香港特区“双非”问题研究
发布时间：2018-11-12 20:00
【摘要】：父母均为中国内地居民的“双非”子女依现有法律取得居留权并成为香港永久性居民,从而享有各种福利和便利,给香港社会造成诸多问题。“双非”问题的产生源于“庄丰源案”(2001年)的判决。该案中,香港终审法院以普通法传统为由,拒绝适用全国人大常委会作出之“1999解释”,迫使立法会于2002年8月修改《入境条例》,造成特区政府今日只能以堵截、“零配额”等行政措施避免受理“双非”子女的居留权申请。中国的宪制与普通法传统一样维护司法独立,但是一方面,《基本法》接纳了普通法传统中法院的法律解释权；另一方面,在《基本法》的框架下,法院自行解释的对象仅仅被局限在有关高度自治范围内的各种事务及其相关立法；除此之外,作为最高权力机关的全国人大常委会作出的立法解释对香港法院具有拘束力,香港法院应当遵守,以正确实施基本法,维护国家的法制统一。《全国人民代表大会香港特别行政区筹备委员会关于实施中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法第二十四条第二款的意见》(简称“筹委会意见”)一方面反映了立法原意,另一方面因被纳入《全国人大常委会关于中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法第二十二条第四款和第二十四条第二款第(三)项的解释》(简称“1999解释”)而具有法律效力,从而拘束香港终审法院。在“1999解释”已经对《基本法》第24条第2款第1项(简称“24条2款1项”)中的“出生”的法律涵义作出明确的界定的情况下,没有必要再次“释法”(解释《基本法》),同时也应该避免频繁“修法”(修改《基本法》)。一方面香港终审法院可以利用普通法传统中的遵循先例以新的判例推翻“庄丰源案”的判决；另一方面香港立法会也可以按照“1999解释”自行进行立法,恢复《入境条例》(1997)附表2a段的内容,使行政机关能够依法对“双非”子女作出不授予居留权的决定。如此则可彻底杜绝“双非”现象,保持和促进香港的繁荣与稳定。
[Abstract]:Children whose parents are mainland residents acquire the right of abode in accordance with existing laws and become permanent residents of Hong Kong, thus enjoying various benefits and facilities, causing many problems to Hong Kong society. The problem of "double non" originates from the judgment of Zhuang Fengyuan case (2001). In this case, the Hong Kong Court of final Appeal, citing the common law tradition, refused to apply the "1999 interpretation" given by the standing Committee of the National people's Congress (NPC), forcing the Legislative Council to amend the Immigration Ordinance in August 2002. As a result, the SAR Government can only intercept it today. Administrative measures, such as zero quota, avoid accepting right of abode applications for "double non" children. The constitution of China maintains the independence of the judiciary just like the tradition of common law, but on the one hand, the basic Law accepts the power of interpretation of the law of the court in the tradition of common law; On the other hand, within the framework of the basic Law, the object of the court's self-interpretation is confined only to various matters within the scope of a high degree of autonomy and its relevant legislation; In addition, the legislative interpretation made by the standing Committee of the National people's Congress (NPC), as the highest organ of power, is binding on the courts of Hong Kong, and the courts of Hong Kong should abide by it in order to correctly implement the basic Law. "opinions of the Preparatory Committee of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region of the National people's Congress on the implementation of Article 24 (2) of the basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region of the people's Republic of China" On the one hand, it reflects the legislative intent, On the other hand, it was incorporated into the interpretation of Article 22 (4) and Article 24 (2) (3) of the basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region of the people's Republic of China by the standing Committee of the National people's Congress ("interpretation 1999"). And have the force of law, Thus binding the Hong Kong Court of final Appeal. Where the legal meaning of "birth" in Article 24, paragraph 2, item 1, of the basic Law (referred to as "Article 24, para. 2 (a)") has been clearly defined in the interpretation of 1999, There is no need to "interpret the basic Law" again, and to avoid frequent "amendment" (amending the basic Law). On the one hand, the Court of final Appeal of Hong Kong can use the precedents in the common law tradition to overturn the ruling in the Chuang Fengyuan case with new precedents; On the other hand, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong may, in accordance with the interpretation of 1999, enact legislation on its own to reinstate paragraph 2a of schedule 2a to the Immigration Ordinance (1997) so as to enable the executive authorities to make a decision in accordance with the law not to grant the right of abode to children who are "not entitled to the right of abode". This will put an end to the double-Africa phenomenon and maintain and promote the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.
