Frontiers in Business, Economics and Management 
ISSN: 2766-824X | Vol. 17, No. 1, 2024 

 

236 

An Examination of the Causes of the Criminal 
Jurisdiction Model of the Hong Kong SAR of China 

Weitao Meng 

Faculty of Political Science and Law, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing, Guangdong 526061, China 

mengfly06@163.com 

 

Abstract: Since China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, it has implemented the policy of One Country, 
Two Systems, conferring on the HKSAR a high degree of autonomy and independent judicial power, including that of final 

adjudication. The HKSAR enjoys criminal jurisdiction over local criminal cases, except in exceptional circumstances where 

criminal jurisdiction of the HKSAR is expressly excluded, and the corresponding criminal prosecution authorities carry out 

investigations, prosecutions and trials in accordance with the provisions of local law and the common law tradition. The 

HKSAR's model of criminal jurisdiction is generally characterised by a single-track operation, which is the normative 

manifestation of the single-track model. The formation and development of the HKSAR's normalised model of criminal 

jurisdiction is attributable to a number of factors, including both policy and legal considerations, and both practical considerations 

and historical traditions. On balance, the formation and development of the HKSAR's criminal jurisdiction model reflects the 

Central Authorities' respect for and trust in the HKSAR, and is consistent with the HKSAR's sui generis legal system and unique 

common law tradition. The formation of the HKSAR's criminal jurisdiction model has its own historical and practical 

considerations, reflecting the Central Authorities' respect for and trust in the HKSAR, as well as being compatible with the 

HKSAR's unique legal system and common law tradition. Facing up to and analysing its causes is conducive to the accurate 

implementation of the principle and policy of One Country, Two Systems, and is conducive to the effective governance of the 

HKSAR, thus contributing to the stability and progress of One Country, Two Systems. 

Keywords: One Country, Two Systems, HKSAR, Criminal Jurisdiction, Judicial System, Legal System. 

 

1. Introduction 

Since the resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over 

Hong Kong, China has established the Hong Kong Special 

Administrative Region (HKSAR) under the principle of One 

Country, Two Systems and has granted the HKSAR a high 

degree of autonomy. In accordance with articles 2 and 19(1) 

of the Hong Kong Basic Law, the HKSAR exercises a high 

degree of autonomy and enjoys independent judicial power, 

including that of final adjudication. These provisions provide 

a clear qualitative grasp of the HKSAR's criminal jurisdiction, 

giving it a local, self-contained and logically self-contained 

jurisdictional structure. Article 19(2) of the Hong Kong Basic 

Law clearly stipulates the scope of the HKSAR's criminal 

jurisdiction, and provides that the courts of the HKSAR shall 

have criminal jurisdiction over all criminal cases in the 

HKSAR, subject to the limitations on judicial power imposed 

by the legal system and principles previously in force in Hong 

Kong. On the basis of article 23 and related provisions of the 

Hong Kong Basic Law, the Central Authorities have 

authorised the HKSAR to enact laws on its own to safeguard 

national security, and to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate 

crimes against national security by the HKSAR's domestic 

law enforcement, prosecutorial and judicial authorities. The 

Hong Kong National Security Law also makes it clear that the 

Central Authorities shall exercise direct jurisdiction over only 

a very small number of cases of offences against national 

security that fall within the three specified circumstances in 

article 55 of the Law, and that the HKSAR shall be 

responsible for the jurisdiction of the vast majority of cases of 

offences against national security in the HKSAR. In other 

words, the HKSAR's jurisdiction over criminal cases, 

including the vast majority of cases involving offences 

against national security, has the attribute of being a single-

track mode of operation, which is a normalised mode of 

operation. 

The choice of mode of criminal jurisdiction plays a very 

important role in the effective prevention, suppression and 

punishment of crime. Under the principle of One Country, the 

HKSAR, as a local administrative region of China, has a 

single-track criminal jurisdiction over matters falling within 

the scope of its high degree of autonomy, which belongs to 

the single-track mode of operation under One Country, Two 

Systems. The HKSAR's single-track model of criminal 

jurisdiction gives the HKSAR a great deal of autonomy and 

flexibility in the conduct of its domestic affairs. The 

formation of the HKSAR's single-track model of criminal 

jurisdiction has its own historical and practical considerations. 

