View source for Hong Kong Basic Law

{{Short description|Organic law of the Hong Kong SAR}}
{{EngvarB|date=February 2015}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2018}}
{{Infobox constitution
| document_name        = Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China
| image                = File:Basic Law of Hong Kong Cover.svg
| image_alt            = 
| caption              = Edition of the Basic Law published by the [[Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau]]
| orig_lang_code       = [[English language|English]]<br />[[Written Chinese|Chinese]]
| title_orig           =
| jurisdiction         = [[Hong Kong]]
| subordinate_to       = [[Constitution of the People's Republic of China]]
| date_created         = 4 April 1990
| date_presented       =
| date_ratified        =
| date_effective       = 1 July 1997
| system               =
| branches             =
| chambers             =
| executive            =
| courts               =
| federalism           =
| number_entrenchments =
| date_legislature     =
| date_first_executive =
| date_first_court     =
| number_amendments    =
| date_last_amended    =
| location_of_document =
| commissioned         =
| writer               = [[Hong Kong Basic Law Drafting Committee]]
| signers              = [[Yang Shangkun]], [[President of the People's Republic of China]]
| media_type           =
| supersedes           =
}}
{{Infobox Chinese
| c = 香港基本法
| p = Xiānggǎng Jīběnfǎ
| j = Hoeng1 gong2 gei1 bun2 faat3
| y = Hēung góng gēi bún faat
| altname = Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China
| t2 = 中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法
| s2 = 中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法
| p2 = Zhōnghúa Rénmín Gònghéguó Xiānggǎng Tèbié Xíngzhèngqū Jīběnfǎ<br><nowiki>[</nowiki>{{Audio|Chinese-HongKongBasicLaw.ogg|Listen}}<nowiki>]</nowiki>
| j2 = Zung1 waa4 jan4 man4 gung6 wo4 gwok3 Hoeng1 gong2 dak6 bit6 hang4 zing3 keoi1 gei1 bun2 faat3
| y2 = Jūng wàh yàhn màhn guhn gwòh gwok Hēung góng dahk biht hàhng jing kēui gēi bún faat
}}
{{Politics of Hong Kong}}

The '''Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China''' is a Chinese national law that describes the system of government of [[Hong Kong]] as a [[Special administrative regions of China|Special Administrative Region]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lim |first1=C.L. |last2=Chan |first2=Johannes |author-link2=Johannes Chan |editor-last1=Chan |editor-first1=Johannes |editor-last2=Lim |editor-first2=C.L. |title=Law of the Hong Kong Constitution |publisher=[[Sweet & Maxwell]] |date=2015 |chapter=Autonomy and Central-Local Relations |edition=2nd |isbn=978-9-626-61673-4}}</ref>{{rp|55}}<ref name="NgKaLing">{{cite court |litigants=Ng Ka Ling and Another v The Director of Immigration|vol=2 |reporter= HKCFAR|opinion=4|court=Hong Kong Court of Appeal |date=1999}}</ref>{{rp|at=63}} With nine chapters, 160 articles, and three annexes, the law implements the basic policies declared by China in the 1984 [[Sino-British Joint Declaration]] that would apply to Hong Kong once British colonial rule ends in 1997.<ref name="Lo2020">{{cite book|date=2020|title=The Hong Kong Legal System |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=o2_CDwAAQBAJ |location=Hong Kong |publisher= Cambridge University Press |isbn= 9781108721820|edition=2nd|last1=Lo|first1=Stefan H. C.|last2=Cheng|first2=Kevin Kwok-yin |last3=Chui |first3=Wing Hong|doi=10.1017/9781108634687|chapter=Sources of Law}}</ref>{{rp|91}}

Under the law's basic principle of "[[one country, two systems]]", the socialist system and policies of China are excluded from Hong Kong. Instead, Hong Kong will continue its [[capitalist system]] and way of life from before 1997 for at least 50 years in 2047.<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Art 5}}</ref> As an [[organic law]], the Basic Law also describes sources of [[Law of Hong Kong|law]], the branches of government, the relationship between Hong Kong and the Chinese [[State Council of the People's Republic of China|Central Government]] (State Council), and the fundamental rights and duties of Hong Kong residents.

The drafting process began in 1985. The law was enacted by the [[National People's Congress]] on 4 April 1990 and took effect on 1 July 1997 after the [[handover of Hong Kong]]. It replaced the [[Hong Kong Letters Patent|Letters Patent]] and the [[Hong Kong Royal Instructions|Royal Instructions]] as Hong Kong's main constitutional document.<ref>{{cite book |last=Chan |first=Johannes |author-link=Johannes Chan |editor-last1=Chan |editor-first1=Johannes |editor-last2=Lim |editor-first2=C.L. |title=Law of the Hong Kong Constitution |publisher=[[Sweet & Maxwell]] |date=2015 |chapter=From Colony to Special Administrative Region |edition=2nd |isbn=978-9-626-61673-4}}</ref>{{rp|9}} As such, the Basic Law has been referred to as Hong Kong's "mini constitution".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Lai|first1=Yan-ho|last2=Sing|first2=Ming|chapter=Democratic Development in Hong Kong|title=Contemporary Hong Kong Government and Politics|edition=3|editor1-last=Lam|editor1-first=Wai-man|editor2-first=Percy Luen-tim |editor2-last=Lui|editor3-first=Wilson |editor3-last=Wong|year=2024|publisher=Hong Kong University Press}}</ref>{{rp|161}}<ref>{{cite journal|title=Constitutional Biography of Hong Kong and Ambiguities of One Country, Two Systems Policy|last=Husa|first=Jaakko|journal=The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law|volume=9|issue=2|date=September 2021|pages=268–287 |doi=10.1093/cjcl/cxab014|doi-access=free|language=en}}</ref>

== History ==
[[Qing dynasty|Qing China]] ceded [[Hong Kong Island]] and parts of the [[Kowloon Peninsula]] to the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]] after it was defeated in the [[Opium Wars]] of the mid-19th century. The British government then obtained a 99-year lease of the [[New Territories]] in 1898, which expanded the colony of Hong Kong for the final time. Chinese governments following the Qing Empire's collapse in 1911 refer to these agreements as "[[unequal treaties]]" and were invalid.

