论文部分内容阅读
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。
From the emergence and development of the concept of “permanent residents ” and “right of abode ” in Hong Kong to the explicit stipulation in Article 24 of “Basic Law” to the series of constitutions resulting from the return of Hong Kong The issue of the right of abode (Hong Kong permanent residents) has always been controversial over the past few years. In the meantime, many issues such as the conflict between the judicial independence of Hong Kong and the interpretation of the NPC, and the application of the common law method have been stirred up. From a practical point of view, many measures such as the interpretation of the NPC are adopted in response to this. However, ultimately, they failed to fundamentally quell the controversy triggered by Article 24 of the “Basic Law,” and the consequent social consequences are also increasing Serious and complicated. In fact, the essence of the right of abode is that the crux of the problem lies in the fact that the provisions of the right of abode have been legally misplaced. That is, the specific content of the right of abode should not be clearly stipulated in the Basic Law. Instead, The legal level to carry out a specific start, which is consistent with the normative attributes of the right of abode protection, and then it may be possible to fundamentally solve the many existing controversies and problems. From the legal point of view, we should make corresponding amendments to the content of article 24 of the “Basic Law”, retaining only the general abstraction requirements of the right of abode at the constitutional level and restoring part of its specific content to the general law, In line with the jurisprudence of the right of abode protection, but also in line with the inherent requirement of “one country, two systems”.