Facing up to and analysing its causes is conducive to 

accurately grasping the intent of the One Country, Two 

Systems principle, and has important theoretical value and 

practical significance for the effective governance of the 

HKSAR, as well as for the effective safeguarding of the 

sovereignty, security and development interests of the State, 

and contributes to the stability and progress of One Country, 

Two Systems. It is of great theoretical value and practical 

significance to the effective governance of the HKSAR and 

to the effective safeguarding of national sovereignty, security 

and development interests, and will also help One Country, 

Two Systems to move forward. 

2. The Central Authorities' Respect for 
and Confidence in the Judicial 
Power of the HKSAR 

Prior to the reunification, under British colonial rule, Hong 



 

237 

Kong never had independent judicial power and the power of 

final adjudication. After the reunification, under One Country, 

Two Systems, the HKSAR enjoys a high degree of autonomy 

which is different from the general autonomy enjoyed by 

other places. The authorisation by the Central Authorities of 

the HKSAR to enjoy a high degree of autonomy in the 

administration of justice reflects not only the concrete 

implementation of the principle of One Country, Two Systems, 

but also the accurate implementation by the Central 

Authorities of the spirit and intent of the Hong Kong Basic 

Law. [1] The broad scope of the exercise of criminal 

jurisdiction, the finality of criminal trials in the Court of Final 

Appeal, and the independence of the judiciary and the 

selection of judicial officers are all sufficient illustrations of 

the high degree of autonomy of the HKSAR's criminal 

jurisdiction. 

2.1. HKSAR's Unique Jurisdictional Design 

Firstly, it is set up independently of the Mainland's judicial 

system. Taking into account the marked differences between 

the legal systems of the Mainland and the HKSAR, with the 

former being dominated by statute law and the latter by case 

law, the criminal procedures of the two are also different, and 

the judicial systems in general are fundamentally different. 

Granting the HKSAR independent judicial power and the 

power of final adjudication is conducive to safeguarding a 

high degree of autonomy. [2] The judicial system of the 

HKSAR established under the Hong Kong Basic Law strictly 

adheres to the principle of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ and 

the principle of ‘Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong’, and 

the establishment of the Court of Final Appeal has enabled the 

HKSAR's judicial system to be independent of the Mainland's 

judicial system and to form its own system. Accordingly, the 

Central Authorities' supervision and control over the 

HKSAR's criminal jurisdiction and its operation can only be 

exercised through restrictions on the scope of the exercise of 

its criminal jurisdiction and its ultimate power of 

interpretation of the Basic Law. [3] At this level, the 

uniqueness of the HKSAR's jurisdiction, as a unitary state 

with a local administrative region vested with the power of 

final adjudication of the judiciary, is unparalleled in the world 

today.[4] 

Second, the autonomy of judicial selection. The system of 

selection of judges in the HKSAR is clearly stipulated in the 

Hong Kong Basic Law and in local legislation such as the 

Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, the High Court 

Ordinance, the District Court Ordinance, the Magistrates 

Ordinance, the Coroners Ordinance and the Judicial Officers 

Recommendation Commission Ordinance. The above 

provisions have clarified the scope of judicial officers in the 

HKSAR and the autonomy of their selection. This is mainly 

reflected in the fact that, firstly, judges are composed of 

permanent judges, non-permanent judges, temporarily 

appointed judges and specially appointed judges, and that 

judges may be recruited from other common law jurisdictions. 

Secondly, temporary judges and temporary magistrates are 

decided and appointed by the Chief Justice of the Court of 

Final Appeal. Thirdly, judges are recommended by the 

Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission, which is 

composed of local people, and appointed by the Chief 

Executive. Among them, the appointment of judges of the 

Court of Final Appeal and the Chief Judge of the High Court 

shall also be subject to the endorsement of the Legislative 

Council and reported to the Standing Committee of the 

National People's Congress for the record. In this way, the 

selection of judges in the HKSAR fully demonstrates 

independence and autonomy, and is an important 

manifestation of the HKSAR's independent judicial and final 

adjudication power. 