In 1982, Chinese and British officials separately began to meet Hong Kong business and political elites in Hong Kong. In September, [[Deng Xiaoping]] met Thatcher in Beijing and told her that China's sovereignty over Hong Kong was not negotiable, but both agreed to begin diplomatic discussions.<ref name="Mark2015"/> The Chinese government then declared that it would "resume exercising sovereignty" in Hong Kong in 1997 peacefully while maintaining Hong Kong's stability and standing in the global economy.<ref name="Han2017"/>{{rp|87-88}} Diplomatic efforts resulted in the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984 to prepare for sovereignty over Hong Kong to be transferred from the United Kingdom to China in 1997.

Shortly after, the National People's Congress created the [[Hong Kong Basic Law Drafting Committee|Basic Law Drafting Committee]] (BLDC) in 1985.<ref name="Cheng1989">{{cite journal |last1= Cheng|first1= Joseph Y. S.|author-link=Joseph Cheng|date= 1 July 1989 |title=The Democracy Movement in Hong Kong |journal=International Affairs |volume=65 |issue=3 |pages= 443–462|doi=10.2307/2621722|jstor= 2621722}}</ref>{{rp|444}} In June, the [[Standing Committee of the National People's Congress]] (NPCSC) approved the BLDC of 36 members from China and 23 members from Hong Kong,{{r|Cheng1989|p=444}} chaired by Chinese diplomat [[Ji Pengfei]]. Twelve of the 23 Hong Kong members were connected to the city's business and industrial sectors.<ref name="Lo1992">{{cite journal |last1= Lo|first1= Shiu Hing|date= June 1992 |title=The Politics of Cooptation in Hong Kong: A Study of the Basic Law Drafting Process|journal=Asian Journal of Public Administration |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages= 3–24|doi=10.1080/02598272.1992.10800260}}</ref>{{rp|11}}{{r|Cheng1989|p=444}}

The [[Hong Kong Basic Law Consultative Committee|Basic Law Consultative Committee]] (BLCC) composed of 180 Hong Kong community leaders was also established in the same year to collect views on the draft law in Hong Kong. Similar to the BLDC, the BLCC was also dominated by business and professional elites.<ref name="Chu2000">{{cite journal |last1=Chu |first1=Yik-yi |title=The failure of the united front policy: The involvement of business in the drafting of Hong Kong's Basic Law, 1985–1990 |journal=Asian Perspective |date=2000 |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=173–198 |jstor= 42704264 |issn=0258-9184}}</ref>{{rp|174}}<ref name="Chen2022">{{cite book|title= Routledge Handbook of Constitutional Law in Greater China |editor1-first=Ngoc Son|editor1-last=Bui |editor2-first=Stuart|editor2-last=Hargreaves|editor3-first=Ryan|editor3-last=Mitchell|date=2022|doi=10.4324/9781003128243|chapter=The History of the Drafting and Implementation of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region |last=Chen|first=Albert H.Y. |isbn=978-1-003-12824-3 }}</ref>

The first draft was published in April 1988 followed by a five-month public consultation exercise. The second draft was published in February 1989, and the subsequent consultation period ended in October 1989. The Basic Law was promulgated on 4 April 1990 by the National People's Congress, together with the designs for the [[Regional Flag of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region|flag]] and [[Regional Emblem of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region|emblem]] of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR).

On 4 June 1989, the BLDC's only two members representing the nascent [[Pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong|pro-democracy camp]], [[Martin Lee]] and [[Szeto Wah]], suspended their participation after the military crackdown of the [[Tiananmen Square protests|Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]].{{r|Lo1992|p=23}} Lee and Szeto had voiced support for student activists in Beijing and had led the [[Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China]], an organisation instrumental in assisting political dissidents leave China after the military crackdown on 4 June.<ref name="Chang1992">{{cite journal |last1= Chang|first1= Parris H.|date=January 1992 |title=China's Relations with Hong Kong and Taiwan |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science|volume=519 |pages= 127–139|doi= 10.1177/0002716292519001010|jstor= 1046758|s2cid= 145325099}}</ref>{{rp|131–132}} In September, Lee returned to the BLDC after being urged to do so by many in Hong Kong.{{r|Lo1992|p=23}} However, Beijing expelled Lee and Szeto from the BLDC in October and called them "subversives".{{r|Lo1992|p=15}}

== Basic principles ==
The basic principles of Hong Kong's governance under Chinese sovereignty mirror those in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and most of them are described in the first chapter of the Basic Law. The NPCSC has identified Articles 1 and 12 as the fundamental provisions of the Basic Law.<ref>{{cite act |title=Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region|pinpoint=Art 2}}</ref>

Article 1 states that Hong Kong as a part of the People's Republic of China but maintains legal and political systems separate from those in mainland China until 2047.<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Arts 5 and 8}}</ref> Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy and maintains its own executive, legislative and judicial branches.<ref name=chap1>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Ch 1}}</ref> Judicial power includes final adjudication, which replaces the colonial judicial recourse of appealing to the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] in the United Kingdom with appeals to the [[Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal|Court of Final Appeal]]. The [[2020 Hong Kong national security law|Hong Kong national security law]] incorporated into Annex III of the Basic Law overrides incompatible local ordinances and allows mainland Chinese courts to preside over cases that involve certain national security crimes.

