[3]: 91 The Basic Law was enacted under the Constitution of China when it was adopted by the National People's Congress on 4 April 1990 and came into effect on 1 July 1997 after the handover of Hong Kong.

On 4 June 1989, the BLDC's only two members representing the nascent pro-democracy camp, Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, declared that they would suspend their participation after the military crackdown of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

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

[14] 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.

The 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.

18.2  The NPCSC has the power to amend legislation included in Annex III after consulting its 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.

In 2003, the Hong Kong government tabled the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003, which triggered widespread protest.

[28] While the most parts of the ICCPR is ratified as the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance in largely identical language,[29]: 527  no equivalent legislation was made to implement the ICESCR.

[32] In June 2016, one of the five, Lam Wing-kee, revealed in a dramatic press conference that he and the others had been held without due process and that Lee Po had indeed been illegally abducted from Hong Kong, all by a shadowy 'Central Investigation Team' ("中央專案組" or "中央調查組").

[34] Article 95 provides for mutual judicial assistance between Hong Kong and the PRC; however, serious stumbling blocks, such as capital punishment stand in the way of a formal understanding of extradition.

Permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have the right to vote and stand for election in accordance with the Basic Law.

[35] 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.

[40] In 2014, the 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.

[42] The courts of Hong Kong are given the power to 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.

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.

[43] 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.

[44] The Basic Law can be interpreted by Hong Kong courts in the course of adjudication and by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC).

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.

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.

[47] 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.

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.

[45]: 632 The constitutional powers of the Hong Kong judiciary was first contested in HKSAR v Ma Wai Kwan,[54] which was decided by the Court of Appeal 28 days after the handover.

The applicants argued the Provisional Legislative Council established unilaterally before the handover was unlawful, and the laws it enacted were void.

[45]: 633  While Justice Gerald Nazareth agreed with the majority decision, he questioned whether the constitutional order of China and that of the United Kingdom were analogous.

[55]: 377 In the Ng Ka Ling case, the CFA tried to assert it has powers to review acts of the National People's Congress (NPC) or the NPCSC to determine whether they are consistent with the Basic Law.

The Hong Kong Court has 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 the HKSAR courts or Government.