全國人大制定的《立法法》在2000年實施之後, 1981年全國人大常委會通過的《關於加強法律解釋工作的決議》(《決議》) 並沒有被廢止。因此而產生的一個法律問題是,《決議》賦予全國人大常委會通過立法解釋來補充有關全國性法律的權力是否受到《立法法》對立法解釋權限規定的影響。香港終審法院在2017年重複她對該法律問題所持的觀點。本文通過討論全國人大常委會立法解釋權的演變, 以及對《立法法》立法原意的分析後指出,《立法法》的實施對全國人大常委會通過立法解釋來補充有關全國性法律, 包括《基本法》, 作出了限制。本文並對第二個鮮有人研究的另一個相關問題進行研究:《立法法》這一《基本法》框架之外的全國性法律對《基本法》解釋的影響。本文認為,《基本法》的最終解釋權在全國人大常委會, 而全國人大常委會在解釋《基本法》時, 是需要根據《立法法》的規定去解釋《基本法》的。因此, 在研究《基本法》時, 我們不僅要在《基本法》的框架之下研究《基本法》, 還需要在中國內地的憲制體制下研究《基本法》, 考慮和研究《基本法》框架之外的其他中國內地法律對《基本法》可能產生的影響。

After the 2000 Legislation Law came into effect, the 1981 Resolution of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) on Strengthening Legislative Interpretation Work was not repealed. A legal issue was raised accordingly, i.e. whether the authority granted by the Resolution to the NPCSC to supplement relevant national laws through the exercise of the authorised legislative interpretation authority was restricted by the Legislation Law. The Court of Final Appeal in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) reaffirmed its previous position in a 2017 judgment. Through discussion of the evolution of the legislative interpretation authority of the NPCSC and the analysis of the original legislative intention of the Legislation Law, this study argues that the Legislation Law has restricted the authority of the NPCSC to exercise its legislative interpretative authority to supplement any national laws, including the Basic Law. The related issue that this study examines is whether the Legislation Law, which is outside the framework of the Basic Law of the HKSAR, will affect the interpretation of the Basic Law. The final interpretation authority of the Basic Law is vested in the NPCSC. In addition, the NPCSC interprets such law according to Chinese law. Hence, the Basic Law should not only be studied under the framework of the common law system but also under the constitutional structure of mainland China. We should examine how other mainland Chinese laws may influence the interpretation of the Basic Law.