Article 5 requires that the socialist system and policies to not be practised in Hong Kong and the capitalist system and way of life before the handover remain for 50 years after the handover, or 2047.<ref name=chap1 /> The [[common law]], rules of [[Equity (law)|equity]], ordinances, [[Subsidiary legislation in Hong Kong|subsidiary legislation]] and [[customary law]] that govern certain land rights in the [[New Territories]] that were in force before the handover are maintained, except for any that contravene the Basic Law and subject to any amendment by the legislature.<ref name=chap1 />

Article 12 declares that Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy and comes directly under the Central People's Government.

Private ownership of [[private property|property]] is also a right protected in Hong Kong.<ref name=chap1 />

Although the Basic Law was drafted to give effect to "One Country, Two Systems", on 10 June 2014, Beijing released a policy report asserting its authority over Hong Kong that started a conflict between "one country" and "two systems" by stating that the interests of China ("one country") should prevail over Hong Kong's constitutional autonomy ("two systems").<ref name="Full text">{{cite web|url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-06/10/c_133396891.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140618174143/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-06/10/c_133396891.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=18 June 2014|title=Full Text: The Practice of the "One Country, Two Systems" Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region |agency=Xinhua News Agency}}</ref> This ignited criticism from many people in Hong Kong, who said that the Communist leadership was undermining the Basic Law Article 8, in that it was reneging on its pledges to abide by the policy that allows for a democratic, autonomous Hong Kong under Beijing's rule.<ref>{{cite web|last=Wong|first=Alan|date=11 June 2014|title=Beijing's 'White Paper' Sets Off a Firestorm in Hong Kong|url=https://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/beijings-white-paper-sets-off-a-firestorm-in-hong-kong/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140618000943/http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/sinosphere/2014/06/11/beijings-white-paper-sets-off-a-firestorm-in-hong-kong/|archive-date=18 June 2014|access-date=23 June 2014|work=The New York Times|df=dmy-all}}</ref>

== Autonomy under Chinese sovereignty ==
The Basic Law guarantees Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy under Chinese rule, with the exception of foreign affairs and defence which remains the purview of the Central People's Government.<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Art 13 and 14}}</ref> <!-- The limits of Hong Kong's autonomy is subject to debate. [[Albert Chen]] suggests that various powers of the NPCSC limits the degree of autonomy guaranteed by law. These powers include the right to revoke Hong Kong legislation, apply national laws to Hong Kong and interpret and amend the Basic Law.<ref name="Chen1994">{{cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Albert H. Y. |title=Some Reflections on Hong Kong's Autonomy |journal=Hong Kong Law Journal |date=1994 |volume=24 |issue=2}}</ref>{{rp|174–175}}{{rp|176–177}} -->

=== Central government agencies in Hong Kong ===
Four agencies of the [[State Council of the People's Republic of China|central government]] operate in Hong Kong. The [[Office of the Commissioner (Hong Kong)|Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs]] was established under Article 13 of the Basic Law and began operating after the handover. The [[Hong Kong Liaison Office|Liaison Office of the Central People's Government]] replaced in 2000 the Hong Kong branch of [[Xinhua News Agency]], which served as the ''de facto'' diplomatic mission of China to Hong Kong since 1947. The [[Hong Kong Garrison|Hong Kong Garrison of the People's Liberation Army]] began operating after the handover. The [[Office for Safeguarding National Security]] was established in June 2020 under the Hong Kong National Security Law.

Article 22 states that "no department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law".<ref name="BLCh2">{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Ch 2}}</ref>

In April 2020, the provision sparked a debate after the [[Hong Kong Liaison Office|Liaison Office]] and the [[Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office]] criticised pro-democratic legislators for delaying the election of the chairperson of the Legislative Council House Committee.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Ho |first1=Kelly |title=Hong Kong democrats reject Beijing's warning over legislative stalling tactics as 'interference' |url=https://hongkongfp.com/2020/04/14/hong-kong-democrats-reject-beijings-warning-over-legislative-stalling-tactics-as-interference/ |access-date=13 May 2020 |work=Hong Kong Free Press |date=14 April 2020}}</ref> Pro-democratic legislators said the offices violated Article 22 by commenting on the election of a chairperson in the local legislature. In response, the Liaison Office said both itself and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office are not subject to Article 22 because they were authorised by central authorities to specialize in handling Hong Kong affairs and not what are commonly meant by "departments under the Central People’s Government".<ref>{{cite news |date= 17 April 2020|title= Liaison Office 'not subject to Article 22'|url= https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1521237-20200417.htm|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200427043555/https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1521237-20200417.htm|url-status= dead|archive-date= 27 April 2020|work= RTHK |location= Hong Kong |access-date= 17 April 2020}}</ref><ref name="LOCPG 20200417">{{cite web |url=http://www.locpg.gov.cn/jsdt/2020-04/17/c_1210563621.htm |title=香港中联办发言人：所谓"中央干预香港内部事务"是对基本法的故意曲解 |trans-title=Liaison Office spokesperson: So-called "central government interfering Hong Kong's internal affairs" is an intentional misinterpretation of the Basic Law |script-work=zh:中央人民政府驻香港特别行政区联络办公室 |trans-work=Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region |date=17 April 2020 |script-quote=zh:国务院港澳办和香港中联办是中央授权专责处理香港事务的机构，不是基本法第二十二条所指的一般意义上的“中央人民政府所属各部门” |trans-quote=Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office and the Liaisonn Office are organs authorized by the central government to specialize in handling Hong Kong affairs, not what are commonly meant by "departments belonging to the Central People's Government" referred to by Article 22 of the Basic Law}}.</ref>

