2016年香港立法會選舉及宣誓風波法律評析──歷史和比較法的視角

Abstract

本文首先从普通法的角度分析2016年香港法院针对立法会两位议员“辱华宣誓”案件的判决，接着从英国法、英殖时期香港本地法律及中华人民共和国法律三个方面追溯香港官员、议员和法官就职宣誓制度的历史渊源和演变,并分析了全国人大常委会就«基本法»第104条释法对香港立法会参选资格和宣誓要求的影响和效力问题.文章最后指出:持“港独”立场的政客和人士试图进入香港特别行政区的立法 机关，显然不容于«基本法»所确定的“一国两制”宪制框架及香港本地法律制度。

This paper first examines the Hong Kong court decisions that disqualified two Legislative Council members who pledged an oath that “humiliated China.” Then, it surveys the origins and development of the laws governing the oath-taking of officials, legislators, and judges in Hong Kong; this history is examined with consideration for the relevant laws in the United Kingdom, People’s Republic of China, and Hong Kong during the colonial period. This study also analyzes the impact and validity of the interpretation issued by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of Article 104 of the Hong Kong Basic Law that established the minimum qualifications of legislators and requirements for oath-taking. Based on this research, under the laws of Hong Kong and the constitutional framework of “one country, two systems,” the attempts of pro-independence politicians and individuals to become lawmakers are doomed to fail.