| In China’s codification process, the notion of “fundamental laws” has emerged, along with the proposition that such laws should enjoy “priority of application”. However, neither codes nor fundamental laws acquire constitutional or supra-legal status merely by virtue of their partially foundational content. The highest legal authority belongs exclusively to the formal Constitution, and therefore, using legal codes as a standard for constitutional review is untenable. Fundamental laws are not automatically “general laws”, and determining whether a law is general or special requires a detailed analysis based on legal methodology, particularly historical and teleological interpretation. Existing rules on the application of norms are sufficient to resolve normative conflicts, thus introducing a new rule that grants priority to fundamental laws is unnecessary and may generate further complications. The internal consistency of the legal system is itself a constitutional mandate. Issues of legal methodology are simultaneously constitutional issues. Norms such as constitutional equality, liberty, and division of powers can support the resolution of internal legal contradictions through interpretations consistent with the normative hierarchy, especially interpretations consistent with the Constitution. In the age of codification, greater emphasis should be placed on the construction of internal legal systematicity. Legal order of modern rule of law ultimately points toward constitutional unity, and doctrinal studies of individual branches of law should also orient themselves toward an integrated theory of legal interpretation illuminated by constitutional values. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号