[[Zhang Xiaoming]] has also said the Office of the National Security Commissioner is not subject to the restrictions in Article 22.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Ng |first1=Teddy |last2=Ng |first2=Joyce |last3=Mai |first3=Jun |last4=Cheung |first4=Tony |title=National security law upholds 'one country, two systems' in Hong Kong: Beijing |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3091307/national-security-law-will-plug-hong-kong-loopholes |access-date=1 July 2020 |work=South China Morning Post |date=1 July 2020 |language=en}}</ref>

=== Effect of national laws ===
Except the Basic Law and the Constitution,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Zhu |first1=Jie |last2=Zhang |first2=Xiaoshan |title=Critique of Hong Kong Nativism: From a Legal Perspective |date=2019 |publisher=Springer |location=Singapore |isbn=978-981-13-3344-6 |doi=10.1007/978-981-13-3344-6_8|chapter=On Shaping and Consolidating the Basic Law Identification|s2cid=159132732 }}</ref>{{rp|124}} national laws are not enforced in Hong Kong unless they are listed in Annex III and applied by local [[promulgation]] or legislation. When national laws are enacted locally by the [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong|Legislative Council]], the local version adapts to the context of Hong Kong for the national law to have full effect.<ref name="BLHandbook">{{cite book |last1=Ramsden |first1=Michael |last2=Hargreaves |first2=Stuart |editor1-last=Bokhary |editor1-first=Kemal |editor1-link=Kemal Bokhary |title=Hong Kong Basic Law Handbook |date=2018 |publisher=Sweet & Maxwell |edition=2nd}}</ref>{{rp|para. 18.2}} The NPCSC can amend legislation included in Annex III after consulting its [[Hong Kong Basic Law Committee|Basic Law Committee]] and the Hong Kong government. Laws in Annex III must be those related to foreign affairs, national defence or matters not within Hong Kong's autonomy.<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Art 18}}</ref>

As of June 2020, Annex III includes laws on the designation of [[capital city|capital]], national flag and anthem, territorial claims, nationality, diplomatic privileges and immunity, garrisoning of the People's Liberation Army and crimes involving national security. In May 2020, the [[National People's Congress]] announced that the NPCSC would enact a national security law tailored for Hong Kong in response to the [[2019–20 Hong Kong protests]]. The law was added to Annex III and promulgated without being passed in the Legislative Council.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Cheung |first1=Gary |title=Beijing loses patience and pushes ahead with Hong Kong national security law |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3085412/two-sessions-2020-how-far-will-beijing-go-push-article-23 |access-date=23 May 2020 |work=South China Morning Post |date=21 May 2020 |language=en}}</ref>

National laws can be applied if they only affect an area in Hong Kong. In 2018, the [[Hong Kong West Kowloon railway station|Hong Kong West Kowloon station]] of the [[Guangzhou–Shenzhen–Hong Kong Express Rail Link]] was completed to include a section where mainland Chinese officials are allowed to exercise Chinese laws, an arrangement that intended to reduce the time needed for immigration.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Pomfret |first1=James |title=Unscheduled departure: China's legal reach extends to Hong Kong rail station |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-china-rail/unscheduled-departure-chinas-legal-reach-extends-to-hong-kong-rail-station-idUSKCN1LK0J4 |access-date=24 May 2020 |work=Reuters |date=4 September 2018 |language=en}}</ref> The effectiveness of Chinese law inside Hong Kong territory was challenged in the same year in the Court of First Instance.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Leung Chung Hang Sixtus v President of Legislative Council |litigants-force-plain= yes|vol= 1|reporter= HKLRD|opinion= 292|pinpoint= |court=Hong Kong Court of First Instance|date=2019}}</ref> The court ruled that the Basic Law is a flexible constitution and as such can be interpreted for the needs of economic integration; the arrangement of having mainland Chinese laws in Hong Kong for the purposes of customs, immigration and quarantine does not contravene the "one country, two systems" principle.<ref name="BLHandbook"/>{{rp|para. 18.3}}

=== National security law ===
[[Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23|Article 23]] requires Hong Kong to enact local [[national security]] laws that prohibit treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the central government, theft of state secrets and foreign organisations from conducting political activities in Hong Kong. In 2003, the Hong Kong government tabled the [[National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003]], which triggered [[Hong Kong July 1 marches|widespread protest]]. The proposed legislation gave more power to the police, such as not requiring a search warrant to search the home of a suspected terrorist. After the demonstrations and the withdrawal by the [[Liberal Party (Hong Kong)|Liberal Party]] of their support for the bill, the government shelved the bill indefinitely.

In 2024, the Hong Kong enacted the [[Safeguarding National Security Ordinance]] to implement Article 23. The bill includes five areas of national security crimes: treason, insurrection and incitement to mutiny, theft of state secrets and espionage, sabotage, and external interference.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Chan |first1=Marcelo |last2=Wong |first2=Dennis |last3=Heung |first3=Sammy |last4=Chan| first4=Kahon |title=All you need to know about Hong Kong’s domestic security law |url=https://multimedia.scmp.com/infographics/news/hong-kong/article/3254557/article23law/index.html |website=South China Morning Post |access-date=4 August 2025 |language=en}}</ref>

== Fundamental rights and duties ==
The rights of Hong Kong residents are guaranteed by chapter 3 of the Basic Law. Article 39 also applies provisions of the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] (ICCPR), the [[International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]] (ICESCR), and international labour conventions that was in force in Hong Kong before the handover.<ref name=chap3>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Ch 3}}</ref> While the most parts of the ICCPR is ratified as the [[Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance]] in largely identical language,<ref name="Panditaratne2015">{{cite book |last=Panditaratne |first=Dinusha|editor-last1=Chan |editor-first1=Johannes |editor-last2=Lim |editor-first2=C.L. |title=Law of the Hong Kong Constitution |publisher=Sweet & Maxwell |date=2015 |chapter=Basic Law, Hong Kong Bill of Rights and the ICCPR |edition=2nd |isbn=978-9-626-61673-4}}</ref>{{rp|527}} no equivalent legislation was made to implement the ICESCR.

