Friday, October 30, 2020

HKU Law Teachers Recognised by Teaching Excellence Awards 2019

Six HKU Law teachers were recognised in the 2019 HKU Teaching Excellence Awards for individual and group efforts.  

    Congratulations to the following colleagues:
  • Ms Alice Lee who won the University Distinguished Teaching Excellence Award. Alice has been teaching and researching copyright law for more than 20 years. She has obtained nine Teaching Development Grants and one KE grant, and received three university-level teaching awards including the University Distinguished Teaching Award 2019. She promotes and facilitates Teaching & Learning initiatives as Associate Dean (Academic Affairs) of the Law Faculty, as Chair of the University Teaching Exchange Fellowship Scheme, and as a Senior Fellow and an accredited mentor of the UK Higher Education Academy. Her most recent work is the project on 'the Copyright Classroom'. The copyright education videos, tailor-made for the tertiary, secondary and primary education sectors, are disseminated through “The Copyright Classroom – HKU” channel as well as Ms Lee’s education website

  • Ms. Julienne Jen who won the individual Outstanding Teaching Award. Julienne received the Faculty’s Outstanding Teaching Award in 2015 and is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy. Julienne is interested in exploring different methods of experiential learning in her teaching and she now practises as a solicitor, offering pro bono legal advice at the University’s Clinical Legal Education course. She has co-authored various articles and spoken in conferences concerning professional legal education and experiential learning. She is a member of the Editorial Board of the Hong Kong Lawyer magazine. In addition, she contributes regularly to the LexisNexis Practical Guidance series and the Current Service of the Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong.
  • Team award: Professor Janny H.C. Leung (Leader) of the Faculty of Arts, Dr Marco Wan of the Faculty of Law, Dr Daniel Matthews of the Faculty of Law and Dr Anya Adair of the Faculties of Arts and Law for BA & LLB Programme Curriculum. This joint programme in Arts and Law offers an exciting double degree combining the critical and communication skills offered by a world-leading literary studies programme with comprehensive training in the law. This selective programme uniquely allows students to gain two degrees in a single five-year course of study: a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws.
  • Ms. Daisy Cheung who won the Early Career Teaching Award. Daisy is the Deputy Director of the Centre for Medical Ethics & Law and currently co-teaches Medico-Legal Issues for the LLB and JD/LLM programs, as well as tort and contract law.
The Teaching Excellence Awards Scheme (TEAS) aims to recognise, reward and promote excellence in teaching at the University. Under the Scheme, there are four categories of awards, viz. University Distinguished Teaching Award, Outstanding Teaching Award (OTA), Early Career Teaching Award (ECTA) and Teaching Innovation Award (TIA). Besides individual awards, both OTA and TIA comprise team awards to recognise and encourage collaborative effort and achievement in enhancing teaching and learning. All Faculties are encouraged to nominate colleagues who have made outstanding teaching and learning contributions for these awards. For ECTA, in particular, we hope to receive at least one nomination from each Faculty. Click here to view the list of 2019 TEAS Winners.

E-book of HKU Law Conference on Experiential Learning and Innovations in Legal Education

The Conference on Experiential Learning and Innovations in Legal Education 2019 was a major teaching and learning conference held at the University of Hong Kong from 18-19 October 2019 as part of the HKU Law's golden jubilee celebrations.  The edited transcripts of the conference proceedings are now available for download from the conference website. They can be accessed here and below.  

Session 1 & 2 – Clinical Legal Education
If you build it, will they come? Innovation and Sustainability in Clinical Legal Education
by Professor Jeff Giddings, Monash University
Current and Future Challenges for Clinical Legal Education
by Professor Peter Joy, Washington University
Experiential Learning in China: A Case Study of Clinical Legal Education
by Dr Pan Xuanming, Sun Yat-sen University
The CLE Programme at HKU: Any room for an Inter-professional Approach?
by Ms Julienne Jen, The University of Hong Kong
Strathclyde Law Clinic: Plugging the Gaps in Access to Justice in Our Community
by Ms Kathleen Laverty, University of Strathclyde Law Clinic
Professionalism in an Age of Dynamic Change? Teaching New Skills via Clinical Legal Education
by Professor Tania Leiman, Flinders University
Advancing Human Rights through Experiential Learning
by Ms Lindsay Ernst, The University of Hong Kong

Session 4 – Technology and Innovations in Legal Education
New Technologies and the Disruption of Legal Education
by Professor Daniel Rodriguez, Northwestern University
by Professor Yang Jianguang, Sun Yat-sen University
The Integration of Technology into Clinical Legal Education: An Exploration of the ‘Virtual’ Law Clinic
by Ms Francine Ryan, The Open University
Using Technology and the Media to Cultivate Authentic Problem-solving Skills in Undergraduate Law Students
by Professor Rick Glofcheski, The University of Hong Kong
LITE Lab@HKU – Future Lawyering to Serve Hong Kong’s Tech Startups, Social Entrepreneurs and Access to Justice
by Mr Brian W Tang, The University of Hong Kong