2.2. Judicial Power of the HKSAR with a High 
Degree of Autonomy 

The degree of criminal jurisdiction and scope enjoyed by 

the HKSAR is unparalleled, both in comparison with the local 

jurisdiction of provinces, autonomous regions and 

municipalities directly under the Central Government in the 

Mainland of China, and with that of the local states in a 

federal system. On the one hand, the judicial power of the 

HKSAR is different from the general local judicial power of 

the Mainland of China. The judicial power of provinces, 

autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the 

Central Government belongs to the judicial power under the 

system of people's congresses which practises democratic 

centralism. The judicial power of provinces, autonomous 

regions and municipalities directly under the centralised 

system of people's congresses is an integral part of the unified 

judicial power of the Mainland, and the judicial organs of the 

abovementioned places shall be subject to the guidance and 

supervision of the Supreme People's Court. In contrast, the 

highest appellate authority for criminal cases in the HKSAR 

is the Court of Final Appeal of the HKSAR, not the Supreme 

People's Court, and the Supreme People's Court does not have 

any power of checking any level of courts in the HKSAR. 

On the other hand, the judicial power of the HKSAR is 

different from that of a state in a federal system. China is a 

unitary state, and the HKSAR is a local administrative region 

of China, whose independent judicial power and power of 

final adjudication are not inherent, but are authorised by the 

Central Authorities. It presents a pattern of authorisation and 

authorisation by the State and then by the local authorities. 

Moreover, as the HKSAR judiciary is not part of the 

Mainland's judicial system, the Supreme People's Court does 

not have the power to supervise the trial activities of the 

HKSAR judiciary, nor does it have the power to overrule the 

judgements made by the HKSAR judiciary. By contrast, a 

federal state consists of local states, where state judicial 

power is inherent and federal judicial power derives from 

state authorisation. The federal jurisdiction is derived from 

the authority of the states, and there is a pattern of reserved 

authority, ‘states first, then the federation’. In a federal system, 

the federal courts have the power to supervise the activities of 

the state courts and have the right of review on appeal and 

ultimately the right of final judgement.[5] 

The high degree of judicial power in the HKSAR can be 

seen in the context of the connotation of independent judicial 

power and the power of final adjudication of the HKSAR, as 

well as in comparison with the judicial power of provinces, 

autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the 

Central Government in the Mainland, and the setting up of 

judicial power of the local states in a federal state. The 

HKSAR enjoys the power of final adjudication over cases 

within its jurisdiction, which goes far beyond the scope of 

ordinary local autonomy. [6] Moreover, the Central 

Authorities, out of their trust in the HKSAR, have vested in 

the HKSAR the power to enact laws in the interest of national 

security in the light of local circumstances. [7] As well as in 

the normal state, criminal jurisdiction in respect of offences 

against national security is exercised by the HKSAR's 



 

238 

functional bodies. [8] The authorisation granted by the 

Central Authorities to the HKSAR in respect of the important 

matter of safeguarding national security is a manifestation of 

the respect for and trust in the HKSAR's judicial power under 

the principle of One Country, Two Systems. 

3. The HKSAR's Unique Common Law 
Jurisprudential Thinking 

The term Common Law is a conceptual spectrum of 

considerable diversity and richness. [9] It is not the style of 

the common law to remain static; on the contrary, it is an 

important feature of the common law to evolve in response to 

the actual needs of social development. The historical process 

of the formation and development of the common law in 

Hong Kong inevitably involved the importation of the English 

common law and the integration and evolution of the common 

law of the HKSAR itself and with the legal system of the 

Mainland after the Reunification. As a result, Hong Kong's 

common law tradition encompasses two different elements at 

two different stages of historical development, namely, a set 

of legal systems and styles that Hong Kong has learnt over the 

past century or so under the English legal tradition, and new 

connotations and implications that the HKSAR has gained 

from the handling of a series of legal disputes and its 

interaction with the Mainland's legal system since the 

Reunification. [10] As a common law jurisdiction, the 

common law tradition has had a significant impact on the 

formation and development of the HKSAR's single-track 

model of criminal jurisdiction. Unlike the adjudicative 

mindset of the civil law system, which focuses on deductive 

reasoning, the common law pays more attention to the 

empirical application of inductive reasoning, and the principle 

of adherence to precedent occupies an important position in 

the common law. 

3.1. Generation of the Spirit of the Common 
Law in Hong Kong 

During the British-Hong Kong period, as one of the 

countries in which the common law is typically applied, the 

United Kingdom transplanted the common law to Hong Kong. 

The English common law system and tradition had a direct 

and profound impact on Hong Kong. During this period, 

Hong Kong constructed its common law system on the basis 

of English law and inherited the concept of the rule of law and 

the principle of stare decisis from the English common law 

tradition. Firstly, the establishment of the dominant position 

of the common law in judicial practice. The dominant position 

of the common law was gradually established when England 

transmitted the priority of its own common law application to 

Hong Kong. According to section 3 of the Application of 

English Law Ordinance 1966, where the common law is 

appropriate to the circumstances and inhabitants of Hong 

Kong, it shall have the force of law in Hong Kong unless 

modified or abrogated by statute law enacted by the 

legislature. This establishes the predominance of the common 

law in Hong Kong's judicial practice, and the courts may 

disapply the application of the English common law only 

where its application would result in grossly unfair or 

oppressive consequences. [11] The concept of the common 

law was implanted and deeply rooted in Hong Kong with the 

British colonial expansion, and accordingly, the spirit of the 

common law in Hong Kong was formed. 

Second, the importance of ‘judge-made law’. The common 

law is more of a legal mindset with a unique concept of the 

rule of law than a system of rules. [12] The latter has had a 

greater impact on Hong Kong than the former. Although 

Hong Kong residents had a strong rejection of British colonial 

rule, they formed a strong psychological identity with the 

spirit of common law. [13] The spirit of the common law has 

given Hong Kong judges a prominent role in the development 

of the law. Judges must understand the theory of a statute and 

the applicable methods of statutory interpretation on their 

own at the time of trial and cannot look to the legislator. As a 

result, judges are freed from the influence of legislators and 

are able to maximise the expression of their own will in the 

adjudication of individual cases. This unique logic of 

common law adjudication has further contributed to the 

emergence of barriers to the legal profession. ‘Hong Kong's 

original legal tradition and legal system still rely on a group 

of people with a high degree of homogeneity and 

specialisation - that is, Hong Kong's legal community - to 

sustain and develop.’ [14] Under the common law, the 

decisions of the HKSAR judiciary are more a matter of the 

autonomy of legal professionals who are also part of the 

system within the constant back and forth between facts and 

law, and those who are not part of the system are unable to 

capture the logical patterns of common law adjudicative 

thinking. 

3.2. The Evolving Spirit of The Common Law 

After the reunification, the chain of principles of the 

common law of the HKSAR has inevitably created the 

necessary links with the English legal system. However, 

while inheriting the original common law tradition, the new 

order of the HKSAR under One Country, Two Systems has 

also imposed new requirements on the evolution and 

development of the common law of the HKSAR. [15] The 

development of the common law in the HKSAR is moving 

towards, and needs to move towards, a path of common law 

development independent of the English model. 

First, the definition of the common law under the Hong 

Kong Basic Law. While preserving Hong Kong's common 

law tradition, the Hong Kong Basic Law is not a wholesale 

acceptance of the original common law. One is that, after the 

Reunification, the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom or 

other common law jurisdictions cannot be substantially 

binding on the HKSAR and is only of reference significance. 

Secondly, the previous common law which is incompatible 

with the constitutional development of the HKSAR and the 

constitutional system of the State after the Reunification 

should be abolished. Thirdly, the previous common law 

adopted as the law of the HKSAR should also be adapted and 

optimised to conform to the provisions and spirit of the Hong 

Kong Basic Law. Fourthly, the common law should be 

subordinate to the enacted law in terms of hierarchy of 

validity, so as to conform to the unity of the legal system. [16] 

Secondly, the interaction between the Hong Kong Basic 

Law and the common law. Whether rejecting or accepting it, 

it is inevitable that the HKSAR judiciary will need to interpret 

the Hong Kong Basic Law to a certain extent in the 

adjudication of specific cases. The tension between the 

common law of the HKSAR and the Hong Kong Basic Law 

has persisted since the reunification. The choice and 

application of methods of interpretation of the Basic Law 

applied by the Court of Final Appeal in individual cases has 

revealed a sense of freeing oneself from the tension. [17] The 

difference between the common law interpretative approach 



 

239 

and the statutory mode of thinking in individual trials has 

prompted the HKSAR Judiciary to break away from the 

established common law thinking and to apply the logic of 

civil law thinking to accurately grasp the legislative intent and 

spirit of the Hong Kong Basic Law. 