=== Civil rights ===
[[File:Hong Kong 1st July marches in 2016 (12).jpg|thumb|Annual demonstrations for various causes were common until a ban on gatherings during the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] and the [[2020 Hong Kong national security law|Hong Kong national security law]] took effect in 2020.|alt=Hundreds of people marching down a road in Hong Kong next to roadside banners of different political parties on 1 July 2016.]]

Hong Kong residents are equal before the law. Hong Kong residents have, among other things, [[freedom of speech]], [[freedom of the press]] and of publication; [[freedom of association]], [[freedom of assembly]], freedom of procession, of demonstration, of communication, of movement, of conscience, of religious belief, and of marriage; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to [[Strike action|strike]].<ref name=chap3 /> The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable. No Hong Kong resident can be arbitrarily or unlawfully arrested, [[Detention (Imprisonment)|detained]] or imprisoned. Arbitrary or unlawful search of the body of any resident, deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person are also prohibited. Torture of any resident and arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of the life of any resident shall be prohibited.<ref name=chap3 />

In late 2015, five staff members of a bookshop selling books and magazines banned in mainland China disappeared (see [[Causeway Bay Books disappearances]]). At least two of them disappeared while in [[mainland China]], one while in [[Thailand]]. One member was last seen in Hong Kong, eventually reappearing in [[Shenzhen]], across the Chinese border, without the necessary travel documents. While reaction to the October disappearances was muted, as unexplained disappearances and lengthy [[extrajudicial detention]]s are known to occur in mainland China,<ref name=bigstory1>{{cite web|url=http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:acf943c14a5049e99aa1ab61bb9965dd|title=Hong Kong unsettled by case of 5 missing booksellers|agency=Associated Press|work=The Big Story|date=3 January 2016|access-date=10 January 2016|archive-date=4 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304114649/http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:acf943c14a5049e99aa1ab61bb9965dd|url-status=dead}}</ref> the unprecedented disappearance of a person from Hong Kong, and the bizarre events surrounding it, shocked the city and crystallised international concern over the possible abduction of Hong Kong citizens by [[Chinese public security bureau]] officials and their likely [[extraordinary rendition|rendition]], in violation of several articles of the Basic Law and the [[one country, two systems]] principle.<ref name=20160105nytimes>{{cite web|last1=Forsythe|first1=Michael|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/world/asia/mighty-current-media-hong-kong-lee-bo.html|title=Disappearance of 5 Tied to Publisher Prompts Broader Worries in Hong Kong|date=5 January 2016|work=The New York Times}}</ref><ref name=20160107guardianpull>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/07/hong-kong-bookshops-pull-politically-sensitive-titles-after-publishers-vanish|title=Hong Kong bookshops pull politically sensitive titles after publishers vanish|author=Ilaria Maria Sala|work=The Guardian|date=7 January 2016}}</ref><ref name=20160105ejinsightunanswered>{{cite web|url=http://www.ejinsight.com/20160105-unanswered-questions-about-the-missing-booksellers/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108082609/http://www.ejinsight.com/20160105-unanswered-questions-about-the-missing-booksellers/|url-status=dead|archive-date=8 January 2016|title=Unanswered questions about the missing booksellers|work=EJ Insight|date=5 January 2016}}</ref> The widespread suspicion that they were under detention in mainland China was later confirmed with apparently scripted video "confessions" and assurances by the men that they were remaining in China of their own accord.<ref name=20160107guardianpull/> In June 2016, one of the five, [[Lam Wing-kee]], said he and the others had been detained without [[due process]] and that Lee Po had been illegally abducted from Hong Kong by a "Central Investigation Team".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/06/20/be-warned-the-booksellers-ordeal-in-china-could-happen-to-any-of-us/|title=All in it together: The bookseller's ordeal in China could happen to any of us|website=Hong Kong Free Press|date=20 June 2016|last1=Ng|first1=Jason Y.}}</ref>

Article 95 provides for mutual judicial assistance between Hong Kong and mainland China; however, serious stumbling blocks, such as capital punishment stand in the way of a formal understanding of [[extradition]]. Additionally, Hong Kong authorities have ruled that Articles 6 and 7 of the Chinese Criminal Law does not give Hong Kong sole jurisdiction in criminal matters, particularly when a crime is committed across provincial or SAR borders. The current status quo is that Hong Kong will ask for the return of Hong Kong residents who have committed crimes in Hong Kong and are arrested in the mainland. A mainland Chinese resident who commits a crime in Hong Kong and flees back to the mainland, however, will be tried in the mainland. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the Central Government has demanded that the trial be held in the mainland. Prominent authorities, such as Albert Chen and [[Gladys Li]], said that this situation had serious ramifications for [[judicial independence]] in Hong Kong.

=== Political rights ===
Permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have the right to vote and stand for election in accordance with the Basic Law.<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Art 26}}</ref> Provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong when the Basic Law came into effect were allowed to remain in force.<ref>{{cite act |title=Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance |type=Chapter|number=383|pinpoint=s 8, art 21}}</ref>

[[Hong Kong Basic Law Article 45|Article 45]] stipulates that the Chief Executive shall be selected by election or through local consultations and be appointed by the Central People's Government, with the ultimate aim of selection by universal suffrage upon nomination by a representative committee under democratic procedures."<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Art 45}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Albert H.Y. |title=The Law and Politics of the Struggle for Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong, 2013–15 |journal=Asian Journal of Law and Society |date=2016 |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=189–207 |doi=10.1017/als.2015.21|doi-access=free }}</ref>{{rp|190}} However, Hong Kong has yet to implement universal suffrage for the elections, because the Basic Law states that the electoral method are subject to the "actual situation" of Hong Kong and "the principle of gradual and orderly progress".<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Arts 45(2) and 68(2)}}</ref>

