | 87 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
香港在港英统治时期主要采用英国的普通法制度。1997年回归后,根据《中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法》,香港特别行政区被授予高度自治权,并保留了原有的普通法制度。香港特区法院适用普通法,将"权力分置"原则视为香港基本法的一个特点与法治原则之一。香港法院运用权力分置原则描述和规范香港特区内部各管治机构之间的关系,并作为法院对于其他管治机构适用不干预原则或司法谦抑的调节器。正如关于香港特区政治体制性质的政治论述所指出,特别行政区实行"行政主导"而非"三权分立"的政治体制,但司法话语中的"权力分置"原则与"三权分立"不同。
Abstract：Hong Kong has been a Special Administrative Region(SAR) of the People's Republic of China since 1997 with its own highly autonomous legal and judicial systems based on English common law. Applying common law principles, the Hong Kong SAR courts have conceptualized "separation of powers" as a feature of the Basic Law and the Rule of Law in Hong Kong. This article demonstrates how Hong Kong courts have used "separation of powers" to describe and regulate the relationship among the institutions of government and as an operating valve of judicial non-intervention or deference vis-à-vis other branches of government. As the political narrative on the Hong Kong SAR's political system indicates, the SAR has a political system that is "executive-led" and based on "separation of powers".
(1)(106)(107)“国务院港澳办发言人:关于香港特别行政区实行‘三权分立’的说法必须纠正”,http://www.locpg.gov.cn/jsdt/2020-09/07/c_1210789765.htm;“香港中联办发言人:香港特别行政区行政主导的政治体制由其宪制地位所决定”,http://www.locpg.gov.cn/jsdt/2020-09/07/c_1210789767.htm(2020年9月23日访问)。
(2)有关香港特别行政区法院的详细讨论,参见PY Lo,"Hong Kong:Common Law Courts in China"in Jiunn—rong Yeh and Wen-chen Chang(eds),Asian Courts in Context(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2014),pp.183-227;Albert HY Chen and P Y Lo,"Hong Kong's Judiciary under'One Country,Two Systems'"in HP Lee and Marilyn Pittard(eds),Asia-Pacific Judiciaries:Independence,Impartiality and Integrity(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2018),pp.131-168.
(3)关于香港特别行政区政治制度性质的公开辩论,参见P Y Lo,The Judicial Construction of Hong Kong's Basic Law(Hong Kong:Hong Kong University Press,2014),pp.37~51;Danny Gittings,"Separation of Powers and Universal Suffrage"(3 June 2015),available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract__id=2499417(2020年7月9日访问).
(4)(74)Lau Cheong v HKSAR(2002)5 HKCFAR 415(CFA).
(5)(46)(59)(61)(62)Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council of the HKSAR(2014)17 HKCFAR 689(CFA).
(6)Democratic Republic of the Congo v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC(2011)14 HKCFAR 95(CFA).
(7)Kong Yunming v Director of Social Welfare[2012] 4HKC 180(CA)[103];PCCW-HKT Telephone Ltd v Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development[2016] 6 HKC5 68(CA),两个判决均赞同霍福曼法官在R(反堕胎联盟)诉英国广播公司一案中的声明,见R(ProLife Alliance)v British Broadcasting Corp[2004] 1 AC 185(HL).
(8)Lam Siu Po v Commissioner of Police(2009)12 HKCFAR 237(CFA).
(9)参见Ch'ng Poh v Chief Executive of the HKSAR(CFI,3 December 2003,HCAL 182/2002)(行使香港基本法所规定的特权或赦免权)。
(10)参见Lau Cheong v HKSAR(2002)5 HKCFAR 415(关于刑事罪行及刑罚的立法与香港基本法的一致性)。
(11)Yau Kwong Man v Secretary for Security[2002] 3 HKC457(CFI);Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council[2017] 1 HKLRD 387(CFI);Lee Yee Shing Jacky v Board of Review(Inland Revenue Ordinance)[2011] 6 HKC307(CFI).上诉庭不认为Yau Kwong Man原则是有争议的:Koon Wing Yee v Secretary for Justice[2013] 1 HKLRD76(CA).
