Kelvin Low and Jeremiah Lau on Reforming the Singapore Trust: Pushing or Breaking Boundaries? (New book chapter)

"Reforming the Singapore Trust: Pushing or Breaking Boundaries?"
Jeremiah Lau and Kelvin Low
Asia-Pacific Trusts Law, Volume 3, Boundaries in Context, Part III, Chapter 13
Hart Publishing
Published online: May 2025

Abstract: This chapter assesses the various enacted and proposed legislative reforms to Singapore’s trust law in the new millennium, including the Business Trusts Act, the Trust Companies Act and the amendments to the Trustee’s Act. We also consider the recent proposal to introduce non charitable purpose trusts. The tricky process of law reform is an interesting setting in which to consider various ‘boundary problems’ in trusts. Can statutory reform refine or sharpen the unclear boundaries of a judge-made trust law rule? To what extent can the conceptual boundaries of the English trust be modified by statute? Do these reforms push the boundaries of the trust to better adapt it to modern circumstances? Or do they threaten to break the institution of the trust altogether?

Full text of this chapter is available on SSRN, please click here.

Weixia Gu on All Flowers Blossom: The New Dynamic of Arbitration in Asia (Asian Dispute Review)

"All Flowers Blossom: The New Dynamic of Arbitration in Asia"

Weixia Gu

Asian Dispute Review

Published online: July 2025

Abstract: This article sets out the results of a study which examines and compares dispute and caseload data from six leading Asian international arbitral institutions over the period 2018-2024, updating the results of a study of 2018. The findings reveal that several Chinese institutions, notably the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre (SHIAC) and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), have outpaced their Singaporean counterpart, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), by a significant margin, in terms of (1) percentage growth in both total and average amounts in dispute and (2) what this means as to their role and influence in developing arbitration in the Asia region.

Wilson Lui and Vincent Ip on Conflicting Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Clauses (Asian Dispute Review)

"Conflicting Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Clauses"

Wilson Lui (Pre-Doctoral Fellow 2022–23), Vincent Ip

Asian Dispute Review

Published online: July 2025

Abstract: This article considers the approaches adopted by the courts of Hong Kong, Singapore and England & Wales towards the reconciliation or otherwise of conflicting dispute resolution clauses contained in multiple but related contracts. There is an overriding need for clarity of approach in construing conflicting clauses so that due regard may be had to upholding the agreed intention of the parties to such contracts. In addition to three broad paradigms of conflicting clauses, particular attention is drawn to a public policy-based ‘centre of gravity’ or ‘closeness’ approach that common law courts have recently begun to develop. The authors argue, however, that mutual invalidation of conflicting clauses should be avoided.

John Liu et al on The Psychological Case for Retaining Counsel: The Tipping Point Effect (MPI Collective Goods Discussion Paper)

"The Psychological Case for Retaining Counsel: The Tipping Point Effect"
John Zhuang Liu, Christoph Engel, Yun-chien Chang
MPI Collective Goods Discussion Paper, No. 2025/1
Available on SSRN: January 2025 (revised in June 2025)

Abstract: Although retaining legal representation generally increases a plaintiff’s chances of success, our analysis of over 9 million civil lawsuits from the United States, mainland China, Taiwan, and Japan reveals that a substantial portion of plaintiffs proceed pro se—even in high-stakes cases. We examine both rational-choice and psychological explanations for this phenomenon. One underexplored motive emerges from survey data: a sizeable fraction of represented plaintiffs report hiring a lawyer primarily to preserve their “peace of mind.” We hypothesize that this motive is influenced by plaintiffs’ subjective assessment of their likelihood of winning. When a case appears one-sided rather than a close call, the role of anticipated regret diminishes, and the incentive to seek legal counsel weakens. We term this the "tipping point effect" and validate it through experimental evidence.

Please click here to view the full text on SSRN.

Congratulations to HKU Law Student Finalists in Law Reform Essay Competition 2025

Congratulations to the 7 HKU Law student finalists in this year's Law Reform Essay Competition organised by the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong. The topic was 'Should the common law tort of harassment in Hong Kong be reformed?' We are very pleased to see that all the finalists this year are HKU law students. The seven students are

• FUNG Wing Kan (Bachelor of Social Sciences (Government and Laws) and Bachelor of Laws (Year 4)),
• LEUNG Ting Man (Bachelor of Business Administration (Law) and Bachelor of Laws (Year 3)),
• LI Yinuo (Bachelor of Laws (Year 1)),
• MUI Yuen Ying (Bachelor of Laws (Year 5)),
• WONG Chin Hei Nathaniel (Bachelor of Laws (Year 3)),
• YEUNG Cho Yiu (Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws (Year 2)) and
• YEUNG Kei Shing (Bachelor of Laws (Year 3)).

