File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
  • Find via Find It@HKUL
Supplementary

Article: A Typography of Constitutional Arguments in Hong Kong

TitleA Typography of Constitutional Arguments in Hong Kong
Authors
Issue Date2014
PublisherSweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/
Citation
Hong Kong Law Journal, 2014, v. 44 n. 2, p. 459-482 How to Cite?
AbstractThis article explores how the Court of Final Appeal has generally appealed to five forms of constitutional arguments when interpreting the Basic Law: (1) textual arguments, (2) historical arguments, (3) purposive arguments, (4) precedential arguments and (5) consequentialist arguments. The article also argues that no constitutional theory can rely only on one particular unitary interpretive methodology (whether that exclusive source may be the text, history or precedents of the Basic Law) to resolve all constitutional disputes. After all, even within each modality or type of constitutional argument, there may be “intra-modal” conflicts, such that there can still be reasonable disagreements as to what the correct answer within that interpretive mode is. The article concludes by arguing that various types of constitutional arguments may be substantially interdependent and interrelated, such that they can dovetail with one another to reach a reasonably coherent and defensible legal result.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/208691
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.215
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.101

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYap, PJ-
dc.date.accessioned2015-03-18T09:04:48Z-
dc.date.available2015-03-18T09:04:48Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationHong Kong Law Journal, 2014, v. 44 n. 2, p. 459-482-
dc.identifier.issn0378-0600-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/208691-
dc.description.abstractThis article explores how the Court of Final Appeal has generally appealed to five forms of constitutional arguments when interpreting the Basic Law: (1) textual arguments, (2) historical arguments, (3) purposive arguments, (4) precedential arguments and (5) consequentialist arguments. The article also argues that no constitutional theory can rely only on one particular unitary interpretive methodology (whether that exclusive source may be the text, history or precedents of the Basic Law) to resolve all constitutional disputes. After all, even within each modality or type of constitutional argument, there may be “intra-modal” conflicts, such that there can still be reasonable disagreements as to what the correct answer within that interpretive mode is. The article concludes by arguing that various types of constitutional arguments may be substantially interdependent and interrelated, such that they can dovetail with one another to reach a reasonably coherent and defensible legal result.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/-
dc.relation.ispartofHong Kong Law Journal-
dc.titleA Typography of Constitutional Arguments in Hong Kong-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailYap, PJ: pjyap@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityYap, PJ=rp01274-
dc.identifier.hkuros242637-
dc.identifier.volume44-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage459-
dc.identifier.epage482-
dc.publisher.placeHong Kong-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats