TNAG-2320-FCO40-3364-Human-rights-in-Hong-Kong-1991 — Page 153

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 -