All of their essays can be downloaded here. The Law Reform Commission held a ceremony to honour the students on 15 July 2025.

Dr Stefan Lo Cited by UK Supreme Court

Congratulations to Dr Stefan Lo whose articles (“Liabilities of Directors as Joint Tortfeasors” [2009] Journal of Business Law 109 and “Dis-attribution Fallacy and Directors’ Tort Liabilities” (2016) 30 Australian Journal of Corporate Law 215) were cited with approval by the UK Supreme Court in Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed [2025] AC 1, [2024] UKSC 17. The case concerned the issue of the circumstances in which a director of a company may be liable as an accessory in tort where the company is the main tortfeasor. A main thesis of the above articles from Dr Lo is that directors do not hold any special position by reason of being a director and that they, similar to employees or agents of a company, may be a joint tortfeasor with the company pursuant to the general principles of accessory liability and joint tortfeasors in tort law. Lord Leggatt SC agreed with this view in handing down his judgment (with which the other members of the Supreme Court agreed). Lord Leggatt SC (at para 35) adopted the terminology of “dis-attribution fallacy” as coined by Dr Lo (also referred to as a “dis-attribution heresy” by Campbell and Armour) – namely that it is a fallacy to suppose that attribution of acts of a director to a company necessarily results in dis-attribution of those acts from the director for all legal purposes. A number of Australian decisions have, in Dr Lo’s views, committed this fallacy. Lord Leggatt cited Dr Lo’s research on the Australian position (at para 71) and agreed with the view asserted by Dr Lo that to limit directors’ personal liabilities due to their acts being regarded as the company’s is incorrect. Earlier English cases had been moving towards this position as favoured by Dr Lo but there was also a suggestion by the English Court of Appeal that there remains a “constitutional exception” under which directors cannot be liable as joint tortfeasor with the company merely where their authorisation of the tortious act is done via their constitutional role in voting at a board meeting (MCA Records Inc v Charly Records Ltd (No.5) [2002] BCC 650, [2001] EWCA Civ 1441). Dr Lo argued that any such exception that effectively provides a ”safe harbour” for directors is inappropriate as a matter of both principle and policy. Lord Legatt SC agreed (at para 81).

Jedidiah Kroncke on Sino-American (De)Coupling: Economic Integration Through De-Democratizing Work (CJTL)

"Sino-American (De)Coupling: Economic Integration Through De-Democratizing Work"
Jedidiah Kroncke
Columbia Journal of Transnational Law
Published online: June 2025

Abstract: The concept of “decoupling” has quickly taken center stage in American and Chinese politics. Far beyond issues of international trade, the term has become a mutual domestic focal point for legitimizing new industrial and technology policy regimes. This rapid change has reversed the basic terms of the post-1978 U.S.-China relationship—turning each nation away from an aggressive embrace of economic globalization and towards an equally aggressive embrace of economic nationalism. Leaders in both countries now highlight the other as possessing polar opposite values, framing regulatory reform as demanded by these divergent values and as part of an existential international struggle.

Yet little attention has been given to how countries, now cast as antagonists with divergent values, came to have the most deeply intertwined major economies on the planet. While the sources of modern Sino-American economic intimacy are diverse, this Article focuses on how a convergence in assumptions regarding the ademocratic nature of the workplace powerfully facilitated this engagement. In tandem, isomorphic changes in U.S. and Chinese workplace regulation placed increasing emphasis on regulating employment contracts while minimizing any form of collective bargaining in favor of authoritarian notions of corporate governance. These distinct but parallel trajectories of workplace de- democratization manifested in another telling, if surprising, modern convergence: the promotion of employee ownership. On both sides of the Pacific, the ideal of employee ownership was advanced as a means of soothing the displacement of each country’s tradition of economic citizenship. Employee participation through share ownership never materialized as a significant aspect of either economy during this time, though it repeatedly found, and still finds, great rhetorical resonance in otherwise opposed political systems. Tellingly, the employee-ownership instruments that did develop were undermined by a strikingly similar set of legal techniques preventing employee-owners from contributing to more democratic workplaces.

