《基本法以外:保障香港基本权利的解释性原则》

Benedict Coxon
{"title":"《基本法以外:保障香港基本权利的解释性原则》","authors":"Benedict Coxon","doi":"10.1177/14737795221116395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In considering the protection of fundamental rights in Hong Kong, the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383) (BORO) tend to be the dual focus. However, common law principles protective of fundamental rights continue to apply. These include principles of statutory interpretation such as the principle of legality (the presumption that general or ambiguous words in legislation are insufficient to interfere with certain common law rights) and the presumption that legislation is to be interpreted consistently with international treaties. This article considers the role of these common law interpretive principles in Hong Kong, and, in particular, the scope for their application in light of the Basic Law and the BORO. It concludes that the protection of fundamental rights in Hong Kong will continue to focus on the Basic Law and the BORO for so long as the current constitutional arrangements persist. However, the courts ought to take care to pay due regard to the relevant common law interpretive principles, including the stringency of the test of necessary implication where a statutory interference with rights is not express, and the potential for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to be relevant to statutory interpretation.","PeriodicalId":87174,"journal":{"name":"Common law world review","volume":"51 1","pages":"248 - 267"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond the Basic Law: Interpretive principles protective of fundamental rights in Hong Kong\",\"authors\":\"Benedict Coxon\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14737795221116395\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In considering the protection of fundamental rights in Hong Kong, the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383) (BORO) tend to be the dual focus. However, common law principles protective of fundamental rights continue to apply. These include principles of statutory interpretation such as the principle of legality (the presumption that general or ambiguous words in legislation are insufficient to interfere with certain common law rights) and the presumption that legislation is to be interpreted consistently with international treaties. This article considers the role of these common law interpretive principles in Hong Kong, and, in particular, the scope for their application in light of the Basic Law and the BORO. It concludes that the protection of fundamental rights in Hong Kong will continue to focus on the Basic Law and the BORO for so long as the current constitutional arrangements persist. However, the courts ought to take care to pay due regard to the relevant common law interpretive principles, including the stringency of the test of necessary implication where a statutory interference with rights is not express, and the potential for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to be relevant to statutory interpretation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Common law world review\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"248 - 267\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Common law world review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14737795221116395\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common law world review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14737795221116395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在考虑保障香港的基本权利时,《基本法》和《人权法案条例》(第383章)往往是双重焦点。然而,保护基本权利的普通法原则继续适用。这些原则包括法定解释原则,如合法性原则(立法中一般或含糊的词语不足以干涉某些普通法权利的推定)和立法应与国际条约一致的推定。本文探讨这些普通法解释原则在香港的角色,特别是在《基本法》和《逃犯条例》的配合下,这些原则的适用范围。报告的结论是,只要现行的宪制安排继续存在,保障香港的基本权利将继续以《基本法》和《基本法》为重点。但是,法院应注意适当考虑到有关的普通法解释原则,包括在没有明确表示法定干预权利的情况下,对必要含义的检验是否严格,以及《经济、社会、文化权利国际盟约》可能与法定解释有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beyond the Basic Law: Interpretive principles protective of fundamental rights in Hong Kong
In considering the protection of fundamental rights in Hong Kong, the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383) (BORO) tend to be the dual focus. However, common law principles protective of fundamental rights continue to apply. These include principles of statutory interpretation such as the principle of legality (the presumption that general or ambiguous words in legislation are insufficient to interfere with certain common law rights) and the presumption that legislation is to be interpreted consistently with international treaties. This article considers the role of these common law interpretive principles in Hong Kong, and, in particular, the scope for their application in light of the Basic Law and the BORO. It concludes that the protection of fundamental rights in Hong Kong will continue to focus on the Basic Law and the BORO for so long as the current constitutional arrangements persist. However, the courts ought to take care to pay due regard to the relevant common law interpretive principles, including the stringency of the test of necessary implication where a statutory interference with rights is not express, and the potential for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to be relevant to statutory interpretation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信