to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong", and Hong Kong had to be satisfied with the Preamble to the Basic Law which states that "[t]he basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong have been elaborated by the Chinese Government in the Sino-British Declaration".
16. The question of interpretation produced much dispute. The early drafts provided that the power of interpretation was vested in the Standing Committee, whose interpretation would be binding on the courts for the future. The SAR courts could interpret the Basic Law in specific cases, but if the case involved an interpretation of the provisions concerning defence, foreign affairs and "other affairs which are the responsibility of the" CPG, the courts were required, before making a final judgement, to seek an interpretation from the Standing Committee. (The Chinese draftsmen made much of the fact that, in drawing up this particular provision, they had had regard to Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome which requires national courts to refer cases of interpretation to the Court of Justice of the Communities.) There was a strong reaction in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. The "common law" approach to the interpretation of the Joint Declaration and the provision in the Declaration that the Hong Kong was to have "independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication" were invoked to demand either that the SAR courts should have exclusive jurisdiction to
to interpret the
15