Ultimately, this mutual process of de-democratization points to an implication current decoupling rhetoric actively avoids: that fundamental differences in formal political organization appear to have strikingly minimal impact on their citizens’ lived experiences of work and economic citizenship. This politically inconvenient commonality is critical for both necessary for understanding how this historical process of economic integration occurred and why coercive state power drives decoupling—rather than emerging as a private product of divergent values. Thus, while the future of U.S.-China relations is both consequential and uncertain, the rush to reframe the relationship must address unsettling questions underlying the two countries’ modern history of economic integration.

Gracious Avayiwoe on Evidence and the “Gravity of the Alleged Offences” for Prompt Release of Vessels and Crews under the UNCLOS Regime (Chinese JIL)

"Evidence and the “Gravity of the Alleged Offences” for Prompt Release of Vessels and Crews under the UNCLOS Regime"
Gracious Avayiwoe (PhD Candidate)
Chinese Journal of International Law, Volume 24, Issue 2
Published online: June 2025

Abstract: Amid recent developments signaling the revival of the Prompt Release procedure under Article 292 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention or UNCLOS) and to help guide the procedure’s future usage, this article confronts one of its topical but neglected controversy: the prejudgment concerns arising from the need to evaluate evidence to ascertain guilt or illegality under the “gravity of the alleged offences” factor (the gravity factor). The author employs the rules of interpretation outlined under Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) to examine the relationship between Article 292 of the UNCLOS and the gravity factor. The author concludes that the gravity factor calls for using presumptions rather than standards of proof when evaluating evidence. This perspective flows from the interpretative outcome, suggesting that Article 292 of the UNCLOS is towards securing future court attendance to determine the illegality occasioning the arrest and, as such, making irrelevant a definitive finding on guilt for the Prompt Release procedure. Consequently, presumption overcomes prejudgment implications as it would allow inferences from facts at the time of arrest to preliminarily conclude guilt to promptly release detained vessels and crews. Once the vessels or crews are released, the conclusion of guilt can be rebutted in the main proceedings meant to determine the alleged illegality. While the findings and the ensuing disregard for standards of proof dispel illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing (IUU-fishing) analyses often incorporated within the gravity factor, the author is of the view that a presumption-based regime will go a long way to address such concerns.

Yi Tang on COVID-19 Measures and Investment Treaty Claims: An Asian Perspective (new book chapter)

"COVID-19 Measures and Investment Treaty Claims: An Asian Perspective"
Yi Tang (PhD Candidate)

in Marc Bungenberg (ed), Manjiao Chi (ed), Andrea K. Bjorklund (ed), Asian Yearbook of International Economic Law
Published online: May 2025

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted unprecedented government measures worldwide. While essential for protecting public health, these measures may have negatively impacted foreign investments, leading to conflicts between host states’ rights to safeguard public interests and their obligations to protect foreign investment under international investment agreements (IIAs). This chapter explores the conflicts between COVID-19 measures and IIA obligations within Asian context, focusing on two primary grounds for potential investment treaty claims—breaches of the fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard and claims of unlawful expropriation. Through an analysis of the regulatory responses in Asian states, this study elucidates the complexities of these claims. The findings suggest that FET claims may become more prominent than expropriation claims in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, given their broader scope of application and lighter burden of proof. Through a forward-looking lens, this exploratory analysis provides insights for both Asian host states and foreign investors, aiming to map and navigate the potential landscape of future investment disputes in the post-pandemic era with greater clarity and preparedness.

Cora Chan’s book awarded Special Mention for ICON-S Book Prize

Congratulations to Professor Cora Chan for winning a Special Mention for the International Society of Public Law (ICON-S) Annual Book Prize with her book Deference in Human Rights Adjudication (Oxford University Press 2024). This prize is one of the most prestigious book awards in the field of public law. The judges awarded the honorary mention to Cora’s book for its “sophistication, analytical depth, and comprehensiveness with which [it] tackles the subject matter, promising to be a guide not just to courts and practitioners, but also to academics interested in the theoretical problems raised by the question of deference in adjudication.” 

Cora’s book was also one of two finalists for the 2024 Book of the Year Award from the International Forum on the Future of Constitutionalism.