Thirdly, the new requirements of One Country, Two 

Systems on the spirit of common law in the HKSAR. 

Although the Judiciary has generally performed well in 

safeguarding the constitutional development of the HKSAR, 

[18] the tension between the Judiciary and the HKSAR is still 

not smooth. Moreover, individual jurisprudence of the 

HKSAR Judiciary also suffers from an inability to accurately 

grasp the relationship between the Central Authorities and the 

HKSAR, as well as the fulfilment of its constitutional 

responsibility to safeguard national security. The frequent 

political, economic and cultural exchanges between the 

HKSAR, which is also a local administrative region of the 

People's Republic of China, and the Mainland, as well as the 

practical need for concerted efforts to safeguard national 

security, require the HKSAR's judicial system and judicial 

procedures to be in line with those of the Mainland. The 

evolution and development of common law in the HKSAR 

cannot be divorced from the basic framework of One Country, 

Two Systems. 

4. Relatively Independent Legal 
System of the HKSAR 

After the reunification, the legal system of the HKSAR, 

while inheriting part of the legal system from the British-

Hong Kong era, has undergone considerable development 

under One Country, Two Systems and in accordance with the 

provisions of the Hong Kong Basic Law. The legal system of 

the HKSAR is fundamentally different from that of the 

British-Hong Kong era and, to a certain extent, is also 

different from that of the Mainland, resulting in a self-

contained legal system which is entirely different from that of 

the Mainland. The composition and characteristics of the 

HKSAR's legal system are one of the key causes of the 

HKSAR's single-track model of criminal jurisdiction. 

4.1. Characteristics of Hong Kong's Legal 
System During the British-Hong Kong Era 

After the British occupation of Hong Kong, the British 

adopted the Proclamation of Righteousness, which, on the one 

hand, made it clear that where there are elders governing the 

countryside, they shall be listened to as in the past [19] thus 

establishing the principle of applying Chinese laws, customs 

and practices (except for various kinds of torture) to Chinese 

in Hong Kong; and, on the other hand, making clear the 

principle of applying British law to offences committed by 

foreigners in Hong Kong . To clarify the principle of applying 

English law to the jurisdiction of foreigners for offences 

committed in Hong Kong. During the British-Hong Kong 

period, Hong Kong was orthodox in terms of English legal 

sources, while retaining to a certain extent the validity of 

Chinese laws and customs of the Qing Dynasty. Although 

there was some controversy over the authority of the two 

Proclamations of Righteousness, [20] the practice laid the 

foundation of the dualist legal system in Hong Kong at that 

time. 

However, thereafter, due to the strong position of Britain in 

Hong Kong, the space for the application of Chinese laws and 

customs gradually narrowed. [21] Hong Kong gradually 

developed a legal system dominated by case law, with 

multiple sources of law co-existing in local and foreign 

legislation. It is a mixed legal system of a pluralistic nature, 

constituted by the unique historical and cultural background 

of Hong Kong. [22] In summary, from the structure of Hong 

Kong law, it can be found that Hong Kong law exists as a 

branch of the English common law system, with a multi-

layered and pluralistic structure, and is characterised by a 

combination of rigour, stability, continuity and flexibility [23]. 

4.2. Composition and Characteristics of the 
Legal System of the HKSAR After 

Reunification 

First, the sources of law have become richer. Under ‘One 

Country, Two Systems’, in the HKSAR, the Constitution has 

the supreme legal status and the highest legal effect, and the 

Hong Kong Basic Law has constitutional status. The Hong 

Kong Basic Law specifies the laws to be applied in the 

HKSAR, i.e. the national laws listed in Annex III, the Hong 

Kong Basic Law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong 

(including the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, 

subordinate legislation and customary law), and laws enacted 

by the Legislative Council, with reference to case law in other 

common law jurisdictions. Moreover, international 

agreements applicable to the HKSAR may also form the basis 

of decisions of the courts of the HKSAR. Compared with the 

British-Hong Kong era, the HKSAR has a richer source of 

law and a more robust legal system. 

Secondly, the laws previously in force have been preserved. 

