香港特区终审法院基本法审查的司法哲学(1997-2017)  

Judicial Philosophy of Basic Law Review of Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (1997-2017)

作　　者：曹旭东 CAO Xudong

机构地区：[1]中山大学粤港澳发展研究院

出　　处：《法学评论》2020年第3期27-41,共15页Law Review

摘　　要：对香港终审法院基本法审查司法哲学的研究可以从主题和时间两个维度展开。在中央与特区关系领域,终审法院的司法哲学从李国能法院到马道立法院经历了大幅度调整。普通实体权利保护领域始终是终审法院能动主义的最主要平台,但在程序权利问题上它却保守很多。外国人居留权等相关权利问题上,终审法院的态度比较摇摆,但在涉及本地居民重大切身利益的问题上能够保持清醒。政治体制与制度类案件均由马道立法院处理,它展示出足够的克制与尊让,没有支持任何一项基本法挑战。政府政策案件方面,终审法院的谦抑保守是常态,积极能动是非常态。司法体制和制度案件的处理倾向稍显复杂,既有能动,也有折衷和保守。终审法院总体上是"一国两制"和基本法维护者的角色。The study of the judicial jurisprudence of the HKCFA on basic law review can be carried out in two dimensions: Subject and Time. In the area of relations between the Central Authorities and the SAR, the judicial jurisprudence of the CFA has undergone a major adjustment from the Andrew Li Court to the Geoffrey Ma Court. The field of general entity rights protection has always been the most important platform for CFA activism, but it is much more conservative in terms of procedural rights. On the issue of foreigners’ right of abode and other related rights, the attitude of the CFA is relatively swaying, but it can remain clear on issues involving the vital interests of local residents. Political system/institutional cases are all handled by the Geoffrey Ma Court, which demonstrates sufficient restraint and respect and does not support any of the basic law challenges. In terms of government policy cases, normal state of CFA is passivism and conservative and abnormal state is activism. The handling tendencies of judicial systems and institutional cases are somewhat complicated, sometimes activism, sometimes moderate or passivism. Generally, HKCFA is playing the role of protector of ‘one county, two systems’ and basic law.

关 键 词：香港终审法院 基本法审查 司法哲学 

分 类 号：D921.9[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学] D926.2[政治法律—法学]