(12)然而,终审法院前任非常任法官梅师贤爵士认为,香港基本法关于政治体制的“文本和结构”就决定了必然要在多个事项偏离“威斯敏斯特模式”,参见Anthony Mason,"The Role of the Common Law in Hong Kong” in Jessica Young and Rebecca Lee(eds),The Common Law Lecture Series 2005(Hong Kong:Faculty of Law,The University of Hong Kong,2006),pp-1,25.
(13)Hinds v R[1977] AC 195(PC)212D-H and 225GH.尽管Diplock法官撰写了多数判决,但少数意见(Viscount Dilhorne法官和Lord Fraser of Tullybelton法官)在判决的238H段承认,牙买加宪法的条款实施了“三个政府机关之间应实行权力分置”的原则。
(14)Lau Cheoug v HKSAR(2002)5 HKCFAR 415.
(15)Peter Wesley-Smith,"Judges and Judicial Power under the Hong Kong Basic Law"(2004)34 HKLJ 83.
(16)HKSAR v Ma Wai-kwan David[1997] HKLRD 761(CA);Sec retary for Justice v Lau Kwok Fai Be rnard(2005)8HKCFAR 304(CFA);Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong v Secretary for Justice[2007] 4 HKLRD 483(CFI);Luk Ka Cheung v Market Misconduct Tribunal[2009] 1 HKLRD 114(CFI);Kong Yun Ming v Director of Social Welfare[2009] 4 HKLRD382(CFI).
(17)(24)Lau Kwok Fai Bernard v Sec retary for Justice(CFI,10 June 2003,HCAL 177,180/2003).
(18)Re M[1994] 1 AC 377(HL)395B.
(19)R v Her Majesty's Treasury ex p Smedley[1985] 1 All ER 589(English Court of Appeal)593B-C(Sir John Donaldson MR).
(20)因此,行政当局废止立法的承诺与其在撤销前的执法行动并不矛盾,因为撤销立法的权力在立法机关:Nam Chun Investment Co Ltd v Director of Lands(2005)8 HKCFAR 668(CFA)。
(21)Dupont Steels Ltd v Sirs[1980] 1 WLR 142(HL)169C-D(Lord Scarman).
(22)HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai(2006)9 HKCFAR 574(CFA)(梅师贤法官认为,香港基本法中的司法权必然包括作出补救性解释的权力).
(23)Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen(2001)4HKCFAR 211(CFA)223F-H;Leung TC William Roy v Sec-retary for Justice[2005] 3 HKC 77(CFI).
(25)Yau Kwong Man v Secretary for Security[2002] 3 HKC457(CFI);转引R v Secretary of State of the Home Department ex p Venables[1998] AC 407(HL)526C-G(Lord Steyn).
(26)如参见James Stellios,The Federal Judicature:ChapterⅢof the Constitution(Chats wood,New South Wales:LexisNexis Butterworths,2010)para.4.1,Stellios引用了澳大利亚高等法院在Albarran v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board(2007)231 CLR 350一案的判决。在判决中,法院将司法权这个多面向的概念作出复杂的阐述,“可以通过主题、过程、行使的目的和后果几个方面作出定义”。另参见Benny Tai,"The Jurisdiction of the Courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region"in Alice Lee(ed),Law Lectures for Practitioners 1998(Hong Kong;HKLJ,1998),pp.65-117.
(27)Lau Kwok Fai Bernard v Secretary for Justice(CFI,10June 2003,HCAL 177,180/2003).其中夏正民法官援引了韦德在行政法教科书中的观点,William Wade,A dminis trative Law(Oxford:Oxford University Press,7 th ed.,1995),p.860.
(28)不过,根据香港基本法第158条的规定,全国人大常委会享有基本法最终解释权。可参见Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration(1999)2 HKCFAR 4(CFA);Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration(No 2)(1999)2 HKCFAR 141;Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen(2001)4 HKCFAR211(CFA);Gurung Kesh Bahadur v Director of Immigration(2002)5 HKCFAR 480(CFA).
(29)Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration(No 2)(1999)2HKCFAR 141;Lau Cheong v HKSAR(2002)5 HKCFAR 415(CFA).