Session 5 – Experiential Learning and Innovations in Professional Education
An International, Interdisciplinary, Innovative Discussion Platform for Real Estate & Legal Education in HK
by Ms Alice Lee & Dr L H Li, The University of Hong Kong
Experiential Learning and Innovations in Professional Education – Interdisciplinary Roundtable (Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine)
by Professor C S Lau, The University of Hong Kong
Experiential Learning and Innovations in Professional Education – Social Work Practice Laboratory
by Dr Elsie Chien, The University of Hong Kong
Experiential Learning and Innovations in Professional Education – Interdisciplinary Roundtable (Faculty of Education)
by Dr Gary Harfitt & Ms Jessie Chow, The University of Hong Kong
Experiential Learning and Innovations in Professional Education – Interdisciplinary Roundtable (Faculty of Dentistry)
by Professor Michael Botelho, The University of Hong Kong

Thursday, October 29, 2020

New Issue of Hong Kong Law Journal (Vol. 50 - Celebrating 50 Years of Legal Scholarship, Part 2 of 2020)

Vol. 50, Part 2 of 2020

Editor-in-Chief: Professor Rick Glofcheski
Associate Editor: Professor Albert Chen
Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell


Under art 29(4) of Hong Kong's National Security Law, a person or company who "receives instructions" from a foreign country to commit the act of "imposing sanctions" against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) or the People's Republic of China (PRC) commits a criminal offence. If, as required by the law of a foreign country X, a financial institution in Hong Kong, performs an act in the course of its business for the purpose of implementing a sanction imposed by country X against the HKSAR or PRC, does that financial institution violate art 29(4)? In this article, we argue the financial institution does not. The scope of art 29(4) must be interpreted contextually. It covers the performance of an act of imposing a sanction or blockade or of engaging in other hostile activities. Such an act is only capable of being performed by a state, an individual acting on behalf of a state or an international organisation. A financial institution, giving effect to sanctions against the HKSAR or the PRC, cannot be regarded as 'receiving instructions' to 'impose sanctions', which have already been imposed by a foreign state. It cannot be guilty of a criminal offence under art 29(4) merely by participating in the implementation of the sanctions concerned to comply with a foreign law applicable to it.

Focus: 2019 Hong Kong Protests: Political Origins and Legal Ramifications
Po Jen Yap ... 365
For most of 2019, Hong Kong was rocked by civil unrest. The protests originally arose in opposition to the Hong Kong Government's attempt to pass an extradition law that would allow for Hong Kong residents to be extradited to other regions and countries, including Mainland China, to face trial for alleged offences committed here. Even though the bill was eventually withdrawn, the unrest continued as protestors pressed on for other demands, including universal suffrage. In response to escalating street violence, the Hong Kong Government invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (Cap 241) (ERO) to enact a regulation that bans facial covering in public. And the roiling constitutional crisis culminated with Beijing's imposition of a bespoke National Security Law on Hong Kong in June 2020.

The Unprosecuted Taiwan Homicide, the Unaccepted Extradition Law Amendment Bill and the Underestimated Common Law
PY Lo ... 373
The 2019 Hong Kong Protests arose out of the popular opposition to a Bill that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government introduced to amend, generally, fugitive offenders and mutual legal assistance legislation. The Government claimed that the Bill was necessary to address "loopholes" identified in the handling of a case of homicide of a Hong Kong-resident woman in Taiwan by her Hong Kong-resident boyfriend who, having committed the homicide, returned to Hong Kong and was prosecuted only for money laundering. This article addresses two sets of legal issues concerning the Bill. First, it asserts that contrary to the Government's contention, the HKSAR courts do have jurisdiction to try the suspect in the Taiwan homicide case for the common law offence of homicide here. Next, the provisions of the Bill are examined to explain not only its principal flaws but also the implications from those flaws that fuelled the opposition against the Bill. In conclusion, some suggestions are made on judicial cooperation between Hong Kong and the "One Country" in criminal matters based on Hong Kong's flexible and resilient common law legal and judicial systems.

Political Crowdfunding of Rights
Julius Yam ... 395
This article takes a first look at political crowdfunding in Hong Kong. Crowdfunding has not only changed the ways businesses raise capital but also have great implications for law and politics. This article explores how crowdfunding was used by protestors during the 2019 anti-extradition bill movement to facilitate political expressions and litigations related to the events at the time. It describes the political crowdfunding scene in Hong Kong, highlights the dependency of rights on financial conditions and the potential of this financing technology to enhance the realisation of the rights to freedom of expression and access to justice in Hong Kong. More generally, the article prompts reflection about the relationship between law, politics and money, especially in non-democratic regimes.