According to Article 18 of the Hong Kong Basic Law, the 

laws previously in force in Hong Kong included the common 

law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and 

customary law. Prior to the handover, the Standing 

Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) 

clarified the specific contents of the Laws previously in force 

and reviewed the ordinances and subsidiary legislation 

enacted in Hong Kong, so as to preserve the vast majority of 

the legal system of the laws previously in force. [24] 

Moreover, out of respect for the spirit of the common law in 

Hong Kong, the independent judiciary and the power of final 

adjudication also provide institutional safeguards for the 

implementation of the common law. [25] As a result, the 

content and form of effect of the law remains substantially 

unchanged, although necessary changes, adaptations, 

limitations or exceptions have been made to some parts of the 

law. 

Thirdly, case law continues to dominate. Although a large 

number of laws and regulations have been enacted in the 

HKSAR since the handover, the original pattern of enactment 

and case law has not been broken, and the dominant position 

of case law in the legal system remains unchanged. [26] In 

theory, the Legislative Council of the HKSAR is the 

legislature of Hong Kong, which enacts, amends and repeals 

laws in accordance with legal procedures, including, of course, 

amending and repealing rules of law created by the courts 

through jurisprudence, thus giving precedence to the enacting 

law, but this has never happened in practice. On the contrary, 

the authoritative power of the courts to interpret the law under 

the common law tradition and the constitutional status of the 

Basic Law in the HKSAR provide considerable scope for 

‘judge-made law’, which in practice results in the need for 

enactments to be subjected to case law review before they can 

take effect. 



 

240 

5. Conclusion 

For historical reasons, and given the complex combination 

of proactive and reactive factors, the mode of criminal 

jurisdiction in the HKSAR is not static, but has had a 

distinctive trajectory at different periods of history. Cases of 

offences against national security that should be subject to the 

direct jurisdiction of the Central Authorities, as stipulated in 

Article 55 of the HKSAR National Security Law, are a very 

small minority. The normalised mode of operation of the 

HKSAR's criminal jurisdiction is a single track. Under One 

Country, Two Systems and taking into account the actual 

situation in the HKSAR, the mode of criminal jurisdiction in 

the HKSAR is clearly characterised by a single-track 

operation. The formation and development of this normalised 

mode of criminal jurisdiction in the HKSAR has its own 

specific causes, which reflect the respect and trust of the 

Central Authorities for the HKSAR, and are in line with the 

HKSAR's self-contained legal system and unique common 

law tradition. The formation and development of the 

HKSAR's criminal jurisdiction model is a product of the One 

Country, Two Systems principle. Under One Country, Two 

Systems, the HKSAR enjoys a high degree of autonomy, and 

its judicial power and power of final adjudication are 

independent of the Mainland judicial system. Moreover, the 

judicial power of the HKSAR is not only extensive, but also 

final, and the selection of judicial officers is autonomous. In 

addition, the common law tradition has had a significant 

impact on the formation and development of the HKSAR's 

model of criminal jurisdiction, and the common law 

principles of inductive reasoning and adherence to precedent 

have played an important role in Hong Kong's judicial 

practice. After the Reunification, the interaction between the 

common law of the HKSAR and the Hong Kong Basic Law 

has contributed to the convergence of the HKSAR judiciary 

with the Mainland in safeguarding national security. The 

implementation of the HKBORO signalled a shift in the mode 

of criminal jurisdiction in the HKSAR from a single-track to 

a dual-track model for the more effective defence of national 

security. This shift is not only a sign of respect for and trust in 

the judicial power of the HKSAR, but also an adaptation and 

optimisation of the HKSAR's legal system and common law 

tradition. 

References 

[1] Li Changdao, The Rule of Law in Hong Kong under One 
Country, Two Systems, in Politics and Law, No. 3, 1998, p. 7. 

[2] Xiao Weiyun, The Hong Kong Basic Law and the Great 
Practice of - Two Systems in One Country, Haitian Publishing 
House, 1993 edition, p. 116. 

[3]  Zhuang Zhenzhen and Zhu Shihai, On the Nature of the 
Highly Autonomous Right of China's Special Administrative 
Regions, in Journal of the Central Academy of Socialism, No. 
3, 2016, p. 60. 

[4] Liu Mei, Changes in Hong Kong's Judicial System under One 
Country, Two Systems, in People's Procuratorate, No. 6,1997, 
p.58. 

[5] Wang Shuwen, An Introduction to the Basic Law of the Hong 
Kong Special Administrative Region, China Democracy and 
Legal System Press,2006 edition,p.49. 