(30)HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai(2006)9 HKCFAR 574(CFA).
(31)Koon Wing Yee v Insider Dealing Tribunal(2008)11HKCFAR 170(CFA).
(32)Koo Sze Yiu v Chief Executive of the HKSAR(2006)9 HKCFAR 441(CFA);HKSAR v Hung Chan Wa(2006)9HKCFAR 614(CFA).另外参见Andrew Li,"Reflections on the Retrospective and Prospective Effect of Constitutional Judgments"in Jessica Young and Rebecca Lee(eds),The Common Law Lecture Series 2010(Hong Kong:Faculty of Law,The University of Hong Kong,2011),pp.21-55.
(33)Solicitor v Law Society of Hong Kong(Secretary for Justice,Intervener)(2003)6 HKCFAR 570(CFA);Mok Charles Peter v Tam Wai Ho(Secretary for Jus tice,Intervener)(2010)13 HKCFAR 762(CFA).
(34)Sam Woo Marine Works Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Po Hang Building(2017)20 HKCFAR 240(CFA).这个立法条文是司法机构提出的民事司法改革的一个特点。
(35)有关原则的讨论,参见Peter Wesley-Smith,"Judges and Judicial Power under the Hong Kong Basic Law"(2004)
34 HKLJ 83;Berry Hsu,"Judicial Independence under the Basic Law”(2004)34 HKLJ 279.还可以参考澳大利亚的判决如Huddart,Parker&Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead(1908)8CLR 330(High Court of Australia);British Imperial Oil Co v Federal Commissioner of Taxation(1925)35 CLR 422(High Court of Australia);Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission(1995)183 CLR 245(High Court of Australia);A lbarran v Companies A uditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board(2007)231 CLR 350.在Hinds判决中第212F-C段,Diplock法官阐述了一项解释规则,即尽管在“威斯敏斯特模式”宪法中没有这方面的明确文字,也不妨碍新国家的立法、行政和司法权力完全由立法机关、行政机关和司法机关排他性地分别行使。
(36)Luk Ka Cheung v Market Misconduct Tribunal[2009]1 HKLRD 114(CFI).上诉法庭认为,原讼法庭分庭在Koon Wing Yee v Secretary for Justice[2013] 1 HKLRD 76(CA)[51]案中作出的论断具有很强的说服力。
(37)Anthony Mason,"The Place of Comparative Law in Developing the Jurisprudence on the Rule of Law and Human Rights in Hong Kong”(2007)37 HKLJ 299.另外参见Anthony Mason,"The Role of the Common Law in Hong Kong"in Jessica Young and Rebecca Lee(eds),The Common Law Lecture Series 2010(Hong Kong:Faculty of Law,The University of Hong Kong,2011),pp.21-25.
(38)Lee Yee Shing Jacky v Board of Review(Inland Revenue Ordinance)2011] 6 HKC 307(CFI)(经上诉后维持原判[2012 2 HKLRD 981(CA)).
(39)Koon Wing Yee v Secretary for Justice[2013] 1 HKLRD 76(CA)[51]-[59].
(40)例如,参见Lee Yee Shing Jacky v Board of Review(Inland Revenue Ordinance)(CA)[2011] 6 HKC.307(CFI)案,上诉法院参考了A bdul Raouf Jauffur v Commissioner of Income Tax(Mauritius)[2006] UKPC 32案的判决。
(41)Johannes MM Chan and CL Lim(eds),Law of the Hong Kong Constitution(Hong Kong:Sweet&Maxwell,2nd ed.,2015),paras.11.023-11.030.
(42)Ubamaka v Secretary for Security(2012)15 HKCFAR743(CFA)[43].
(43)C v Director of Immigration(2013)16 HKCFAR 280(CFA)。由于权力分置带来的限制可能与可裁判性问题带来的限制有所重叠,可裁判性问题主要因为案件所涉事宜过于宽泛、属于政治问题或缺乏司法机关适用于该问题的标准等问题导致。
(44)Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd v Chief Executive in Council[2003] 4 HKC 1(CFI).另外参见Raza v Chief Executive in Council[2005] 3 HKLRD 561(CFI).