Whether the 2007 chief executive election and the 2008 Legislative Council elections could be performed by universal suffrage was determined on 26 April 2004, when the NPCSC ruled out the possibility as it deemed Hong Kong not mature enough for such elections.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Leung |first1=Ambrose |title=HK lacks maturity for direct elections, state officials rule |url=https://www.scmp.com/article/453666/hk-lacks-maturity-direct-elections-state-officials-rule |access-date=15 October 2020 |work=South China Morning Post |date=27 April 2004 |language=en}}</ref>

In 2014, the [[2014 NPCSC Decision on Hong Kong|31 August Decision]] by the NPCSC stated that starting from 2017, the selection of the Chief Executive may be implemented by universal suffrage upon nomination of candidates by a broadly representative committee and subject to appointment by the Central People's Government.<ref name="GovHK2014NPCSC">{{cite act |title=Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by Universal Suffrage and on the Method for Forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the Year 2016 |url=https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/images/basiclawtext_doc25.pdf| legislature=Standing Committee of the National People's Congress|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225111909/https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/images/basiclawtext_doc25.pdf |archive-date=2021-02-25 |url-status=dead}}</ref> It went on to state that such a person must love the country and love Hong Kong and that safeguards for this purpose should be provided for by the specific method of universal suffrage, without specifying what the safeguards were to be.<ref name="GovHK2014NPCSC" /> The [[2014–15 Hong Kong electoral reform|reform proposal]] encompassing this and other changes was rejected by the Legislative Council on June 18, 2015, after some pro-establishment legislators walked out.<ref name="OrientalOnCC20150618">{{cite web |url=https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20150618/bkn-20150618173327843-0618_00822_001.html |script-title=zh:政改否決：建制派拉隊離場 東網3分鐘實錄 |trans-title=Electoral Reform Rejected: Pro-establishment camp walk-out 3-minute live recording by On.cc |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=June 18, 2015 |website=On.cc 東網 |access-date=March 30, 2021 |script-quote=zh:其後，林突然站起，呼籲建制派議員walk out(離開議事廳)，期望透過點算法定人數，爭取時間，讓劉皇發能及時趕回投票。民建聯即響應拉大隊離場，新民黨及大部分工聯會議員見狀亦跟隨離開，惟同屬工聯會的陳婉嫻(嫻姐)，以及自由黨議員卻仍然坐於座位上，未有跟隊。 |trans-quote=Afterwards, Lam suddenly stood up and called for pro-establishment legislators to walk out, hoping to gain some time from a quorum roll call and that Lau Wong-fat could return in time to cast his vote. The DAB followed and departed in large numbers, along with the New People's Party and most of the HKFTU legislators; only Chan Yuen-han of HKFTU and legislators of the Liberal Party remained.}}</ref>

== Political structure ==
The courts of Hong Kong are given the power to [[judicial review in Hong Kong|review]] acts of the executive or legislature and declare them invalid if they are inconsistent with the Basic Law.

The Chief Executive of Hong Kong can be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

The term of the chief executive after their predecessor resigns was a question that emerged after [[Tung Chee-hwa]] resigned on 10 March 2005. The legal community and the pro-democracy camp said the term of the new chief executive should be five years, according to [[Hong Kong Basic Law Article 46|Article 46]]. However, the Hong Kong government, some Beijing figures{{who|date=May 2020}} and the pro-Beijing camp said that it should be the remaining term of the original Chief Executive, by a technicality in the Chinese version of the Basic Law, introducing the remaining term concept. The Hong Kong government sought an interpretation from the NPCSC on 6 April. The NPCSC ruled on 27 April that the Annex I of the Basic Law requires that if any Chief Executive should resign on or before 2007, the new Chief Executive should serve out the remainder of his predecessor's term. Hong Kong residents{{who|date=May 2020}} who favour autonomy view the "interpretation" from the Standing Committee as an intrusion into the Hong Kong legal system by the central government in violation of the spirit of the One Country, Two Systems policy, compromising the rule of law.{{citation needed|date=May 2020}}

The Basic Law also guarantees the welfare and benefits of civil servants. According to the Article 100 of the Basic Law, the civil servants may remain in employment with pay, allowances, benefits and conditions of service no less favourable than before the handover. Article 107 stated the SAR Government should follow the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget. Whether pay-cuts for civil servants and having a deficit budget are allowed under the Basic Law had been raised. During the economic downturn after 1997, there was a growing fiscal deficit (and, in 2007/08 a record surplus). The government imposed a pay-cut on the Civil Service during the economic downturn, and then sharply increased salaries during the recovery.

== External affairs ==
The Basic Law provides the Hong Kong government limited power to engage in international affairs. Under the name "Hong Kong, China", the Hong Kong government can enter into bilateral agreements with non-Chinese regions and international organisations related to certain fields, including commerce, trade, communications, culture, tourism and sports.<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Art 151}}</ref> As members of a Chinese delegation, government representatives can also engage in diplomatic negotiations and participate in international organisations and conferences that directly affect Hong Kong.<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Art 150 and 152}}</ref>

== Interpretation ==
The Basic Law can be interpreted either by the NPCSC or Hong Kong courts when deciding cases.<ref name="Chen2006">{{Cite journal |last=Chen |first=Albert H. Y. |year=2006 |title=Constitutional Adjudication in Post-1997 Hong Kong |journal=Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal |volume=15 |issue=3|url=https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol15/iss3/2/}}</ref>{{rp|636}} However, the courts can only interpret parts of the Basic Law that are within Hong Kong's autonomy<ref name="Chen2006"/>{{rp|679}} and are required to follow interpretations from the standing committee.<ref name="Chen2006"/>{{rp|636}} As interpretations by the NPCSC are not retroactive,<ref name="BL158(3)" /> they do not affect cases that have already been decided.

