法律保留原理要求对基本权利的限制必须通过法律或以法律为根据进行，是基本权利限制的形式要件。我国现行宪法上存在一种基本权利法律保留的部分“空缺化”现象：《宪法》上并无概括性的基本权利法律保留规定，仅对个别的基本权利事项规定了法律保留，而大量基本权利规范中法律保留规定处于空缺状态。由此，引发了“法律保留空缺化”的基本权利是否应实行法律保留、限制这些权利应遵循何种形式要件的问题。从宪法史上看，现行《宪法》中基本权利法律保留的空缺化现象肇因于制宪者两种存在一定紧张关系的心态：其一是制宪者追求社会主义宪法中基本权利保障程度的最大化，认为在基本权利条款中加上法律限制规定，会导致“在一般字句中标榜自由，在附带条件中废除自由”。其二是制宪者否定宪法的规范属性、基本权利的主观性公权属性，导致要求干预基本权利必须以法律的形式慎重进行变得不必要。在强调宪法规范属性、强调人权保障的当下，法律保留空缺化唯一可与现行宪法整体相协调的主观规范目的，只能是“基本权利保障程度的最大化”。将空缺化解释为基本权利不适用法律保留的方案，在论证逻辑上存在缺陷，且放任了行政权力的恣意，明显不利于人权保障，背离了规范目的。将空缺化解释为基本权利适用宪法保留的方案，在理念上高度强调权利保障。但从比较法的角度看，宪法保留规范在实践中往往蜕变为对立法限制基本权利的实质性要件要求，对基本权利普遍地实行宪法保留并不具有可行性。而在中国，基本权利宪法保留与现行宪法的规范结构也不完全契合，难以发挥人权保障的功能。将空缺化解释为基本权利适用法律保留的方案，在三种可能的解释方案中最有利于基本权利的充分保障，也能得到民主与法治原则、功能适当理论以及《宪法》第33条第4款的支持，为最为恰当的解释方案。按照具有通说地位的重要性理论，应当根据基本权利事项的重要程度，决定特定事项是否实行法律保留以及应以何种规范密度实行法律保留。为此，可建立一种“二元复合式”的层级化体系。在该体系中，将基本权利事项按照两个维度进行类型化，并选取两项标准，以之判断基本权利事项的重要性，并复合为一基本权利事项的重要性阶梯。最后将基本权利事项的重要性阶梯与法律保留的规范密度阶梯对接：最重要的事项，实行全国人大保留；重要的事项，实行全国人大常委会保留；次重要的事项，实行相对保留；不重要的事项，无须法律保留。

The principle of Gesetzesvorbehalt,or statutory reservation, which requires that fundamental rights may be restricted only by or pursuant to a law, is the formal requirement of restrictions on fundamental rights. There is a partial "vacancy" of statutory reservation to fundamental rights in current Constitution of China, which means there is not a general statutory reservation norm on fundamental rights in the Constitution, only individual statutory reservation norms on some fundamental rights, while a large number of statutory reservation to fundamental rights norms are left vacant. The question thus arises as to whether the fundamental rights "vacated of statutory reservation" should be subject to the principle of statutory reservation and what formal requirement should govern the limitation of those rights.From the point of view of constitutional history, the vacancy of statutory reservation to fundamental rights in the Constitution stems from two mindsets, which are to some extent, mutually tense, of the Constitution makers. The one is that Constitution makers sought to maximize the degree of guarantee of fundamental rights in the socialist Constitution of China, they worried that inclusion of statutory restriction norm in the fundamental rights provisions would lead to the situation of "liberty in the general phrase, abrogation of liberty in the marginal note". The second is that the Constitution makers denied the normative attribute of the Constitution, the subjective public right attribute of fundamental rights, making it unnecessary to require that intervention in fundamental rights be deliberate in the form of law.In the context of the emphasis on the normative attributes of the Constitution and on human rights protection, the only subjective normative purpose for which statutory reservation are vacant, which can be reconciled with the existing Constitution as a whole, can only be "the maximization of the degree of protection of fundamental rights". The option of interpreting vacancy as non-applicability of statutory reservation to fundamental rights is flawed in the logic and gives free rein to the arbitrariness of the executive power, which is clearly detrimental to human rights protection and thus contrary to the normative purposes of the Constitution. The option of interpreting vacancy as application of Verfassungsvorbehalt, or constitutional reservation to fundamental rights places great conceptual emphasis on the protection of rights. However, From a comparative law perspective, the norm of constitutional reservation tends in practice to metamorphose into a substantive requirement for legislative restriction of fundamental rights, it is not feasible to apply constitutional reservations to fundamental rights generally. In China, the constitutional reservation of fundamental rights is also not fully compatible with the normative structure of the Constitution, making it difficult to perform the function of human rights protection. The option of interpreting vacancy as statutory reservation applicable to fundamental rights the most appropriate one. It is the most conducive to the protection of fundamental rights of the three possible interpretations, and is also supported by the principles of democracy and rule of law, the Wesentlichkeitstheorie, and article 33, paragraph 4, of the Constitution.According to the Wesentlichkeitstheorie, or the theory of materiality, the application of statutory reservation to particular matters and their strictness of reservation should be determined according to the materiality of the matter of fundamental rights. To this end, a "binary composite" tiered reservation system could be established. In this system, fundamental rights matters are classificated according to two dimensions: first, the different types of fundamental rights and second, the different roles of legal norms on fundamental rights. After the classification, "private sphere influence" and "public sphere influence" would be selected as criteria for determining the materiality of fundamental rights matters in the two dimensions, which will compounded into one tiered structure of materiality. Finally, the tiers of materiality of fundamental rights matters is docked with the tiers of strictness of statutory reservation: the most important matters are subject to NPC reservations; the important matters are subject to NPCSC reservations; the less important matters are subject to relative statutory reservations; the not-important matters do not require statutory reservation.