Interpreting the Basic Law and the Adjudication of Politically Sensitive Questions

In this paper, I shall essentially lay out five interpretiveprinciples that the Hong Kong judiciary should observe. First,the Hong Kong judiciary can disable themselves from giving effectto National People's Congress (NPC) Acts that are inconsistentwith the Basic Law. Second, the Court of Final Appeal has aduty to make a reference to the NPC's Standing Committee (NPCSC)when it needs to adjudicate over two conflicting Basic Law provisions,one whose affairs fall within the Central Government's concernsand the other which falls within the limits of Hong Kong's autonomy.Third, in reading the text of the NPCSC Interpretation narrowlywhile observing its central tenor, the Court would be respectingthe plenary interpretive mandate conferred on the NPCSC whileretaining its role as the primary interpreter of the Basic Law.Fourth, so far as a Mainland National Law has been formallyincorporated into the Basic Law, it cannot be deemed in violationof another constitutional clause. Finally, I would argue thatnot all constitutional affairs falling within the limits ofHong Kong's autonomy are automatically justiciable; where thereis a textual commitment to a coordinate branch of government,the Court may only interfere with the decisions made by thepolitical branches on traditional grounds of judicial review,i.e. illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.