encouraged the early judges of the
United States to assert a similar
interpretation and review in
Marbury v Madison.
67
the Supreme Court of the
function of judicial
the famous decision in
Other countries, including Australia and countries of
the Commonwealth of Nations with and without Bills of Rights
have followed the American model. But China did not.
It is the Standing Committee of the NPC, not the
judiciary in China, which has the constitutional authority to
68 interpret the constitution and statutes of the PRC. This
therefore includes the interpretation of the Basic Law of
Hong Kong. The NPC can alter and annul decisions of the
Standing Committee. It is for this reason that, strictly as
a matter of law and within the polity of the PRC, the Court
of Final Appeal of Hong Kong envisaged by the Basic Law
has a power which is subject to the NPC. It is for this
reason that scholars are already pointing out that,
established rules of private international law require that
the socialist legal system of China will ultimately, in the
event of conflict, prevail over the common law judicial
system of Hong Kong, and this quite apart from the politics
69
of China.
Various suggestions have been made for resolving
potential
future disputes
68
of
this kind.
However,
any
judge giving meaning to a Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance
(or to the international covenants extended to Hong Kong by
the Basic Law or otherwise) would do So in the sure
knowledge that judicial orders made by the judge would be
overriding supervision
subject to the
knowledge might,
for some judicial
of the NPC.
officers,
Such
provide a
-
33 -