"Who but the Governor in Executive Council is the Judge?" — Historical Use of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance
Michael Ng, Shengyue Zhang and Max Wong ... 425
Drawing upon archival documents and previous scholarly works, this article investigates the invocation of Emergency Regulations Ordinance (Cap 241) (ERO) in colonial Hong Kong against the broader historical context connecting China, Britain and Hong Kong during the interwar and Cold War periods to make three main arguments. First, it argues that in comparison with similar statutes in other British colonies, the ERO was much easier for the Hong Kong Government to invoke to the extent that it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any challenge of its constitutionality to succeed. Second, China factors, be they factors related to China under Nationalist or Communist Party rule, were crucial in almost every occasion on which the ERO was used throughout Hong Kong's colonial history. Finally, partly because of the nearly unchecked freedom that the colonial government enjoyed, it used the ERO not only to deal with grave political instability or legitimacy crises but also to tackle the inconveniences of domestic governance, thereby effectively "ruling by decree". Accordingly, the number of times the ERO was invoked exceeds the figure we would expect if its use had arisen only on "occasion of emergency".

A "Guardian" Controversy over Hong Kong's Basic Law?
Ryan Mitchell ... 463
The High Court's November 2019 overturning of the mask ban turned in part on finding that the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (Cap 241) improperly arrogated "general legislative authority" to the Chief Executive. In doing so, it raised questions that might be usefully compared with those of Weimar Germany's so-called Guardian controversy involving the legal theorists Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen and Hermann Heller. That dispute concerned both the scope of emergency powers and the final locus of constitutional review authority. In the mask ban case, only the former issue has been directly raised. However, any future interpretation issued by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) would indeed risk broader implications for the principle of separation of powers. The NPCSC's taking action to empower a greater legislative role for the Chief Executive would likely be criticised by each of these three leading late Weimar legal scholars, though for very different reasons.

Article 18(4) of the Basic Law creates a dual emergency power: the internal emergency power of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and the external emergency power of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The external and internal emergencies represent two paradigms of emergency regime: the former is based on the state of exception, in which a state manages a crisis, largely independent of legal rules and without constitutional and legal accountability, and the latter is based on the concept of the rule of law, according to which the emergency power is subject to significant legal constraints. The internal and external emergencies in Hong Kong represent the opposite ends of the spectrum of emergency law between the liberal Hong Kong and the statist, authoritarian Chinese state. However, the minimum requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as provided in the Basic Law, should be and can be observed in both internal and external emergencies. To maximise the protection of rights and freedoms while addressing security concerns, it is necessary for the HKSAR to internalise emergency measures.

Deference as Proper Judicial Attitude — with Special Reference to Anti-Mask Law Judgments 
Guobin Zhu and Xiaoshan Zhang ... 517
The anti-mask law case mainly deals with the constitutionality and legality of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (Cap 241) (ERO) and the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (Cap 241K) (PFCR). The ERO allocates power, while the PFCR restricts rights. The Court of First Instance (CFI) struck down the ERO on the ground of separation of powers and the PFCR on the ground of disproportionality. The Court of Appeal (CA) set aside the CFI's declaration of unconstitutionality with respect to the ERO and parts of the PFCR. The difference between the CFI and CA judgments lies not only in the outcome but also in the degree of deference. This article provides a reflective commentary on the judgments by the CFI and the CA from the perspective of judicial deference. It starts with the proper role of the courts under the separation of powers in Hong Kong. Next, it introduces deference as a sensible judicial attitude and delineates the requirement of deference under Hong Kong's constitutional framework. Then, it applies deference in the analysis of the anti-mask law case and examines the degree of deference shown in the judgments of the CFI and CA. The main idea is that deference is required by the separation of powers doctrine and in the specific context of the case, whereas insufficient deference has led the CFI to a controversial and not amply justified conclusion, which had been later overturned by the CA.

The Necessity of Balancing: Hong Kong's Flawed Approach to Proportionality, and Why It Matters
Alec Stone Sweet...541
Virtually all of the world's most powerful high courts recognise the proportionality principle — as enforced through a distinctive sequence of subtests — to be an overarching criterion of constitutional legality. In Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board, the Court of Final Appeal added a fourth and final "balancing phase" to what had been a truncated version of the proportionality framework. This article analyses Hysan and its effects from two perspectives. First, compared to the standard model of proportionality analysis, Hysan places deference to legislative and executive authority at its core, thereby transforming rights doctrine into a form of reasonableness review. Indeed, it creates an approach more akin to Wednesbury unreasonableness than proportionality. Second, the foreign case law invoked by the Court of Final Appeal does not actually support the Hysan framework. Unless corrected, judicial fidelity to Hysan will chronically reproduce three pathologies: analytical incompleteness; doctrinal instability; and judicial abdication.