[6] Zhuang Zhenzhen and Zhu Shihai, On the Nature of the Highly 
Autonomous Right of China's Special Administrative Regions, 
in Journal of the Central Academy of Socialism, No. 3, 2016, 
p. 60. 

[7] Zhou Yezhong and Zhang Xiaoshuai, Re-examining the 
National People's Congress’ National Security Legislative 
Power over the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, in 
Journal of Jianghan University (Social Science Edition), No. 4, 
2016, p. 7. 

[8] Li Xinjian, Hong Kong Basic Law and Criminal Jurisdiction 
Involving Hong Kong, in Journal of Law, No. 4, 1990, p. 13. 

[9] Some scholars have pointed out that the connotation of 
common law generally includes three aspects: firstly, the early 
common law embodied the will of the Crown; secondly, the 
existence of case law as a counterpart to the enactment of the 
law; and thirdly, the rules of judicial application emphasising 
the adherence to precedent. Yang Xiaonan, Tradition and New 
Order: the Common Law of Hong Kong under One Country, 
Two Systems, in Journal of the National School of 
Administration, No. 4, 2017, pp. 50-51. 

[10] Huang Mingtao, Common Law Tradition and the 
Implementation of Hong Kong Basic Law, in Law Review, No. 
1, 2015, p. 39. 

[11] Chen Hongyi, Hong Kong's Legal System and the Basic Law, 
Guangjiaojing Publishing House Ltd. 1986, p. 12. 

[12] Li Honghai, Common Law Studies in China: Problems and 
Ideas, in Tsinghua Law, No. 4, 2007, p. 54. 

[13] Su Yigong: Chinese-French-Western method- Chinese Laws 
and Customs in Hong Kong, Social Science Literature 
Publishing House, 2002 edition, p. 1. 

[14] Huang Mingtao, The Common Law Tradition and the 
Implementation of the Hong Kong Basic Law, in Law Review, 
No. 1, 2015, p. 40. 

[15] Yang Xiaonan, Tradition and New Order: Hong Kong 
Common Law under One Country, Two Systems, in Journal of 
the National School of Administration, No. 4, 2017, p. 51. 

[16] Yang Xiaonan, Tradition and New Order: Hong Kong 
Common Law under One Country, Two Systems, in Journal of 
the National School of Administration, 2017, No. 4, pp. 51-52. 

[17] Cao Xudong, Gaming, Breaking Free, and Public Opinion - 
Looking Back at the Zhuang Fengyuan Case from the Double 
Non-permanent Owner Fiasco, in Politics and Law No. 6, 2012, 
pp. 21-22. 

[18] See Lo Pui Yin, The Judicial Construction of Hong Kong’s 
Basic Law: Courts, Politics and Society after 1997,Hong Kong 
University Press,2014,p.240-241. 

[19] The First Historical Archives of China: An Atlas of Hong 
Kong's Historical Issues Archives, Sanlian Bookstore (Hong 
Kong) Limited, 1996, p. 59. 

[20] See Peter Wesley-Smith, The Source of Hong Kong Law, Hong 
Kong University Press, 1994, p.207-210. 

[21] Su Yigong, Chinese Law for Western Use - Traditional 
Chinese Laws and Customs in Hong Kong, Social Science 
Literature Publishing House, 2007, p. 102. 

[22] Sun Chenggu, The Basic Law and the Political System of the 
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, World Chinese 
Publishing Organisation (Hong Kong), 2005 edition, p. 124. 

[23] Dong Likun, Hong Kong's Legal and Judicial System, 
Guangdong People's Publishing House (1992), pp. 32-36. 

[24] Xu Chongde, Learning to Speak Constitutional Law, Law Press, 
2000 edition, p. 388. 

[25] Yao Guojian, On the Influence of Common Law on the 
Implementation of the Basic Law of Hong Kong - Taking the 
Difference in the Methods of Legal Interpretation between 
Land and Hong Kong as a Perspective, in Politics and Law 
Forum, No. 4, 2011, p. 63. 



 

241 

[26] Gu Minkang, Xu Yongkang and Lin Laifan, The Past, Present 
and Future of Hong Kong's Judicial Culture: A Comparison 
with the Mainland's Judicial Culture’, in Journal of the East 

China University of Political Science and Law, No. 6, 2001, p. 
19.