香港特區(qū)“雙非”問(wèn)題研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-12 20:00
【摘要】：父母均為中國(guó)內(nèi)地居民的“雙非”子女依現(xiàn)有法律取得居留權(quán)并成為香港永久性居民,從而享有各種福利和便利,給香港社會(huì)造成諸多問(wèn)題�！半p非”問(wèn)題的產(chǎn)生源于“莊豐源案”(2001年)的判決。該案中,香港終審法院以普通法傳統(tǒng)為由,拒絕適用全國(guó)人大常委會(huì)作出之“1999解釋”,迫使立法會(huì)于2002年8月修改《入境條例》,造成特區(qū)政府今日只能以堵截、“零配額”等行政措施避免受理“雙非”子女的居留權(quán)申請(qǐng)。中國(guó)的憲制與普通法傳統(tǒng)一樣維護(hù)司法獨(dú)立,但是一方面,《基本法》接納了普通法傳統(tǒng)中法院的法律解釋權(quán)；另一方面,在《基本法》的框架下,法院自行解釋的對(duì)象僅僅被局限在有關(guān)高度自治范圍內(nèi)的各種事務(wù)及其相關(guān)立法；除此之外,作為最高權(quán)力機(jī)關(guān)的全國(guó)人大常委會(huì)作出的立法解釋對(duì)香港法院具有拘束力,香港法院應(yīng)當(dāng)遵守,以正確實(shí)施基本法,維護(hù)國(guó)家的法制統(tǒng)一�！度珖�(guó)人民代表大會(huì)香港特別行政區(qū)籌備委員會(huì)關(guān)于實(shí)施中華人民共和國(guó)香港特別行政區(qū)基本法第二十四條第二款的意見(jiàn)》(簡(jiǎn)稱“籌委會(huì)意見(jiàn)”)一方面反映了立法原意,另一方面因被納入《全國(guó)人大常委會(huì)關(guān)于中華人民共和國(guó)香港特別行政區(qū)基本法第二十二條第四款和第二十四條第二款第(三)項(xiàng)的解釋》(簡(jiǎn)稱“1999解釋”)而具有法律效力,從而拘束香港終審法院。在“1999解釋”已經(jīng)對(duì)《基本法》第24條第2款第1項(xiàng)(簡(jiǎn)稱“24條2款1項(xiàng)”)中的“出生”的法律涵義作出明確的界定的情況下,沒(méi)有必要再次“釋法”(解釋《基本法》),同時(shí)也應(yīng)該避免頻繁“修法”(修改《基本法》)。一方面香港終審法院可以利用普通法傳統(tǒng)中的遵循先例以新的判例推翻“莊豐源案”的判決；另一方面香港立法會(huì)也可以按照“1999解釋”自行進(jìn)行立法,恢復(fù)《入境條例》(1997)附表2a段的內(nèi)容,使行政機(jī)關(guān)能夠依法對(duì)“雙非”子女作出不授予居留權(quán)的決定。如此則可徹底杜絕“雙非”現(xiàn)象,保持和促進(jìn)香港的繁榮與穩(wěn)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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：深圳大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D921.9
本文編號(hào)：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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：深圳大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D921.9
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條
1 王貴松;;中國(guó)計(jì)劃生育制度的合憲性調(diào)整[J];法商研究;2008年04期
2 秦前紅;黃明濤;;普通法判決意見(jiàn)規(guī)則視閾下的人大釋法制度——從香港“莊豐源案”談起[J];法商研究;2012年01期
3 鄒平學(xué);中國(guó)憲政建設(shè)論要[J];法學(xué);2003年11期
4 鄒平學(xué);;香港基本法解釋機(jī)制基本特征芻議[J];法學(xué);2009年05期
5 王春鳳;;中國(guó)內(nèi)地孕婦赴港生子的法理分析[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2011年12期
6 張千帆;憲法不應(yīng)該規(guī)定什么[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期
7 陳詠梅;;香港特區(qū)終審法院判決與“人大釋法”不一致所引發(fā)的內(nèi)地孕婦來(lái)港產(chǎn)子潮問(wèn)題探討[J];河北法學(xué);2008年04期
，本文編號(hào)：2328072
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/xianfalw/2328072.html
最近更新
教材專著