Remedial Discretion and the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation 
Po Jen Yap and Jiang Zixin ... 569
In this article, we make the following arguments in relation to the Court of First Instance (CFI) and Court of Appeal (CA) decisions on the constitutionality of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (Cap 241) (ERO) and the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (Cap 241K) (PFCR). First, the CFI should have granted a Suspension Order vis-à-vis the ERO so as to allow the police to enforce s 3(1)(a) of the PFCR — a provision the CFI deemed proportionate — until the final resolution of the appeal. Second, the CA's reasons for upholding the constitutionality of the ERO are flawed as the CA has conflated public dangers with public emergencies, and the putative judicial safeguards identified are illusory in nature. Third, the CA in effect applied Remedial Interpretations (RI) to impugned legislation in four instances without expressly declaring the law unconstitutional: (1) RI was applied to the ERO such that the Chief Executive in Council is disempowered from amending or suspending its statutory duty to place all subsidiary legislation before the Legislative Council for vetting and repeal by resolution; (2) RI was applied to the ERO such that regulations made under the ERO cannot derogate from the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383) unless a public emergency is officially proclaimed, the derogation is strictly required by the exigencies of the situation and non-derogable rights are unaffected; (3) RI was applied to the Public Order Ordinance (Cap 245) such that minor non-compliance with conditions issued by the police would not per se turn a procession into an unauthorised assembly; and (4) RI was applied to s 3(1)(b) of the PFCR such that the facial covering prohibition would not apply to mere passers-by present at the scene of an unauthorised assembly.

Amnesty for Street Protesters 
In the summer of 2019, protesters took to the streets of Hong Kong. After thousands of arrests for protest-related offences, amnesty for street protesters was proposed but not adopted, primarily on the ground that amnesty would undermine the rule of law. Drawing on comparative experiences and theoretical analysis, this article sets out four value-based rationales for protest amnesty — rule of law, democratic responsiveness, virtue and political trust — and considers the relevance of each in the current context of Hong Kong. In doing so, this article focuses on the distinctive and overlooked context of street protest in the literature on amnesties.

Constitutional Controversies in the Aftermath of the Anti-Extradition Movement of 2019
The aftermath of the anti-extradition movement of 2019 saw three great constitutional controversies fuelled by conflicting interpretations of the Basic Law. Collectively, they may be regarded as constituting the greatest shock experienced by the constitutional framework of "One Country, Two Systems" since this political and legal experiment began in 1997. It is the purpose of this article to document and analyse these three constitutional controversies.

50th Anniversary Feature Article
Carole J Petersen ... 633
This article analyses the Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong (NSL) from the perspective of foreign governments. The NSL empowers security personnel from Mainland China to operate openly in Hong Kong and provides a mechanism through which the Central Government can assert jurisdiction over particular cases. Many nations have responded by suspending their extradition agreements with Hong Kong and by applying new export controls, no longer trusting the "firewall" that previously separated the two legal systems. Foreign governments are also concerned by the broadly defined criminal offences, the extraterritorial reach of the NSL and the expansion in police powers. Although art 4 states that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) will continue to apply, this general statement is undermined by specific clauses that conflict with ICCPR-protected rights. Given that the ultimate power of interpretation rests with the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, one cannot assume that the Hong Kong judiciary will be able to cure these problems. Foreign governments are therefore justified in concluding that Hong Kong is no longer operating a truly separate legal system from Mainland China.

The power of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) to interpret the Basic Law has been a matter of great controversy in Hong Kong. Given the asymmetrical power relationship between the sovereign and the Special Administrative Region, it is argued that the exercise of sovereign power has to be subject to self-restraint if the common law system is to be preserved. Accepting the sovereign power of the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law, this article argues that there is no discernible principle of interpretation in the five interpretations made by the NPCSC in the past two decades. The article proposes, in an attempt to reconcile the sovereign power of interpretation and preserve the common law system, some guiding rules for the exercise of this power, so that it can be exercised in a rational and principled manner consistent with the constitutional design of One Country, Two Systems.

The Iron Curtain: Controlling Unreasonable Defamation Immunity Clauses
Neerav Srivastava ... 685
Defamation immunity clauses (DICls) are a new phenomenon. If a guest using Airbnb posts a defamatory review of the host, in theory, the host can sue both the guest and Airbnb. But the guest may have returned to another country and be out of reach. Airbnb, like other commercial platforms, contractually immunise themselves against liability by using DICls. This article argues that there needs to be statutory control of unreasonable DICls. Historically actors involved in defamation would not have been in a contractual relationship. If unchecked, DICls may pose an existentialist threat to defamation law as a protector of reputations.

Non-Invocation of UNCITRAL Model Law Article 16(3) — a Critical Approach
Li Chen and Qianqian Yu ... 719
Article 16(3) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration provides that if a tribunal rules as a preliminary question that it has jurisdiction, a party may seek recourse to the supervisory court to review that ruling within 30 days. The provision, however, is silent on the consequences of failing to challenge a preliminary jurisdictional decision under art 16(3). Some have argued that the provision has a preclusive effect, such that a party failing to seek immediate recourse thereunder will be precluded from revisiting this issue after an award has been rendered; others take a more liberal view as to its effects. This article examines these different approaches towards the interpretation and application of art 16(3) and considers them against the text of art 16(3), its drafting history, doctrinal bases, and policy considerations. It argues against a preclusive view of art 16(3) and posits that a party's non-invocation of art 16(3) can only lead to preclusion based on the general doctrines of waiver and estoppel or other applicable doctrines that may exist within the relevant jurisdiction.

The Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area: Cultural Heritage Laws as a Bridge between Past and Future
Rostam J Neuwirth and Zhijie Chen ... 743
Cultural heritage laws are often primarily understood as being aimed at protecting relics from the past against threats from the passage of time that are manifest in changing social and economic conditions, which may expose those relics to damage, decay or destruction. Recently, however, the focus has been shifting towards the constructive role that cultural heritage laws can play in future. This article aims to give a brief outline of the legal frameworks governing the protection of cultural heritage in Hong Kong, Macao and Guangdong Province of the People's Republic of China. Specifically, the article assesses the potential for cultural heritage protection in the context of the objectives for the development of the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area.

China Law
This article examines the lack of information transparency on the part of the Chinese government as revealed in the COVID-19 outbreak. Based on the evidence of the lack of information transparency in the initial stage of this public health emergency, the article reviews how the Chinese public health emergency information system, which had been established in response to the 2003 SARS crisis, was implemented. It further analyses the fundamental reasons for the lack of information transparency despite the reporting, disseminating and early warning mechanisms that existed in the country. It finds that powerless centres for disease control and prevention, prioritisation of the political concern of social stability and harmonisation over public health, extremely tight governance of public opinions and inadequacies of the public health emergency information system with respect to new and emerging infectious diseases are the four major factors that combined to result in the lack of information transparency in the COVID-19 outbreak in China. The article identifies big lessons to be learned to promote information transparency in public health emergencies.

Constructing Tainted Witness Immunity in Corruption Crime in China
Xinlin Peng and Heping Dang ... 809
Tainted witness immunity in corruption crime is not a right of any witness to claim independently. It can be seen as a compromise of the State and a restriction of the privilege against self-incrimination so that certain serious corruption crime cases can be prosecuted. Tainted witness immunity in corruption crime is a requirement of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. It is in line with China's policy of severely punishing corruption offences. It facilitates obtaining evidence in corruption cases and accelerates their proceedings. Tainted witness immunity system does not conflict with China's criminal law principles. It does not have a direct connection to judicial corruption. Currently, China is yet to have a tainted witness immunity system in place. This article puts forth a proposal describing it theoretically, focusing on the types, objectives, conditions, procedures, and safeguards of a tainted witness immunity system in corruption crime.

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

HKU Law Faculty Perspectives on Separation of Powers in Hong Kong

Hong Kong Free Press 
26 September 2020
Chief Executive Carrie Lam and her administration insist that Hong Kong has an “executive-led” system of government, with no formal separation of powers between the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. This seems directly to contradict statements by successive chief justices about guarantees of judicial independence under the doctrine of separate powers.
     The issue at the crux of the debate is whether Hong Kong’s system is founded on a common law principle which provides safeguards against the abuse of power. Given the uncertainties surrounding the national security law, there are concerns that Lam’s administration is weakening the checks and balances that guarantee judicial independence and the rule of law...
What legal scholars say
Albert Chen, a professor of constitutional law, told HKFP that the debate was merely an issue of interpretation and description, deferring to the statements from Beijing as the appropriate description of the Hong Kong system.
Hong Kong and Chinese government officials reject the [Chinese term for the separation of powers] mainly because it is considered to be inconsistent with the [Chinese term for an executive-led system], which they believe to be the accurate description of the nature of the HKSAR political system.
     However, he said there is no inconsistency between the separation of powers and an executive-led system, and he does not think the government’s comments “will change the way in which courts apply the doctrine of separation of powers in the future.“
     Another constitutional law expert, Professor Johannes Chan, told HKFP it goes deeper than a matter of description:
It is true that there is a different understanding between Hong Kong and the Mainland on separation of powers, but this is more than a matter of interpretation. The understanding will affect how one sees the development of the system.
      He also raised concerns that the government interprets “executive-led” to mean that it can override the courts. “It begs the question of what is executive-led… if it means that the executive prevails over the judiciary or that the Chief Executive is above the law, that is something to be worried [about].” 
     Chan also said that the separation of powers does not touch on the question of sovereignty. “No one says that [the separation of powers] would allow Hong Kong to usurp power that is beyond its autonomy. For powers that are within its autonomy, there is nothing wrong about separation of powers among the three branches, in that each has its own constitutional role and there are checks and balances.“
This has nothing to do with the sovereign power. Nor is it inconsistent with the power coming from the sovereign. But if the objection is that the sovereign has power over the judiciary and the judiciary is expected to be a compliant judiciary, that is of course not our understanding and contrary to what the Basic Law has provided for."
David Law
Published in September 2020
(Editor's note: The following is an excerpt of written response by Professor David Law on recent remark by Chief Executive Carrie Lam, who rejected the notion of separation of powers...)
It does sound like Carrie Lam is deeply confused or deeply mistaken. The allocation of power between national and subnational governments is *not* the same as “separation of powers”. 
     "Separation of powers” traditionally refers to the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and/or judicial branches. In this sense, the concept dates back to Montesquieu. A parliamentary system has only a bipartite (two-part) separation of powers, between the legislative and executive (which are combined together, because the Prime Minister and Cabinet are executive but also sit in the legislature) and the judiciary, which is separate.
    In other words, separation of powers is a horizontal relationship, among equal institutions that perform different functions.
    But the relationship between Beijing and HKSAR is a vertical relationship, between a government that rules over broader territory, and a government that rules over narrower territory.
   That is about dividing power on the basis of geography (national vs subnational) and subject matter (e.g. education, environmental protection, immigration), not on the basis of functions (executive, legislative, judicial). So we do not call it “separation of powers”. Click here to read the full text. 

