检索
在线阅读 --哲学社会科学版 2020年5期《比例原则在香港法中的发展及演化》
比例原则在香港法中的发展及演化--[在线阅读]
赖文俊, 王振民
清华大学 法学院, 北京 100084
起止页码: 125--132页
DOI: 10.13763/j.cnki.jhebnu.psse.2020.05.017
摘要
比例原则是平衡公权与私权之间关系的一项重要原则。香港从港英政府提出、立法局颁布《香港人权法案条例》以来,比例原则在香港通过判例逐步发展完善,形成以《香港人权法案条例》和《中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法》为基础的比例原则审查体系。香港比例原则以正当性原则、适当性原则和必要性原则为基础,辅之以均衡性原则,同时将必要性原则进一步发展,形成不同的审查标准,以期形成格式化、标准化的审查程序规范。在香港高等法院上诉庭拒绝就《禁止蒙面规例》违宪案再次批出暂缓执行令之后,比例原则的运用再次成为争议焦点,可以说,比例原则的发展和规则的不断细化将对香港法治建设起到重要作用。

Evolution of Principle of Proportionality in Hong Kong Law
LAI Wenjun, WANG Zhenmin
School of Law, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Abstract:
As an important principle on balancing public rights and private rights, the principle of proportionality has been improved gradually by case law in Hong Kong, since Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance was promulgated by the Legislative Council of the British Hong Kong Government, forming a judicial review system based on Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the Basic Law of the HKSAR. The principle is constituted by three subprinciples, i.e. principle of legitimacy, principle of suitability, and principle of necessity, supplemented by the principle of balance. Meanwhile, with further development of the principle of necessity, different levels of examination standards are established for a more formatted and standardized judicial review procedure. After the Court of Appeal of the High Court of the HKSAR refused to made another temporary suspension order for the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, the application of the principle of proportionality becomes a hot issue again. The principle of proportionality can play an important role on the rule of law of Hong Kong.

收稿日期: 2020-03-15
基金项目:

参考文献:
[1]陈弘毅,罗沛然,杨晓楠.香港及澳门特别行政区宪法合宪性司法审查与比例原则适用之比较研究[J].港澳研究,2017(1).
[2]Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe-Part I-Title III-Union Competences-Article I-11, Celex No. 12004V011.
[3]R.(on the application of Lumsdon) v Legal Service Board,[2016] A.C.697(2015).
[4]Associated Provincial Picture Houses v.Wednesbury Corporation[1948] 1 KB 223.
[5]孙国平.英国行政法中的合理性原则与比例原则在劳动法上之适用——兼谈我国的相关实践[J].环球法律评论,2011(6).
[6]The Queen v.Sin Yau-Ming,[1992] 1 HKCLR 127(1991).
[7]郑琳.基本权利限制之限制——比例原则在香港特区合基本法审查中的发展与启示[J].财经法学,2019(6).
[8]R.v.Downey,1992 CarswellAlta 56(1992).
[9]HKSAR v Ng Kung Siu & Another,(1999) 2 HKCFAR 442(1999).
[10]Leung Kwok Hung & Others v HKSAR,(2005) 8 HKCFAR 229(2005).
[11]肖石灵.合理原则:解决积极和横向权利纠纷的更优路径[J].财经法学,2019(6).
[12]Kwok Wing Hang and Others v. Chief Executive in Council and Another,[2019] HKCA 1396, CACV 542/2019.
[13]Kong Yunming v Director of Social Welfare,(2013) 16 HKCFAR 950(2013).
[14]Kwok Cheuk Kin v Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs,[2015] 5 HKLRD 881.
[15]Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board,(2016) 19 HKCFAR 372(2016).
[16]张青波.宪法平等原则对立法分类审查的体系性标准[J].法商研究,2015(5).
[17]刘田原.美国与德国行政法中平等原则的审查模式之比较及其对中国的借鉴[J].法治社会,2018(6).
[18]刘权.均衡性原则的具体化[J].法学家,2017(2).