| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
To assess the degree of judicial autonomy under an autonomous framework, there are five criteria concerning the courts of the autonomous entity: (1) judicial independence; (2) jurisdiction on purely local matters; (3) the power of final adjudication; (4) the power of final interpretation of its own constitution; and (5) a fair mechanism to resolve disputes arising from conflicts between the exercise of powers by the autonomous entity and the sovereign state. The judicial autonomy of Hong Kong after China resumed to exercise sovereignty over Hong Kong is examined according to these criteria. The substantial differences between Hong Kong's economic, legal, constitutional, and political systems and China's may explain the subtle conflicts that the Hong Kong judiciary has encountered in the last 13 years. The Hong Kong Judiciary has learned that it can only exercise its judicial autonomy in accordance with its sense of constitutional justice inherited mainly from the common law if it can tactfully handle the inherent differences between "one country" and "two systems." However, whether that means a weakened version of judicial autonomy or a strategic way to achieve the highest attainable degree of judicial autonomy within constraints is a matter on which commentators have different opinions.
|