Jiajun Luo on Internalizing Public Disputes: The Rise of China’s Administrative Reconsideration Under Xi (HJRL)

"Internalizing Public Disputes: The Rise of China’s Administrative Reconsideration Under Xi"
Jiajun Luo (PhD 2025)
Hague Journal on the Rule of Law
Published online: June 2025

Abstract: This article examines the strategic shift in China’s public dispute resolution under Xi Jinping, marked by the elevation of administrative reconsideration over judicial review as the primary and preferred channel for resolving disputes between citizens and government agencies. The 2023 Administrative Reconsideration Law institutionalizes recent reform efforts, formalizing its role as a more flexible, efficient, and internally dispute resolution alternative to litigation. These changes support the Party’s vision of self-regulation within the bureaucracy and reduced dependency on courts, by bolstering administrative reconsideration’s procedural efficiency and institutional powerbase to review both legality and reasonableness of administrative actions. However, despite increased case volume, administrative reconsideration in China continues to face challenges, including bureaucratic resistance that limits its effectiveness in addressing citizen grievances. Moreover, although agency review aligns with the Party’s preference for concentrated power and minimal public scrutiny, judicial review and petitioning remain entrenched avenues for public dispute resolution. Ultimately, this internal approach reflects Xi’s vision of rule of law, in which public grievances are managed within the administration to project an image of an omnipotent state, capable of self-correcting governance issues. Rooted in China’s paternalistic tradition, administrative reconsideration embodies a broader theme to portrays the regime as a benevolent authority that resolves disputes on behalf of the public, rather than empowering individuals to address them independently.

Shangshu Liu et al on Managing destination stigma in post-pandemic tourism (Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research)

"Managing destination stigma in post-pandemic tourism: an integrated model of disease avoidance, tourism solidarity, and tourism ethnocentrism in recovery efforts"
Shangshu Liu (JD candidate), Yuchen Xu, Catherine Cheung, Jeremy Ko, Chun Kai Leung
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research
Published online: June 2025

Abstract: This study examines the impact of pandemic-related stigma on tourists’ support for destinations linked to COVID-19, using Wuhan as a case. Rooted in an evolutionary tourism paradigm, survey data from 421 Chinese respondents indicate that perceived disease infectability heightens stigma, reducing tourism solidarity but increasing ethnocentric support. Structural equation modeling shows that while solidarity fosters empathy, it doesn’t lead directly to behaviors like visitation or spending. Conversely, tourism ethnocentrism more strongly predicts supportive actions, suggesting that national pride can counteract stigma. These findings provide actionable insights for tourism practitioners, highlighting the importance of strategies that leverage national identity and address safety concerns transparently to restore traveler confidence. This study contributes to the discourse on health-related stigma, cultural identity, and tourism recovery, suggesting corresponding stigma-reducing interventions.

Yating Lin on Deciphering China’s Selective Adaptation to Investment Treaty Regime (JWIT)

"Deciphering China’s Selective Adaptation to Investment Treaty Regime: A “Domestication” of International Investment Law Perspective"
Yating Lin (PhD candidate)
The Journal of World Investment & Trade
Published online: June 2025

Abstract: As China emerges as a prominent economic powerhouse and a key stakeholder in the international economic legal order, academic discourse beams the searchlight on its approach to international investment law. While discussions often center on the “external adjustment perspective” and explicate China’s participation in international investment law by analyzing different iterations of Sino-Foreign investment treaties, a noteworthy yet underexplored inquiry pertains to how Chinese domestic legal frameworks assimilate and repurpose investment treaty norms. This article elucidates China’s investment treaty policy through the lens of the “domestication of International Economic Law”, which is a new and significant theoretical development under current “de-globalization” challenges. It delves into how China’s domestic legal constructs pertaining to investment treaties and arbitration subtly but significantly discourage foreign investors from initiating investment treaty arbitration, forming an integral part of China’s investment treaty policy. Essentially, the dual-track approach arises from China’s simultaneous need to actively engage in the investment treaty regime to reap practical benefits, while maintaining deep-seated ideological and political reservations towards investment arbitral claims. This article explores the Chinese experience as a contributor to enhancing the understanding of how domestic-level legal framings may have implications for international investment law and international adjudication in the context of the domestication of IEL. It also juxtaposes China’s approach towards international investment law with its participation in general international law, unveiling a strategic alignment marked by “selective adaptation” to international norms. Essentially, China’s approach to international law mirrors its consistent diplomatic strategy.

Xiaoping Wu and John Liu on Constraints in the Economic Analysis of Law in China (AJLE)

"Constraints in the Economic Analysis of Law in China"
Xiaoping Wu (SJD candidate) and John Liu
Asian Journal of Law and Economics
Published online: May 2025

Abstract: Since its introduction to China in the 1980s, the field of law and economics has undergone significant development, with a growing emphasis on empirical research. However, the integration of economic analysis into the current legal study framework has been constrained by insufficient supply and limited demand for this knowledge. This study provides a detailed analysis of the challenges hindering the advancement of law and economics in China. It categorizes research in this field into three main areas: case analysis of legal issues, quantitative analysis of the law, and empirical studies on the economic impact of law and regulations. The study examines the progress made in each category of research and identifies the key obstacles that need to be addressed.