(45)有关原讼法庭的“原讼管辖权”与“监督管辖权”的区别的讨论,参见Lee Yee Shing Jacky v Board of Review(Inland Revenue Ordinance)[2011] 6 HKC 307(CFI).
(47)尽管《立法会(权力及特权)条例》已经对“立法程序”作出定义,并由香港特区法院解释,但本文对“立法会程序”仍采取广义的解释方法;参见Cheng Kar Shun v Li Fung Ying(Secretary for Justice,Interested Party)[2009] 4HKC 204(CFI);HKSAR v Leung Kwok Hung(DC,31 July2017,DCCC 546/2016).
(48)Cheung Tak Wing v Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs(CFI,11 July 2011,HCAL 45/2011);Le ung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council(No 2)[2015]1 HKC 195(CFI);Leung Lai Kwok Yvonne v Chief Secretary for A dministration(CFI,5 June 2015,HCAL 31/2015);Kwok Cheuk Kin v Chief Executive in Council(CFI,27 September 2017,HCAL 453,455,458 and 460/2017);Kwok Cheuk Kin v Chief Executive of the HKSAR[2018]HKCFI 133,(CFI,24 January 2018,HCAL 803/2017).
(49)Chim Pui Chung v President of the Legislative Council[1998] 2 HKLRD 552(CFI);Cheung Tak Wing v Legislative Council(CA,26 May 2010,CACV 61/2010).
(50)(60)Cheng Kar Shun v Li Fung Ying(Secretary for Justice,Interested Party)[2009] 4 HKC 204(CFI).
(51)Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council[2007] 1 HKLRD 387(CFI)([2008] 2 HKLRD 18(CA)).
(52)Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council[2012] 3 HKLRD 470(CFI),[2013] 2 HKC 580(CA),(2014)17 HKCFAR 689(CFA).参见Johannes MM Chan and CL Lim(eds),Law of the Hong Kong Constitution(Hong Kong:Sweet&Maxwell,2nd ed.,2015),paras.9.073~9.084.
(53)Wong Yuk Man v Ng Leung Sing[2015] 2 HKLRD 606(CFI);Tsang Kwong Kuen v Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council(CFI,31 May 2017,HCAL44/2015).
(54)Chan Kai Wah v HKSA R(CA,15 March 2011,CACV126/2010).
(55)郭卓堅对立法會主席梁君彦[2018] HKCFI 983(CFI).
(56)Leung Kwok Hung v Clerk to the Legislative Council(CFI,6 October 2004,HCAL 112/2004);Chief Executive of the HKSAR v President of the Legislative Council&Sixtus Leung Chung Hang[2016] 6 HKC 417(CFI),[2017] 1 HKLRD 460(CA),(2017)20 HKCFAR 390(CFA);Chief Executive of the HKSAR v President of the Legislative Council&Nathan Law Kwun Chung[2017] 4 HKLRD 115(CFI);Kwok Cheuk Kin v President of the Legislative Council[2018]HKCFI 156(CFI).关于这一系列行政长官提起的案例的评论,参见Po-Jen Yap and Eric Chan,"Legislative Oaths and Judicial Intervention in Hong Kong"(2017)47 HKLJ 1.
(57)参见HKSAR v Leung Kwok Hung(DC,31 July 2017,DCCC 546/2016);HKSAR v Leung Kwok Hung(Mag Ct,5March 2018,ESS 16969/2017),available at https://news.mingpao.com/ins1803051520224790765(2019年8月9日访问)。
(58)HKSAR v Fong Kwok Shan[2017] 2 HKLRD 225(CFI),[2017]6 HKC 33(CFA);HKSAR v Leung Hiu Yeung[2018]HKCFA 2(CFA).
(63)Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council of the HKSAR(2014)17 HKCFAR 689(CFA);Chief Executive of the HKSAR v President of the Legislative Council&Sixtus Leung Chung Hang(CA)[2016] 6 HKC 417(CFI),[2017]1 HKLRD 460(CA),(2017)20 HKCFAR 390(CFA).