"Separation of Powers"
By Danny Gittings (PhD candidate)
It is one of the most often cited passages from Sir Anthony’s Mason’s extensive extra-judicial writings during his 18 years as a non-permanent judge on the Court of Final Appeal. An extract from a 2007 Hong Kong Law Journal article in which Mason cautioned that, while the Hong Kong Basic Law clearly “incorporates a separation of powers”, this is one of a number of areas where comparative law needs to be treated with great care[1]—since the exact form in which separation of powers applies will inevitably vary from one jurisdiction to another—was, for a decade after it was written, regularly cited in Hong Kong court judgments relating to the doctrine.[2]
     Last week that same passage, which had been previously cited by Ms Teresa Cheng in 2011 while sitting as a deputy High Court,[3] was used once again by the now Secretary for Justice in the very different context of a strongly worded newspaper article which argued that the “doctrine has no place in the political structure of Hong Kong” and used language such as “desperate” and “pathetic” to disparage those who disagree with her.[4] Mason’s specific caution, which only ever mentioned avoiding the direct incorporation of foreign case law in this area and never suggested such judgments could not be more selectively cited (as Cheng, in fact, did in her 2011 judgment)[5], was twisted into a much more general warning that the doctrine as a whole “must be treated with great care in its application in Hong Kong”, wording which seemed to imply that both Mason and the judges who cited this extract had doubts about whether the doctrine applies under the Hong Kong Basic Law at all.
     Since this extract from Mason’s 2007 article has been interpreted so greatly out of context, it might be helpful briefly to revisit the context in which it was originally written. Separation of powers is not, and has never been, since at least the 18th century, the pure system set out in the leading textbook definition by MJC Vile that Cheng’s newspaper article cited to buttress her argument that Hong Kong does not have any version of the doctrine at all. From reading that text, the Secretary would know that Vile only offered this pure definition as a “benchmark” against which to judge the less extreme versions of separation of powers practiced, in various forms, in most jurisdictions around the world.[6] That point was somewhat overlooked in a handful of early court judgments on separation of powers under the Hong Kong Basic Law, which came rather too close to adopting a pure version of the doctrine,[7] in one case citing from a formalist Australian precedent which Mason himself had previously criticised.[8]  Mason’s cautions on this point, which began a few months after one of these formalist judgments,[9] are best understood as friendly advice from someone experienced in ruling on separation of powers issues on the need for the SAR to carve out its own distinctive version of separation of powers, just as other jurisdictions the world over have done.
     That advice was heeded in subsequent judgments, and it must be open to doubt if Mason would feel any need to repeat the same caution today. During the second decade of the SAR, the courts carved out what Cheung J (as he then was) described as a “flexible and realistic, as opposed to an idealistic approach to the doctrine of separation of powers”[10], which recognises that the precise manner in which separation of powers is applied must be adapted to suit Hong Kong’s specific circumstances, just as it is in almost every jurisdiction in the world.[11] That means a court's application of a localised version of the doctrine is a far cry from the wholesale adoption of a western political system that appears to have been the real target of Deng Xiaoping’s 1987 warning which, although he only briefly mentioned separation of powers in passing (and inaccurately referred to the existence of an “American parliamentary system”) continues to be resurrected every time there is a fresh debate over the existence of separation of powers under the Hong Kong Basic Law.[12]
     Had the Secretary confined herself simply to pointing out Hong Kong’s system is far from a “pure” system of separation of powers—as one mainland scholar did last week[13]—she could have provided a useful contribution to the current debate over the issue. But an article that uses language like “desperate” and “pathetic” to disparage those who disagree with her hardly falls into that category.

Danny Gittings is completing a PhD on separation of powers at the Faculty of Law.

[1] Sir Anthony Mason, “The Place of Comparative Law in the Developing Jurisprudence on the Rule of Law and Human Rights in Hong Kong” (2007) 37 HKLJ 299, 305.

[2] Luk Ka Cheung v Market Misconduct Tribunal [2009] 1 HKLRD 114, 130, Re Easy Concepts International Holdings Ltd [2011] 6 HKC 391, 407, Koon Wing Yee v Financial Secretary [2013] 1 HKLRD 76, 93 and Chief Executive of the HKSAR v President of the Legislative Council [2016] 6 HKC 417, 434.

[3] Re Easy Concepts at 407.

[4] Teresa Cheng, “Why separation of powers has no place in Hong Kong’s political structure”, South China Morning Post, 9 Sept. 2020.