【学位授予单位】：深圳大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D921.9
本文编号：2328072
[Abstract]:Children whose parents are mainland residents acquire the right of abode in accordance with existing laws and become permanent residents of Hong Kong, thus enjoying various benefits and facilities, causing many problems to Hong Kong society. The problem of "double non" originates from the judgment of Zhuang Fengyuan case (2001). In this case, the Hong Kong Court of final Appeal, citing the common law tradition, refused to apply the "1999 interpretation" given by the standing Committee of the National people's Congress (NPC), forcing the Legislative Council to amend the Immigration Ordinance in August 2002. As a result, the SAR Government can only intercept it today. Administrative measures, such as zero quota, avoid accepting right of abode applications for "double non" children. The constitution of China maintains the independence of the judiciary just like the tradition of common law, but on the one hand, the basic Law accepts the power of interpretation of the law of the court in the tradition of common law; On the other hand, within the framework of the basic Law, the object of the court's self-interpretation is confined only to various matters within the scope of a high degree of autonomy and its relevant legislation; In addition, the legislative interpretation made by the standing Committee of the National people's Congress (NPC), as the highest organ of power, is binding on the courts of Hong Kong, and the courts of Hong Kong should abide by it in order to correctly implement the basic Law. "opinions of the Preparatory Committee of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region of the National people's Congress on the implementation of Article 24 (2) of the basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region of the people's Republic of China" On the one hand, it reflects the legislative intent, On the other hand, it was incorporated into the interpretation of Article 22 (4) and Article 24 (2) (3) of the basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region of the people's Republic of China by the standing Committee of the National people's Congress ("interpretation 1999"). And have the force of law, Thus binding the Hong Kong Court of final Appeal. Where the legal meaning of "birth" in Article 24, paragraph 2, item 1, of the basic Law (referred to as "Article 24, para. 2 (a)") has been clearly defined in the interpretation of 1999, There is no need to "interpret the basic Law" again, and to avoid frequent "amendment" (amending the basic Law). On the one hand, the Court of final Appeal of Hong Kong can use the precedents in the common law tradition to overturn the ruling in the Chuang Fengyuan case with new precedents; On the other hand, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong may, in accordance with the interpretation of 1999, enact legislation on its own to reinstate paragraph 2a of schedule 2a to the Immigration Ordinance (1997) so as to enable the executive authorities to make a decision in accordance with the law not to grant the right of abode to children who are "not entitled to the right of abode". This will put an end to the double-Africa phenomenon and maintain and promote the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.
【学位授予单位】：深圳大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D921.9
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前7条
1 王贵松;;中国计划生育制度的合宪性调整[J];法商研究;2008年04期
2 秦前红;黄明涛;;普通法判决意见规则视阈下的人大释法制度——从香港“庄丰源案”谈起[J];法商研究;2012年01期
3 邹平学;中国宪政建设论要[J];法学;2003年11期
4 邹平学;;香港基本法解释机制基本特征刍议[J];法学;2009年05期
5 王春凤;;中国内地孕妇赴港生子的法理分析[J];法制与经济(下旬);2011年12期
6 张千帆;宪法不应该规定什么[J];华东政法学院学报;2005年03期
7 陈咏梅;;香港特区终审法院判决与“人大释法”不一致所引发的内地孕妇来港产子潮问题探讨[J];河北法学;2008年04期
，本文编号：2328072
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/xianfalw/2328072.html