(64)参见Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council of the KSAR(2014)17 HKCFAR 689(CFA),依据Clayton v Heffron(1960)105 CLR 214(High Court of Australia)235;Bribery Commissioner v Ranasinghe(1965)AC172(PC)197-198;Rediffusion(Hong Kong)Ltd v A ttorney General of Hong Kong[1970] AC 1136(PC)1156-1157;Cormack v Cope(1974)131 CLR 432(High Court of Australia)452 and 473.
(65)Chief Executive of the HKSAR v President of the Legislative Council&Sixtus Leung Chung Hang(CFA)[2016] 6HKC 417(CFI),[2017] 1 HKLRD 460(CA),(2017)20 HKCFAR 390(CFA)。另外参见关于基本法中影响立法会议事规则的其他规定,Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council[2007] 1 HKLRD 387(CFI);Cheung Tak Wing v Legis lative Council(CA,26 May 2010,CACV 61/2010).
(66)杨晓楠:《从“不干预原则”的变迁审视香港特区司法与立法关系》,载《法学评论》2 017年第4期。
(67)Chief Executive of the HKSAR v President of the Legislative Council&ixtus Leung Chung Hang[2016] 6 HKC417(CFI),[2017] 1 HKLRD 460(CA),(2017)20 HKCFAR390(CFA).
(68)参见Secretary for Justice v Lau Kwok Fai Bernard(2005)8 HKCFAR 304(CFA)。其中,香港非常任法官梅师贤爵士指出,基本法规定了立法权与行政权的分离,可以否定在公务员合同中隐含阻止通过立法减薪的条款的提议。
(69)Kwok Cheuk Kin v Chief Executive in Council(CFI,27 September 2017,HCAL 453,455,458 and 460/2017)[31].
(70)Cheung Tak Wing v Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs(CFI,11 July 2011,HCAL 45/2011);Television Broadcast Ltd v Communications A uthority[201 3] 5 HKC593(CFI);Leung Lai Kwok Yvonne v Chief Secretary for A dministration(CFI,5 June 2015,HCAL 31/2015)[41];Kwok Cheuk Kin v Chief Executive in Council[2018] HKCFI 133,(CFI,24 January 2018,HCAL 803/2017).在例外情况下提出不成熟质疑的其他理由继续适用:参见Birmingham Care Consortium v Birmingham City Council[2011] EWHC 2656(Admin)[31];R(Garden Leisure Group Ltd)v North Somerset Council[2003] EWHC 12605(Admin)[35] and[56];R(Alconbury Developments Ltd)v Secretary of State for the Env ironment,Transport and the Regions[2003] 2 AC 295(HL)[171].
(71)Re C(A Bankrupt)[2006] 4 HKC.582(CA);RV v Director of Immigration[2008] 2 HKC 209(CFI);Tso Yuen Shui v Law Kwan Wai(CA,21 April 2010,CACV 143,159/2009);Ma Pui Tung v Department of Justice(C A,23 September 2008,CACV 64/2008);D v Director of Public Prosecutions[2015]4 HKLRD 62(CFI).参考Chiang Lily v Secretary for Justice(CA,21 September 2009,CACV 55/2009),(2010)13 HKCFAR 208(CFA)(涉及检察机关选择审讯地点的权力)。
(72)Ch'ng Poh v Chief Executive of the HKSAR(CFI,3December 2003,HCAL 182/2002).权力分置也适用于行政长官根据《刑事诉讼程序条例》第83P条行使法定酌情权的情况,根据这一规定将刑事案件交由上诉法院审理:HKSAR v Chang Wai Hang A lab[2017] 1 HKLRD 163(CA).
(73)参见HKSA R v Ng Kung Siu(1999)2 HKCFAR 442(CFA);Lau Cheong v HKSAR(2002)5 HKCFAR415(CFA);有关香港特区法院基本权利判例的发展,参见P Y Lo,The Judic ial Cons truction of Hong Kong's Bas ic Law(Hong Kong:Hong Kong University Press,2014),pp.281-311;Johannes MM Chan and CL Lim(eds),Law of the Hong Kong Constitution(Hong Kong:Sweet&Maxwell,2nd ed.,2015),Ch.17.