[5] Deputy High Court Judge Cheng’s judgment made reference to four Australian, and one US, decisions on the meaning of judicial power.

[6] MJC Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2nd ed., 1998) at page 14.

[7] See Danny Gittings, “Separation of Powers in Hong Kong: Inching Towards a More Flexible Judicial Interpretation” (2019) 49(1) HKLJ  1, 11-13.

[8] Lau Kwok Fai v Secretary for Justice (unrep., HCAL 177 and 180/2002, [2003] HKEC 711) at para. 19, citing from R v Kirby, ex p Boilermaker’s Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, an Australian judgment which has been widely criticized, including in Sir Anthony Mason, “A New Perspective on Separation of Powers” (1996) 82 Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration 1, 5.

[9] In the inaugural lecture of the Common Law Lecture Series on 18 March 2005, three months after a highly formalist judgment in Re Chu Wai Ha [2005] 2 HKC 36. See Gittings (n7) at 14.

[10] Luk Ka Cheung at 134.

[11] Gittings (see n7) at 14-17

[12] Deng Xiaoping, “Speech at a Meeting with the Members of the Committee for Drafting the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”, 16 April 1987 in Deng Xiaoping on the Question of Hong Kong (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1993) at page 55

[13] Zhu Zheng, “Separation of powers in Hong Kong: Yes or no?”, CGTN, 10 Sept. 2020.

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Interview with Yun Zhao, the New Representative of the Hague Conference on Private International Law Asia Pacific Regional Office

Congratulations to Professor Yun Zhao on his appointment as the Representative of the Asia Pacific Regional Office of the Hague Conference on Private International Law! The Faculty of Law's KE Unit is honoured to have the opportunity to interview Professor Zhao on his new role and the challenges ahead for private international law co-operation.

1. What is the Hague Conference on Private International Law?
The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is a global intergovernmental organization with the purpose to work for the progressive unification of the rules of private international law ranging from commercial law and banking law to international civil procedure and from child protection to matters of marriage and personal status. It also fosters international judicial and administrative cooperation in the area of private law, especially in the fields of protection of the family and children, of civil procedure and commercial law. It does so by developing multilateral treaties (HCCH Conventions) and other legal instruments. 

2. When was the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific opened in Hong Kong and what is its mission? 
The Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (ROAP), representing the HCCH in the Asia-Pacific Region, was opened in 2012 with the mission to act as a bridge to enhance communications and understanding between the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH in the Hague and States in the Asia-Pacific Region. The ROAP promotes the HCCH and the HCCH Conventions by conducting events, developing projects and a variety of activities across the Asia-Pacific Region. Our former colleague, Professor Anselmo Reyes was the representative of the ROAP from 2013 to 2017.

3. What are the duties of the Representative of the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific? 
The ROAP Representative shall promote the HCCH and its Conventions and build networks within the Asia Pacific Region; develop deeper understanding of the Hague Conventions and facilitate good practice and consistent implementation of these conventions; conduct or participate regional workshops, lectures, conferences, seminars or webinars; report on regional activities regularly to the Permanent Bureau. 

4. As the new Representative of the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, what do you hope to achieve in your term of appointment? 
I hope to strengthen the existing HCCH networks throughout the Asia Pacific Region and encourage non-member States in the region to join the HCCH and the Hague Conventions, enhance contacts with government officials, academic institutions and professional bodies in the region, and provide appropriate technical assistance to Member States in the Region.

Thank you Professor Zhao and all the best to you in your new role.

Sunday, October 25, 2020

Dr Haochen Sun Awarded HKU Faculty Knowledge Exchange Award 2020

Congratulations to Dr Haochen Sun who was awarded the University of Hong Kong's Faculty Knowledge Exchange (KE) Award 2020 (Faculty of Law). The award recognises the impact his research has had on intellectual property in the interests of the public. Titling his application "Intellectual Property and the Public Interest " ("知識產權與公共利益"), the impact from his work was summarised as follows:
"A pioneer of the idea of public interest for copyright protection, which has a direct impact on policy debates in the international arena, Dr Haochen Sun is often interviewed by international and local press, including The Wall Street Journal and RTHK. His research on IP, technology and public interest is featured in international conferences and published in international legal journals. What impressed the selection committee is that Google adopted the wordings suggested by Dr Haochen Sun and by the impact his work has had on the debate in this area."
The Faculty KE Awards were introduced in 2011 in order to recognise each Faculty’s outstanding KE accomplishment that has made demonstrable economic, social or cultural impacts to benefit the community, business/industry, or partner organisations. Nominations in each Faculty were considered by an Ad Hoc Faculty KE Award Selection Committee chaired by the Dean, and members included the Faculty representative serving on the KE Working Group, one of the Associate Directors of the Knowledge Exchange Office (KEO), and a member from outside the University. The selection criteria include evidence of the KE project’s link with excellence in research or in teaching & learning of HKU; evidence of an effective engagement process with the non-academic sector(s); and evidence of demonstrable benefits to the community, business/industry, or partner organisations.

