【法政匯思與人大釋法：要詳細法律分析有詳細法律分析•要FAQ有FAQ】
THE PROGRESSIVE LAWYERS GROUP AND THE NPCSC INTERPRETATION: DETAILED LEGAL ANALYSIS & FAQs (Please scroll down for English)
近幾日（特別是在人大釋法昨日頒佈後），法政匯思有十多個法律界成員日以繼夜、不眠不休地為大家就人大釋法議題預備了（1）中文（請看以下連結）與英文版的詳細法律分析書；及（2）中文（請看以下連結）與英文版而較簡短的FAQ；。簡單來說，我們認為：
(1) 人大常委會確實擁有不受約制的權力解釋《基本法》，但是它沒有權力(i) 解釋香港本地法例；或 (ii) 修改《基本法》或香港本地法例。
(2) 今次釋法已遠遠超越了對《基本法》的解釋，並意圖規定一些屬於香港本地法例範圍以內而非《基本法》的事項。就法律原則而言，我們認為該釋法中這些超越對《基本法》解釋的部分不具法律約束力。不幸的是，在政治現實中，人大常委會無須為其越權行為負責。
(3) 今次釋法在兩方面嚴重破壞了法治及香港的自治：(i) 它實際上為香港進行本地立法；和 (ii) 它是在香港法院涉及同一事項的案件的裁決前作出。該釋法成為令人非常不安的先例，並預示著一國兩制的未來岌岌可危。
希望大家能從這些不同深度的文件各取所需，因而對今次的人大釋法有更深入的了解。謝謝大家。
詳細法律分析書與FAQ連結（中文 - 連結內會分別找到這兩份文件）：
https://drive.google.com/open…
--------
In the past few days (and especially since the NPCSC released its interpretation yesterday), a team of well over 10 members of the legal profession who are also PLG members have worked day and night without ceasing on documents/graphics relating to the NPCSC interpretation.
They consist of (1) a set of detailed legal submissions in both English (link below) and Chinese; and (2) a shorter set of FAQs in both English (link below) and Chinese.
In summary, our views are that:
(1) The NPCSC does have a freestanding power to interpret the Basic Law. But it does not have the power to: (i) interpret Hong Kong domestic law; or (ii) amend either the Basic Law or Hong Kong domestic law.
(2) The NPCSC interpretation has gone well beyond an interpretation of the Basic Law. It has sought instead to prescribe matters which are not in the Basic Law and which are within the remit of Hong Kong domestic law. As a matter of legal principle, we consider that such parts of the Interpretation are not legally binding. Unfortunately, as a matter of political reality, NPCSC cannot be held to account for its act of overreach.
(3) The NPCSC interpretation has deeply damaged the rule of law and Hong Kong’s autonomy by: (i) in effect making Hong Kong domestic law; and (ii) being issued while a Hong Kong court case covering the same subject matter was pending. It creates an enormously disturbing precedent and bodes ill for the future of One Country Two Systems.
We hope you will find these documents of varying levels of detail to be of use to you in gaining a greater understanding of the latest NPCSC interpretation. Thank you.
Detailed legal submissions and FAQs weblink (English - the two documents can be found separately within the link):
https://drive.google.com/open…
precedent case中文 在 About code owners - GitHub Docs 的推薦與評價
Unless a later match takes precedence, # @global-owner1 and @global-owner2 will be requested for # review when someone opens a pull request. ... <看更多>