(75)HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai(2006)9 HKCFAR 574(CFA)(Sir Anthony Mason NPJ).
(76)例如参见R(ProLife A lliance)v British Broadcasting Corp[2004] 1 AC 185(HL)(Lord Hoffmann);RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada(Attorney General)[1995] 3 SCR 199(Supreme Court of Canada).
(77)RJR MacDonald Inc v Canada(Attorney-General)[1995]3 SCR 199.
(78)例子包括HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai(CA,6 January2005,CACC 213/2003);Dr Kwok Hay Kwong v Medical Council of Hong Kong[2008] 3 HKLRD 524(CA);Kong Yunming v Director of Social Welfare[2012] 4 HKC 180(CA).
(79)Secretary for Justice v Yau Yuk Lung(2007)10 HKCFAR 335(CFA);Fok Chun Wa v Hospital A uthority(2012)15 HKCFAR 409(CFA);Kong Yunming v Director of Social Welfare(2013)16 HKCFAR 950(CFA).
(80)(82)Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board(2016)19 HKCFAR 372(CFA).
(81)Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board(2016)19 HKCFAR 372(CFA).参考R v Oakes[1986] 1 SCR103(Supreme Court of Canada);R(Lord Carlile of Berriew)v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2015] AC 945(UKSC);Aharon Barak,Proportionality:Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2012).
(83)(84)BI v Director of Immigration[2016] 2 HKLRD 520(CA).
(85)Ng Siu Tung v Director of Immigration(2002)5 HKCFAR 1(CFA).
(86)Ting James Henry v.HKSAR(05/11/2007,FACC4/2007)(2007)10 HKCFAR 632,[2008] 4 HKLRD 850.
(87)Ting James Henry v HKSAR(2007)10 HKCFAR 632(Lord Woolf NPJ).
(88)中共中央文献研究室:《一国两制重要文献选编》,中央文献出版社1997年版,第101页。
(89)《关于<中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法(草案)>及其有关文件的说明》。
(90)Yash Ghai,Hong Kong's New Constitutional Order(Hong Kong:Hong Kong University Press,2nd ed.,1999),pp.262-264。
(91)王叔文编:《香港特别行政区基本法导论》(第二版),法律出版社2009年版,第345-350页;肖蔚云:《论香港基本法》,北京大学出版社2003年版,第640-644页;参见Albert HY Chen,'"Executive-Led Government',Strong and Weak Governments and Consensus Democracy'"in Johannes MM Chan and Lison Harris(eds),Hong Kong's Constitutional Debate s(Hong Kong:HKLJ,2005),pp.9~13.
(92)董建华:《行政长官出席纪念<基本法>座谈会致辞全文》(2004年3月15日),参见https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200403/15/0315147.htm(2020年7月1日访问);政制发展专责小组:《<基本法>中有关政制发展的原则问题》,参见https://www.cmab.gov.hk/cd/chi/report2/pdf/secondreport-c.pdf(2020年7月1日访问)。
(93)陈祖为:《解释基本法护法转调,行政主导非基本法立法原意》,《明报》2004年6月28日;陈祖为:《香港特区政制三权分立:不普选拒政党化施政效能难改善》,《明报》2004年6月29日。肖蔚云在2004年8月作出回应,参见肖蔚云:《行政主导是基本法政治体制的重要立法原意——与陈祖为先生商榷》,《明报》2004年8月11日;肖蔚云:《基本法二十多处反映行政主导》,《明报》2004年8月12日。
(94)吴邦国:《深入实施香港特别行政区基本法,把“一国两制”伟大实践推向前进》,参见http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/npc/wbgwyz/content_1614401.htm(2020年7月1日访问)。
(95)乔晓阳:《深入学习研讨基本法,努力提高公务员素质——在“澳门基本法高级研讨班”结业典礼上的讲话》,《“一国两制”研究》2010年第6期,第1-4页。
(96)(97)国务院新闻办公室:《“一国两制”在香港特别行政区的实践白皮书》,参见www.gov.cn/xinwen/2014-06/10/content_2697833.htm(2020年7月1日访问)。
(98)(105)程洁:《香港新宪制秩序的法理基础:分权还是授权》,《中国法学》2017年第5期,第56-83页。
(99)张晓明:《正确认识香港特别行政区政治体制的特点》,参见http://www.locpg.hk/jsdt/2015-09/12/c_128222889.htm(2020年7月1日访问)。对张晓明演讲的评论,参见Albert HY Chen,"Hong Kong's Political System ABC-Starting from the Recent Dispute” HKU Legal Scholarship Blog(2020年7月1日访问),http://researchblog.law.hku.hk/2015/09/albertchen-on-abcs-of-hong-kongs.html(2020年7月1日访问).