As of May 2025, the NPCSC has interpreted the Basic Law on five occasions:

*Interpretation regarding Articles 22(4) and 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law, adopted on 26 June 1999 with relations to the [[Right of abode in Hong Kong|right of abode]];
*Interpretation regarding Annex I(7) and Annex II(III) to the Basic Law, adopted on April 6, 2004, over the procedure of amending the [[Elections in Hong Kong|electoral methods]] of the Chief Executive and Legislative Council;
*Interpretation regarding the Second Paragraph in Article 53, adopted on April 27, 2005, regarding the [[Hong Kong Basic Law Article 46|term of office]] of a new [[Chief Executive of Hong Kong|Chief Executive]] succeeding a resigned predecessor;
* Interpretation regarding the First Paragraph of Article 13 and Article 19 of the Basic Law, adopted on August 26, 2011, before the [[Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal]] hands down its judgment on ''Democratic Republic of Congo v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC''; and
* Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law, adopted on 7 November 2016), regarding the requirements of lawful oaths and affirmations surrounding the [[Hong Kong Legislative Council oath-taking controversy|oath-taking controversy over newly elected LegCo members]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Ramsden |first1=Michael |last2=Hargreaves |first2=Stuart |date=2019|title=Hong Kong Basic Law Handbook|publisher=Sweet & Maxwell/Thomson Reuter|location=Hong Kong|edition=2nd }}</ref>

Only one interpretation was sought by the Court of Final Appeal. The interpretation was requested in the 2011 case of ''Democratic Republic of Congo v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC'' and it concerned the jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts over acts of state, among other matters. The [[Government of Hong Kong]] sought two NPCSC interpretations on Basic Law provisions regarding the [[Right of abode in Hong Kong|right of abode]] and the term of office of a new [[Chief Executive of Hong Kong|Chief Executive]] after his predecessor has resigned before the end of his term, in 1999 and 2005 respectively. The NPCSC had also interpreted the Basic Law twice on its own initiative, without being requested by any branch of government in Hong Kong. The first of the two occurred in 2004, and concerned the amendment of the chief executive and the [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong|Legislative Council]] election methods for 2007 and 2008 respectively. The second was issued in November 2016 on the substantive requirements of lawful oaths and affirmations as stipulated in Article 104 of the Basic Law.

It has been argued that the NPCSC's interpretations are effectively amendments. Hong Kong courts have nonetheless found NPCSC interpretations to have "supplementary" legislative effects in a manner consistent with Chinese jurisprudence. Similarly, the NPCSC's interpretive power could be used to modify a nearly unrestricted range of local laws without recourse by either Hong Kong courts or the government.{{sfn|Ramsden|Hargreaves|2019}}

=== Legal principles ===
The basic principles for interpreting the Basic Law are described in Article 158 and case law. According to Article 158(1), the NPCSC has the power of final interpretation. This is consistent with the NPCSC's general power to interpret Chinese national laws as provided by Article 67(4) of the [[Constitution of the People's Republic of China]].<ref name="ChongFungYuen">{{cite court |litigants= Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen|vol=4 |reporter= HKCFAR|opinion=211|court=Hong Kong Court of Appeal |date=2001}}</ref>{{rp|222}} As a national law, the Basic Law was drafted in Chinese, and its Chinese version takes precedence over the official English version when discrepancies arise.<ref name="Chan2007">{{cite journal |last1=Chan |first1=Johannes |title=Basic Law and Constitutional Review: The First Decade |journal=Hong Kong Law Journal |date=2007 |volume=37 |issue=2|url=https://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/87975/3/content.pdf}}</ref>{{rp|408}} Before interpreting the Basic Law, the NPCSC must consult its subcommittee, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Art 158(4)}}</ref>

Hong Kong courts may also interpret the Basic Law when adjudicating cases, when the provisions addressed are within Hong Kong's autonomy.<ref name="BL158(3)">{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Art 158(3)}}</ref> Hong Kong courts can also interpret provisions on matters the Central People's Government is responsible for or those related to the relationship between the Central government and Hong Kong, provided that the case is being heard by the CFA, that the interpretation will affect the judgments of the case, and that the CFA has sought a binding NPCSC interpretation on the matter.<ref name="BL158(3)"/>

To decide whether an NPCSC interpretation should be sought, the CFA applies a two-stage approach based on Article 158(3) formulated in ''[[Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration]]''. The first stage concerns the "classification condition", which is satisfied if the provision to be interpreted concerns either affairs within the responsibility of the Central People's Government or the relationship between the Central Authorities and Hong Kong.{{r|NgKaLing|p=32–33}} Provisions satisfying the classification condition are "excluded provisions", suggesting that they cannot be interpreted by the CFA. When the court needs to refer to an excluded provision to construe a non-excluded provision, the CFA is not required to request an NPCSC interpretation on the excluded provision. Instead, the CFA applies the "predominant test", in which the court asks which provision is predominantly the one needed to be interpreted in the present adjudication.{{r|NgKaLing|p=33}} The second test concerns whether the "necessity condition" is satisfied. The condition is satisfied when the court needs the excluded provision to be interpreted and that the interpretation will affect the judgment on the case.{{r|NgKaLing|p=30–31}}