Sida Liu on Against Digital Superstition: On the Pseudoscientific Development of the Sociology of Law in China (CLSR)

"Against Digital Superstition: On the Pseudoscientific Development of the Sociology of Law in China"
Sida Liu
China Law and Society Review
Published online: May 2025

Abstract: This article examines the current state of the sociology of law in China, which is characterized by pervasive digital superstition and a “scientific turn” towards quantitative methods. The article traces the historical development of the field, critically assesses the impact of digital technologies on sociolegal research, and scrutinizes the underlying causes of digital superstition, including academic incentives, technological advancements, and state control over data. In response to these issues, the article proposes alternative approaches to conducting sociolegal research in the era of digitalization, such as video observation and online ethnography, highlighting the significance of storytelling. The article advocates for a balanced and reflective approach to digitalization in Chinese sociology of law, emphasizing the potential for meaningful advancements in the field when digital technologies are employed judiciously and responsibly.

Shahla Ali on Deciding Lawsuits Outside of Court: Mediation in Hong Kong (New Book Chapter)

"Deciding lawsuits outside of court: mediation in Hong Kong"
Shahla Ali
in Margaret Y.K. Woo & Cornelis H. van Rhee (Eds), Comparative Civil Procedure (Edward Elgar Publishing, March 2025), Chapter 21, pp.501-514
Published online: March 2025

Abstract: Court mediation systems reflect the diversity of the world’s civil procedure landscape. The varying tensions between advancing relational repair and individual rights-protection likewise plays out in policy design of court mediation systems. Varied systems of court mediation reflect distinct social norms, values, culture and surrounding legal environment and impacts how individuals perceive the relative levels of efficiency, confidence and administration of justice within the civil justice systems. Court mediation in Hong Kong bears some resemblance to features of the United States, Chinese and United Kingdom mediation traditions in the sense that there is strong encouragement of court mediation, a recognition of intrinsic value of mediation, and a possibility of integrating mediation and other adjudicatory practices if parties agree. This chapter presents empirical research examining changes over time following the introduction of Hong Kong’s civil mediation reform in relation to indicators of efficiency, confidence and perceptions of justice as measured by the World Justice Project, the Worldwide Governance Indicators and Global Competitiveness Report.

Please click here to view the full text of this chapter on SSRN.

Cora Chan on Pluralizing Constitutionalism (new book chapter)

"Pluralizing Constitutionalism"
Cora Chan
in Madhav Khosla (ed),Vicki C Jackson (ed),Redefining Comparative Constitutional Law: Essays for Mark Tushnet (Oxford University Press),Chapter 24,pp.355 - 368
Published online: November 2024

Abstract: One of Professor Tushnet’s many legacies is his exposition of strains of constitutionalism other than liberal constitutionalism. He has crafted sophisticated accounts of authoritarian constitutionalism and illiberal constitutionalism and offered thought-provoking ideas on Ernst Fraenkel’s concept of the dual state. His attempts at pluralizing constitutionalism have not only brought analytical clarity and allowed us to theorize the regimes that do not fit into the dichotomized framework of authoritarianism versus liberal constitutionalism, but also have important normative implications for constitutional design and strategy. This chapter draws on Professor Tushnet’s contributions on nonliberal constitutionalism and the dual state to examine four issues pertaining to the nature, structure, and significance of the dual state, as well as to the stability of mixed constitutions.

Call for Papers: 2025 HKU-ALSA Young Scholars Conference

Call for Papers

2025 HKU-ALSA Young Scholars Conference

We are delighted to announce that the HKU-ALSA Young Scholars Conference, organized by the Asian Law Schools Association (ALSA) Young Scholars Chapter in collaboration with the University of Hong Kong, the Australian National University, and Thammasat University, will be held at the University of Hong Kong on 5th and 6th December 2025.

The conference will provide a unique opportunity for young scholars to present their research and receive constructive feedback. It will also feature senior scholars reflecting on and sharing insights from their academic journeys.

