Well, what do you propose the Bar say? Saying the law *shouldn't* be added is clearly water under the bridge, and the NPCSC does have power to interpret the Basic Law. Besides, to argue that the "on its own" clause means *concurrent* jurisdiction rather than a complete transfer of authority is weak but not to the point of unarguability, and the idea that "on its own" does not mean we can't fail to pass anything for 23 years and they are stuck with "no remedy" is also not unarguable. Anyway, it is in and it is being executed. And the NSL flat out says the right to interpretation is with the NPCSC in Article 65. Politics aside, the dangers of fighting Beijing aside, a lawyer must recognize when the statute just isn't on his side on something. So what else can they say?
Sad but true. John Austin would be right on the definition of law here in HK.
Thanks for your work.
Well, what do you propose the Bar say? Saying the law *shouldn't* be added is clearly water under the bridge, and the NPCSC does have power to interpret the Basic Law. Besides, to argue that the "on its own" clause means *concurrent* jurisdiction rather than a complete transfer of authority is weak but not to the point of unarguability, and the idea that "on its own" does not mean we can't fail to pass anything for 23 years and they are stuck with "no remedy" is also not unarguable. Anyway, it is in and it is being executed. And the NSL flat out says the right to interpretation is with the NPCSC in Article 65. Politics aside, the dangers of fighting Beijing aside, a lawyer must recognize when the statute just isn't on his side on something. So what else can they say?