(100)张德江在纪念香港特别行政区基本法实施20周年座谈会上的讲话,http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/xinwen/syxw/2017-05/31/content_2022706.htm(2020年7月1日访问)。
(101)习近平:《决胜全面建成小康社会夺取新时代中国特色社会主义伟大胜利》,http://cpc.people.com.cn/19th/nl/2017/1027/c414395-2961345 8.html?from=groupmessage&isappinstalled=0(2020年7月1日访问)。
(102)“行政长官于行政会议前会见传媒开场发言及答问内容"(2020年9月1日),https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202009/01/P2020090100415.htm(2020年9月23日访问)。并可参见律政司司长的意见;郑若骅:《着眼实质职权——行政主导制度》,《星岛日报》2020年9月9日,http://www.doj.gov.hk/chi/public/sj/20200909_sj1.html(2020年9月23日访问)。
(103)参见《香港大律师公会就三权分立原则的声明》(2020年9月2日),https://www.hkba.org/zh-hant/events-publication/pre ss-releases-coverage。
(108)(109)(110)(111)Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legisla-
(104)见前注1。并可参见王振民:《决定香港特区的政治体制是中央事权》,《星岛日报》2020年9月21日,第A9版。tive Council(CFI)[2007] 1 HKLRD 387.
(112)Chief Executive of the HKSAR v President of the Legislative Council&Sixtus Leung[2016] 6 HKC 417(CFI),[2017 1 HKLRD 460(CA),(2017)20 HKCFAR 390(CFA).
(113)终审法院根据基本法第2条、第19条、第80条和第81条认为,给予香港特区独立司法权是指特区法院行使特区的独立司法权,法院对包括基本法在内的法律进行解释,特区法院独立于中国的司法制度,享有独立性:Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Ltd v New World Development Co Ltd(2006)9 HKCFAR 234(CFA).
(114)从中央政府的角度来看,香港特区的司法权已较为完备,且应受到监督和制衡。参见Cheng Jie,"The Story of a New Policy"(2009)Hong Kong Journal,http://www.hkbasiclaw.com/Hong%20Kong%20Journal/C heng%20Jie%20article.htm(2020年7月1日访问).
(115)特区行政长官曾力图依据基本法第43条及第48条第2款证明该职能是正当的,行政长官必须对中央人民政府负责,行政长官有实施基本法的职责。参见Lau Kong Yung
(116)Director of Immigration(1999)2 HKCFAR 300(CFA).
(116)Roger Masterman,The Separation of Powers in the Contemporary Constitution:Judicial Competence and Independence in the United Kingdom(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2011),p.3.
(117)Roger Masterman,The Separation of Powers in the Contemporary Constitution:Judicial Competence and Independence in the United Kingdom(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2011),p.4;Andrew Le Sueur,"Constitutional Fundamentals"in David Feldman(ed),English Public Law(Oxford:Oxford University Press,2nd ed.,2009)para.1.13.Masterman还研究了近期的文献,指出评论家们“随意”的方法是英国政府体制的理论基础。
基本信息:
DOI：10.14167/j.zjss.2020.10.007
中图分类号:D921.9
引用信息:
[1]罗沛然,陈弘毅.香港特别行政区判例法中的权力分置原则[J].浙江社会科学,2020,No.290(10):54-66+157-158.DOI:10.14167/j.zjss.2020.10.007.
2020-10-13
2020-10-13