Eligibility for paper submissions is limited to young scholars, defined as doctoral candidates, assistant professors, and associate professors with less than 15 years of academic experience. Young scholars working in the following areas are especially encouraged to participate in this call:

• Corporate Law and Bankruptcy Law
• Law and Technology, with a focus on Law and Artificial Intelligence
• Empirical Legal Studies
• Alternative Dispute Resolution

Submissions

Expressions of interest to present at the ALSA Young Scholars Conference should be sent to alsayoungscholars@gmail.com and should include the following information:

- Name, affiliation and contact details of the presenter

- Bio (no more than 150 words)

- Full papers in English that are unpublished, including preliminary or early-stage drafts.

The expression of interest, along with the accompanying information above, should be submitted by 15th August 2025. Please use “Name_Paper Title” as the subject line of your email.

Organizing committee

- Alex Zhicheng Huang, Global Academic Scholar, Faculty of Law, University of Hong

Kong, HKSAR

- Akshaya Kamalnath, Associate Professor of Law, Australian National University,

College of Law, Australia

- Amnart Tangkiriphimarn, Vice Dean for International Affairs and International

Programs, Thammasat University, Faculty of Law, Thailand

Selected speakers will be notified by 10th September 2025 and invited to deliver an in-person presentation in Hong Kong. Early submissions are strongly encouraged. We kindly ask for your understanding that due to the volume of submissions, only selected speakers will receive notification.

We are firmly committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive environment. We aim to provide an open and collegial platform for scholarly exchange that brings together law scholars from across Asia and beyond. We look forward to receiving your valuable contributions and to building lasting connections within our scholarly community.

RGC Awards $3.5 Million in Research Funding to HKU Law 2025/26

Congratulations to our five colleagues who were successful in the 2025-2026 round of research grant funding by Hong Kong's Research Grants Council (RGC). The three General Research Fund (GRF) projects that were funded cover a range of topics, from examining the impact of “revolving-door” judges in the Chinese judicial system to investigating China’s efforts to reshape public interest lawyering to exploring the relationship between China’s legal system, financial markets, and economic development. Two Early Career Scheme (ECS) project were funded to study the Integration of China's Patent System and Social Credit System, and introduction of statutory recognition of same-sex couples in Hong Kong. The details of the new funded projects are as follows:

GRF:
Professor John Liu
The Revolving Door in the Chinese Judiciary and Its Economic Consequences: A Quantitative Study, HK$1,064,000

Professor Ying Xia
Nationalizing Legal Mobilization: The Transformation of Public Interest Lawyering under Xi Jinping, HK$679,000

Professor James Zeng
China's Path of Law and Finance, HK$746,000

ECS:
Professor Taorui Guan
Big Data-Driven Governance: A Study on the Integration of China's Patent System and Social Credit System, HK$630,925

Professor Stefano Osella
Recognising Same-sex Partnerships in Hong Kong: Constitutional and Human Rights Perspectives, HK$406,816

CCL Member Professor Xin He delivered the keynote speech at the 9th Conference for Junior Researchers on Law and Society at Stanford Law School

On May 9, 2025, the Law and Society Association at Stanford Law School (LSAS) successfully held its Ninth Conference for Junior Researchers. The conference provided a forum for junior researchers to share their current research projects on law and society and receive input from faculty and other participants.

The focus of the conference was on the intersections of law, power, and reform, particularly in systems undergoing rapid political or social transformation. In particular, the conference explored how courts navigate these transformations, and the roles legal actors play in resisting or facilitating change.

Xin He, HKU Mok Sau-King Professor in Law and member of Philip K.H. Wong Centre for Chinese Law, was invited to deliver the keynote speech titled “A State Perspective on China’s Rights Development” at the conference. Emeritus Professor Lawrence M. Friedman from Stanford Law School delivered a warm opening remark, welcoming Professor He back to his alma mater and congratulating him on his achievements in the field of sociology of law, particularly in comparative Chinese legal studies.

In his keynote speech, Professor He introduced a viewpoint that diverges from the dominant rights mobilization approach, arguing that a state perspective and especially the dynamics between the state apparatuses offer crucial insights on China rights development. Professor He elaborated on this perspective through examples from several key areas of justice and explored the significance of the state perspective by comparing China with other authoritarian states. He noted the contrast with many authoritarian countries where law often opposes the state, pointing out that China’s legal system closely serves state interests. The extensive control of judges, courts, and legislative processes by the state highlights the unique context of China’s law and politics.

Participants in the conference included Stanford Law School professors such as Lawrence M. Friedman, Amalia D. Kessler, Deborah R. Hessler, Curtis J. Milhaupt, and Henry T. Greely. The attendees also included promising young scholars from academic institutions like Yale University, Duke University, the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of California, Los Angeles.