Hong Kong courts use the [[purposive approach]] to interpret the Basic Law. Since Hong Kong's legal system is separate from that of mainland China, its courts are bound to adopt the common law approach to interpretation.{{r|ChongFungYuen|p=222}} The courts [[Statutory interpretation|construe]] the Basic Law's language to consider the provisions' context and purpose by finding its [[legislative intent]];{{r|ChongFungYuen|p=223–224}} the legislator's intent alone is not considered the legislative intent.{{r|ChongFungYuen|p=223}} Ambiguities are resolved by accounting for the principles and purposes stated in the Chinese Constitution and other materials.{{r|NgKaLing|p=28}} Yet, the courts treat the Basic Law as a "living instrument" that adapts to changing needs and circumstances.{{r|NgKaLing|p=28}}<ref name="W">''W v Registrar of Marriages'' [2013] 3 HKLRD 90 (CFA).</ref>{{rp|125}} While Hong Kong courts account for the historical context of the Basic Law, they also consider "new social, political and historical realities".<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Leung Sze Ho Albert v Bar Council of Hong Kong Bar Association|date=2016|volume=5|reporter=HKLRD|pinpoint=542|court=Hong Kong Court of Appeal}}.</ref>{{rp|563}}

=== Disputes ===
Interpreting the Basic Law is politically contentious. [[Albert Chen]] has described NPCSC interpretations as the "major cause of constitutional controversies" since the handover.<ref name="Chen2006" />{{rp|632}}


The constitutional powers of the Hong Kong judiciary was first contested in ''HKSAR v Ma Wai Kwan'',<ref name="MaWaiKwan">{{cite court|ligitants=HKSAR v Ma Wai Kwan, David & Others|litigants-force-plain=yes|date=1997|reporter=HKLRD|pinpoint=761|court=Hong Kong Court of Appeal}}</ref> which was decided by the [[Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)|Court of Appeal]] 28 days after the handover. The applicants argued that the [[Provisional Legislative Council]] established unilaterally by Beijing before the handover was unlawful, and therefore the laws it enacted were void. The court dismissed this argument and explained that since a local court had no power to review sovereign acts under colonial rule, and the Basic Law did not expand its judicial power, it did not hold such power after the handover.<ref name="Chen2006" />{{rp|633}}

In the later ''Ng Ka Ling'' case, the CFA said Hong Kong courts had the power to review and invalidate acts of the National People's Congress or its standing committee if they were inconsistent with the Basic Law. Chinese officials criticised the judgment and led the Hong Kong government to ask the CFA to clarify its judgment. The court issued a statement saying that the judgment did not question the power of the NPC or its standing committee to "do any act which is in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law and the procedure therein".<ref name="Chen2006" />{{rp|635-636}}

The Hong Kong government later sought an interpretation of Articles 22 and 24 from the NPCSC to avoid a potential influx of over a million mainland Chinese migrants (according to government estimates) into Hong Kong. This has triggered a debate on [[judicial independence]] in Hong Kong.

== Amendment ==
The [[National People's Congress]] has the exclusive power to amend the Basic Law.<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Art 159}}</ref> Amendments can be proposed by either the NPCSC, the [[State Council of the People's Republic of China|State Council]], or the Hong Kong government. For Hong Kong to propose amendments, the amendments require the support of two-thirds of the [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong|Hong Kong Legislative Council]], two-thirds of the deputies representing Hong Kong in the [[National People's Congress]], and the [[Chief Executive of Hong Kong|Chief Executive]]'s approval. All proposals needs to be reviewed by the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and no amendments can "contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong".<ref>{{cite act |title=Basic Law of Hong Kong |pinpoint=Ch 8}}</ref>

===Annexes I and II===
According to Annexes I and II of the Basic Law adopted in April 1990, amendments could be made to the methods for selecting the chief executive and forming the Legislative Council for the terms subsequent to the year 2007 with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong|Legislative Council]] and the consent of the [[Chief Executive of Hong Kong|Chief Executive]]. Amendments should then be reported to the NPCSC for approval or for the record.

In the NPCSC interpretation to the Basic Law adopted on April 6, 2004, the NPCSC stipulated the “five steps” of initiating political reform under Annexes I and II of the Basic Law:<ref>{{cite web |title=Interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress Regarding Annex I (7) and Annex II (III) to the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China |url=https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/A107!en-zh-Hant-HK?INDEX_CS=N |website=Hong Kong e-Legislation |access-date=3 February 2022}}</ref>
* the Chief Executive submit a report on whether there is a need to amend the methods for selecting the CE for forming LegCo the Chairman of NPCSC;
* the NPCSC make a decision approving or vetoing amendments to electoral methods of the CE or LegCo;
* the Hong Kong government submit a motion concerning amendments of Annexes I and II to LegCo;
* LegCo approve of the motion concerning amendments with a two-thirds majority of all the members, and the CE give formal assent; and
* the NPCSC approve and file for record amendments to Annexes I and II.

Under the [[2021 Hong Kong electoral reform|NPCSC's 2021 amendment]] of Annexes I and II, the NPCSC now exercises the power to amend Annexes I and II of the Basic Law. The “five steps” of initiating political reform by the HKSAR were no longer in force.

==See also==
* [[History of Hong Kong]]
* [[Hong Kong Royal Instructions]] and [[Hong Kong Letters Patent]]
* [[Hong Kong Basic Law Article 69]]
* [[Macau Basic Law]]
* [[Judicial review]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
{{Wikisource}}
*[http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/index/ Hong Kong Government website on the Basic Law]
*[http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/index.html Full text of the Basic Law]
*[http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/bldho/ Basic Law Drafting History Online], University of Hong Kong Libraries, Digital Initiatives

{{Hong Kong topics|collapsed}}
{{Hong Kong Basic Law}}
{{Constitutions of Asia}}
{{Portal bar|Hong Kong|Law}}

[[Category:Hong Kong Basic Law| ]]
[[Category:1990 in law]]
[[Category:Laws of China]]
[[Category:Law of Hong Kong]]
[[Category:1997 establishments in Hong Kong]]
[[Category:Constitution-related laws of China]]