ABSTRACT
Hong Kong, like other common law jurisdictions, recognises a conceptual distinction between international law and domestic law. The Hong Kong courts have recognised this dualist principle, as an English common law derivative, to continue to apply after the Handover on 1 July 1997. A major factor affecting the scope of dualism will be the extent to which a common law system has a constitutional or constitutionalised system of public law. Despite the United Kingdom's subjective intention in the formulation of the reservation, the Hong Kong courts have interpreted this to support the broad exclusionary ambit of Section 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The Court of Final Appeal regarded it to ‘make little sense’ to understand the reservation exclusively through the lens of British interests. The Court of Appeal has recently weighed in on the means for establishing implementation, noting two competing approaches.
