Editor's note: Zhu Zheng is an assistant professor specializing on constitutional law and politics at China University of Political Science and Law. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN. 

On December 30, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), China's top legislative body's permanent committee, issued an interpretation on Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL), placing an end to weeks of speculation about how Beijing would deal with the matter.

The NPCSC convened on December 27 and listened to an explanation by Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, over a motion tabled by the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region John Lee Ka-chiu for an interpretation of the Hong Kong National Security Law. Now, details over how the law is to be interpreted are known. In its official report, the interpretation is not only confined to Articles 14 and 47 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), which are in relation to a case where four national security charges are involved, but also went beyond concrete cases and touched upon the principles of the NSL.

The interpretation concerns Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, the city's media tycoon, who stands accused of four offences under the National Security Law but recently retained Timothy Owen as his defense lawyer. Owen is an experienced and renowned British barrister who has previously appeared before Hong Kong courts but he is not admitted to the Hong Kong bar.

Therefore, the issue of the case is whether an overseas solicitor or barrister who is not qualified to practice generally in Hong Kong can handle work such cases concerning offences endangering national security.

Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal gave the green light on this because the courts believed that retaining overseas counsel is usually allowed in Hong Kong, but is prohibited under "exceptional circumstances." The Court of Final Appeal declined to hear the appeal of the government, due to procedural concerns – the apex court feared that advancing new points of argument would impact the fairness of the proceedings.

The Hong Kong Legal Practitioners Ordinance, a local rule, also allows British counsels to represent certain cases if it is in the public interest. And according to the convention, Hong Kong courts have "unfettered" statutory discretion to determine this by weighing factors like the importance and complexity of the legal issues and whether the overseas lawyers would add value to the litigation.

Nonetheless, the government argues that it is inappropriate for a national security case to be handled by an overseas barrister. According to the government lawyers, they claim Owen's common law experience makes little contribution to the development of Hong Kong's national security law jurisprudence, and there is "no meaningful or effective" mechanism for overseas attorneys to keep confidential the state secrets they come to know.

After the Court of Final Appeal turned down the government's petition to appeal, Chief Executive John Lee moved to seek the NPCSC's interpretation.

There are three points that are worth highlighting in the interpretation.

This is the seventh time that the NPCSC interprets legal matters in relation to Hong Kong. Apart from the 1996 interpretation of the Nationality Law and five interpretations of the Hong Kong Basic Law, this interpretation marks the first time that the NPCSC interprets the National Security Law. The interpretation not only clarified the law's ambiguities and facilitate its implementation but explained the sources of the interpretation, i.e. Article 45 of the Legislative Law and Article 67.4 of the Chinese Constitution.

Additionally, Beijing's interpretation focuses on Articles 14 and 47 of the NSL, which concern how national security duties should be implemented and how the Committee for Safeguarding National Security of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region should operate. The interpretation stresses the importance of the confidentiality of the work, and makes clear that all cases involving national security should first be approved by the chief executive before the cases can be heard by the court. Also, the interpretation authorizes the Committee to make decisions on how all parties involved in national security cases, including judicial agencies, defense lawyers, and litigation representatives should carry out their national security obligations.

Meanwhile, the interpretation lays down substantial and procedural principles that are vital to the development of national security jurisprudence. Procedurally it answers who is endowed with the authority to seek an interpretation with regard to the security law, and how should the government bodies of Hong Kong safeguard national security.

The interpretation of the NPCSC has plugged the hole in the NSL, and a strict reading of the interpretation may give us a clue on how Beijing will safeguard the Hong Kong National Security Law.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries on CGTN Opinion Section.)