香港特别行政区终审法院在外佣居港权案中的宪政处境评析

发布时间：2018-03-26 00:54

本文选题：一国两制　切入点：基本法　出处：《政治与法律》2013年03期

【摘要】：香港特区政府律政司异乎寻常地向终审法院提出在外佣居港权案的审理中提请全国人大常委会释法的建议,将终审法院推入《基本法》第158条规定的宪政处境之中。律政司建议终审法院提请释法的根本原因在于全国人大常委会在"居港权解释"中提及并赞同了全国人大香港特区筹委会的"筹委会意见"。终审法院是否提请释法问题的症结在于"筹委会意见"是否对香港特区法院具有拘束力。面对是否提请释法的两难,终审法院极有可能决定不提请释法,自行解释外佣居港权案涉及的《基本法》第24条第2款第4项,同时采取迂回的表述技术,不断然否定亦不正面肯定"筹委会意见"对香港特区法院的拘束力。
[Abstract]:The Department of Justice of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region has unusually submitted to the Court of final Appeal a proposal to the standing Committee of the National people's Congress for interpretation of the right of abode of foreign domestic helpers in the trial of the case. To push the CFA into the constitutional situation provided for in Article 158 of the basic Law. The fundamental reason for the Attorney General's recommendation that the Court of final Appeal should request an interpretation of the Law is that the standing Committee of the National people's Congress referred to and endorsed the people of the whole country in the interpretation of the right of abode in Hong Kong. The crux of the issue of whether the Court of final Appeal will request an interpretation of the law lies in whether the "Preparatory Committee opinion" is binding on the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region, and whether it is faced with the dilemma of whether to request an interpretation of the law. It is very likely that the Court of final Appeal will decide not to request an interpretation of the law and to interpret on its own the provisions of Article 24 (2) (4) of the basic Law concerning the right of abode of foreign domestic helpers, and at the same time adopt a circuitous technique of expression. Neither categorically negate nor directly affirm the binding power of the Preparatory Committee opinion on the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region.
【作者单位】：国家法官学院;
【分类号】：D921.9

【相似文献】