Abstract So often that the Macao Special Administrative Region (hereinafter as MSAR) is said as having a high degree of autonomy, illustrated by its administrative right, legislative right, judicial right and the right of final adjudication. To explain autonomy of such level, it is never sufficient by simply comparing it with the states of the United States of America, the local administrative regions of the Mainland of China and the level of automony enjoyed by Macao during its period under the Macao-Portugal Government. The current studies attempt to explore the said high degree of autonomy through the principle of authorization: Firstly, autonomy is obtained through authorization. As a mean, authorization functions to achieve national unity and the interests enjoyed by the MSAR, and to ensure the new type of local governance model under the “one country, two systems". Secondly, in the logical relationship between central authority and autonomy, the current studies will explore the relationship between people and sovereignty from the fundamental principle of sovereignty. Revaling the nature of the sovereignty also explains the essence of autonomy, Along the same line, autonomy is found different from sovereign nor dominion, but being the dominion built with competence of self-management and thus explaining why autonomy is not inherent nor not full-granted autonomy. Thirdly, the nature of authority also determines the level of autonomy. Amongst the different theories of authorization, for example, ceducation theory, representative theory, transfer theory, expansion theory, etc., all lead to different explanations of the autonomy enjoyed by the MSAR. The current studies support the expansion theory in regard of authorization. Under this theory, central power is transferred to the MSAR through authorization before such power became Macao’s autonomy. As a consequence, the nature of the autonomy is found as executive power with a limited time frame, instead of being completly independent, autonomous and sustainable power. Fourthly, the content of the authorization essentially reflects the content of the autonomy, The types of authorization as set out in the Basic Law are political authorization, general authorization and re-authorization, Political authorization refers to the administrative, legislative, judicial and final adjudication powers as laid down in Article 2 of the Basic Law. General authorization covers administrative matters, the right to the management of internal and external affairs, etc. Whereas re-authorization regulated by Article 20 of the Basic Law, refers to any possible future authorization which will lead to a wider scope or more diverfied autonomy. In other words, autonomy is changeable. Under the safeguards set out by the Basic Law, it is likely that MSAR, in the cuture, could have a higher level and more diversified autonomy, as compred to the current level of autonomy. Fifthly, according to the principle of authorization, the MSAR, as having acquired power from the Central Government, must be supervised by the latter. At the same time, outside the scope of autonomy, under the commonality principle of a country, the principle of nationality sovereignty can be directly applied to the MSAR. Therefore the autonomy under the principle of “one country, two systems" is not complete autonomous. The so-called high degree of autonomy is, indeed, built with a very high level of autonomousness. There are three different levels of supervision under the authorization set out by the Basic Law: (1) the independence of political authorization is the highest, The central authorities cannot exercise the right of recourse and the righto abrogation for such type of supervision. Thus, this leads to the unequal relationship of power and obligations. (2) The authorization of second highest independence is the scope of autonomy that the Basic Law has provided for, which also requires specific authorization from the Central Government, To this, Central Government also should avoid exercising the rights of recourse and right to abrogation. (3) The re-authorization under the Basic Law as excercised by the Central Government, but whether to exercise such authorization is upon its discretion. Sixthly, using different legal interpretation methods will affect the true meaning of the law. To the authorization relationship set out in the Basic Law, the interpretations of the Courts and the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress will also determine the level of autonomy, The Basic Law itself is of public law nature. The contents of the its authorization should be explained in a strict sense. The interpretation should follow the principles of one country, national sovereignty and prosperity. Furthermore, such interpretation should not harm the interests of the country and the special administrative region in order to accurately define high degree of autonomy.

摘要 人們經常說澳門特區實行高度自治，有行政管理權、立法權、司法權及終審權，同時在内容上對比美國的州，中國國内的地方行政區和澳葡時代的澳門的自治權，用以說明特區的高度自治，然而這樣是不足夠的。 本研究是用授權原理的角度，探索高度自治權: 第一，自治權是透過授權而取得，授權作為一种手段，功能是實現國家统一的目的以及特區本身的利益，確保在一國兩制中同时體现到新型的地方管治模式。 第二，在中央授權與自治權的邏輯關係中，從主權之根本原理，探討人民與主權的關係，然後由主權與統治權再到自治權的關係，從而揭示自治權的本質。自治權並非主權，也非統治權，而是具統治權性質的自我管理自己的權限。因此是非固有的，也不是授予完全的自治權。 第三，授權的性質也決定了自治權的高度。在授權的不同理論中，例如：割讓理論，代表理論，移轉理論，擴大理論等…都可以令特區有不同的自治。本人所支持的是授權擴大理論，在這理論支配下，中央的權力通過授權轉移到澳門行使，成為澳門的自治權，因此，自治權的性質是執行權，且具有時間上的限制，並非是完全獨立、自主和永續的權力。 第四，授權之内容基本上是代表了自治權的内容。《基本法》中的授權有政治授權，一般授權及再授權。政治授權是指《基本法》第2條所指的行政、立法、司法權和終審權，而一般授權就包括了行政事務，對内及外事務的管理權等。而再授權就是《基本法》第 20 條中所指的再授權，它是一種將來的授權的可能性，預示了特區的高度自治是可以更多及更高。所以自治權是会變化，按《基本法》之保障，看來變化是傾向自治權更高更多。 第五，從授權的原理看，獲得權力的特區，必须接受中央的監督。同時，在自治範圍之外，一國共同性原則，主權原則可以在特區直接適用，因此在一國兩制下的自治權並非是完全的自治，所谓之高度自治只是自治程度非常高而已。在《基本法》的授權内容中，因授權而形成的監督有三种不同的程度：(1)政治授權的獨立性最高，中央不能行使應该擁有的收回權及廢止權，形成了不對等的權力及義務關係；(2)对於《基本法》已作原則性授權但仍需要中央具體授權的自治内容的獨立性為次之，但中央也應迴避行使收回權及廢止權；(3)而根據《基本法》所作的再授權，中央是否行使上指權力，則是中央的自由决定權限。 第六，採用不同的法律解釋方法，會影響法律的真實含義。在《基本法》的授權關係中，法院及全國人大常委會的解釋效果，也往往决定了自治權的高度。基本法是一部公法，有關授權的内容從嚴解釋，必須遵從一國原则，主權原則及繁榮穩定原則的限制，不能損害國家及特區之利益，才能準確的界定高度自治權。