Abstract：The unique character of the mechanism of the interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law is that according to Article 158 of the Basic Law, the judiciary of the HKSAR enjoys the judicial power, but not the final power of interpreting the Basic Law; while the NPCSC, with this final power, does not apply the Basic Law in the cases in daily life. In practice, there were some controversies around the interaction between the two interpreters. Some scholars thought the distinction between civil law and common law as the main reason for the controversies. However, this observation may ignore the complexity and diversity of the application of the Basic Law. In some cases, the courts adjudicated the cases without interpreting the Basic Law, and thus the NPCSC had the least influence on the result. In some cases, the courts applied the Basic Law in connection with the ICCPR and BORO, and thus the NPCSC's influence was also limited. In the other cases, the courts merely applied the Basic Law and thus the interpretation by the NPCSC had the strongest and direct effects on the results. This paper separated the application from the interpretation appropriately and suggested an attitude of deference for all the parties, in order to solve the controversies around the Basic Law.