《基本法》第24条与香港永久性居民之法理定位

发布时间：2018-05-18 22:18

本文选题：《基本法》第条 + 香港永久性居民　；参考：《法学评论》2013年05期

【摘要】：从"永久性居民"和"居留权"概念在香港的出现与发展,到《基本法》第24条在内容上的明确规定,再到香港回归之后由此而引发的一系列宪法案件,居留权主体(香港永久性居民)问题一直争议不断,其间挑起了香港司法独立与人大释法是否冲突、普通法方法的适用程度等诸多问题。从实践角度来看,对此也采取了人大释法等诸多方法予以应对,但最终都未能在根本上平息由《基本法》第24条所引发的争议,而且由此造成的社会后果也日趋严重、复杂。其实从居留权主体的本质属性来看,问题背后的关键在于对居留权主体的规定发生了法理上的错位,即不应该由《基本法》来明确规定居留权主体的具体内容,毋宁应该在一般法律层面来具体展开,由此才符合居留权保护的规范属性,进而才可能在根本上解决目前存在的诸多争议及难题。从法理上来说,应该对《基本法》第24条的内容进行相应的修改,只保留居留权主体在宪法层面的一般抽象性规定,而将其具体内容部分还原至一般法律规定之中,这样才符合居留权保护的法理定位,而且也符合"一国两制"的内在要求。
[Abstract]:From the emergence and development of the concepts of "permanent resident" and "right of abode" in Hong Kong, to the explicit provisions of Article 24 of the basic Law, and a series of constitutional cases arising from the return of Hong Kong to China, The subject of right of abode (Hong Kong permanent residents) has always been controversial, which has caused many problems such as the conflict between the independence of the judiciary and the interpretation of the law by the people's Congress of Hong Kong, the degree of application of the common law method, and so on. From a practical point of view, many methods such as the interpretation of the law by the people's Congress have been adopted, but in the end, the controversy caused by Article 24 of the basic Law has not been fundamentally settled, and the resulting social consequences are becoming more and more serious and complicated. In fact, from the point of view of the essential attributes of the right of abode subject, the key behind the problem lies in the legal dislocation of the provisions on the right of abode subject, that is, the specific content of the right of abode subject should not be clearly defined by the basic Law. Rather, it should be carried out concretely in the general legal level so as to conform to the normative attribute of right of abode protection, and then it is possible to solve many disputes and problems that exist at present. Legally speaking, the contents of Article 24 of the basic Law should be amended accordingly to retain only the general abstract provisions of the subject of the right of abode at the constitutional level, and to restore some of its specific contents to the general provisions of the law. Only in this way can it accord with the legal position of right of abode protection and accord with the inherent requirement of "one country, two systems".
【作者单位】：香港城市大学法律学院;
【基金】：秦前红教授主持的教育部2011年人文社科基金项目“香港特别行政区基本法解释问题研究”(项目编号:11YJA820057)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D921.9

【参考文献】