摘要： 香港基本法二元性解释机制决定了基本法适用的特殊性：在具体案件中适用基本法的特区法院不享有基本法的最终解释权；享有基本法最终解释权的全国人大常委会并不进行日常适用工作。这种抽象解释权与司法适用的互动在实践中引发了一些争议，学界倾向将争议归结为一种“普通法与大陆法”的差异，这忽视了基本法司法适用的复杂性与解释者身份的多样性。在单纯援引型案件中，法院行使司法权而非解释权，全国人大常委会解释的影响最小；在联系适用型与导入适用型案件中，全国人大常委会因缺乏对国际公约与本地立法的解释权，实际影响也很有限；过往的争议案件多属于独立适用型，在此类案件中，各方应谨慎克制地行使权力、完善方法论，形成统一的审查框架，这对于解决纠纷很有必要。对基本法的司法适用加以类型化分析并适当地分离解释者与适用者的角色，有利于理解争议的法律本质，促进双方的方法论融合。

关键词: 香港基本法, 司法适用, 普通法, 终审法院, 基本法解释

Abstract: The unique character of the mechanism of the interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law is that according to Article 158 of the Basic Law, the judiciary of the HKSAR enjoys the judicial power, but not the final power of interpreting the Basic Law;  while the NPCSC, with this final power, does not apply the Basic Law in the cases in daily life. In practice, there were some controversies around the interaction between the two interpreters. Some scholars thought the distinction between civil law and common law as the main reason for the controversies. However, this observation may ignore the complexity and diversity of the application of the Basic Law. In some cases, the courts adjudicated the cases without interpreting the Basic Law, and thus the NPCSC had the least influence on the result. In some cases, the courts applied the Basic Law in connection with the ICCPR and BORO, and thus the NPCSC's influence was also limited. In the other cases, the courts merely applied the Basic Law and thus the interpretation by the NPCSC had the strongest and direct effects on the results. This paper separated the application from the interpretation appropriately and suggested an attitude of deference for all the parties, in order to solve the controversies around the Basic Law.

Key words: Hong Kong Basic Law, Judicial Application, Common Law, the Court of Final Appeal, the Interpretation of the Basic Law