Haochen Sun on Reinvigorating the Human Right to Technology (Michigan J of Int'l L)

"Reinvigorating the Human Right to Technology"2020, 41 Michigan Journal of International Law 279
Published in August 2020
Abstract: The right to technology is a forgotten human right. Dating back to 1948, the right was established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) in response to the massive destruction wrought by technologically advanced weapons in the Second World War. This human right embodies one of the most profound lessons the framers of the UDHR learned from this war: Technology must benefit humanity rather than harm it.
     It has been more than seventy years since the adoption of the UDHR, and technology has advanced at a rapid pace and become more important than ever in our daily lives. Yet in this age of technology, the right to technology remains obscure, dormant, and ineffective. No other human right has received such scant attention, and the right to technology has indeed become an “orphan” in the international human rights regime. This article traces the origins of society’s disregard for the right and attributes it to the confluence of three main contributing factors: (1) the right’s inherent obscurity, (2) the ineffective human rights enforcement system, and (3) the international community’s overemphasis on intellectual property protection. The current human rights regime is unable to sufficiently address these complex factors, as it remains deeply rooted in the individual rights system and lacks a fully-fledged distributive justice vision.
     Against this backdrop, this article reinvigorates the right to technology by recommending its protection as a collective right. It considers how and why the right to technology should be redefined as a collective right that entitles people to enjoy the benefits of technological progress and minimizes the harms that such progress may cause. A collective right to technology can protect both larger societal interests in maintaining public freedom and dignity, as well as specific group interests in guarding against the use of technologies to prejudice group freedom and dignity. This new understanding of the right to technology, therefore, sets distributive justice agendas for promoting the development of intellectual property law into the public interest.

Haochen Sun on The Fundamental Right to Technology (Hofstra L Rev)

"The Fundamental Right to Technology"2020, 48 Hofstra Law Review 445
Published in August 2020
Abstract: Waves of technological progress in recent decades have tremendously improved quality of life. Meanwhile, concerns about technology-driven injustices, such as unfair distribution of wealth and racial discrimination, have deepened. Experts have cautioned that new technologies could have potentially devastating effects, claiming for instance that artificial intelligence may lead to World War III. We are at a crossroads, and how we harness technology now will determine the future of humanity.
     This Article presents a thought experiment, proposing that a new fundamental right to technology be recognized under the U.S. Constitution. Given that technology is of fundamental importance to human dignity and equality, this new constitutional right is designed to promote equitable distribution of technological benefits and to prevent harmful applications of technologies. This proposal is made with the hope that other countries may also recognize this fundamental right in constitutional law, ensuring global protection of the right to technology.
     Based on an overview of fundamental rights protection under the U.S. Constitution, the Article first discusses how the U.S. Supreme Court has developed a liberal approach to identifying fundamental rights not enumerated by the Constitution. It then applies this liberal approach to a consideration of why the right to technology should be deemed an un-enumerated fundamental right. This Article further canvasses how this new fundamental right would protect collective interests in technological benefits. It also explores how to resolve the potential tension between the Intellectual Property Clause and protection of the right to technology.

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Inaugural HKULDC Annual Conference 2020 Gathers Global Doctoral Candidates

The inaugural Annual Conference of HKU Law Doctoral Colloquium (HKULDC) took place on 31 August 31 2020. After distributing a call for papers  and inviting international PhD students, HKULDC assembled a diverse group consisting of 16 speakers from HKU, CUHK, CityUHK, Beijing, NYU, Indiana, Glasgow.

Conference Details 
With opening speeches by Professor Hualing FU, Dean of Law and Warren Chan Professor in Human Rights and Responsibilities, and Professor Xin HE, Chairman of the Faculty Higher Degrees Committee and Professor of Law & Society, the Annual Conference warmly welcomed the 16 speakers, as well as distinguished guests and commentators from HKU, UNSW, CityU, Fudan University and China University of Political Science and Law. The audience of 210 teachers and students, who registered for the event, were affiliated with Hong Kong’s three law schools, Mainland’s top law schools as well as the academic institutions in the US, UK, EU and Australia. Following the student representative and PhD candidate Wayne Wei Wang’s introduction to HKULDC, the Conference moved to the Roundtable Sharing on How to Excel in the Academic Job Hunting Marketplace. 

Roundtable Sharing on How to Excel in the Academic Job-Hunting Marketplace 
The Roundtable was attended by Professor Yun Zhao (Head & Henry Cheng Professor in International Law, HKU), Professor Shahla Ali (Professor & Associate Dean (International Law), HKU), Professor Jedidiah Kroncke (Director of Early Career Research & Associate Professor, HKU), Professor Yan Xu (Law PhD Alumnae & Associate Professor, UNSW), Professor Hao Xiong (Law PhD Alumnus & Associate Professor, Fudan University), Dr. Anna Dziedzic (Global Academic Fellow, HKU), and Dr. Xu Qian (Post-Doctoral Fellow, HKU) as speakers. They shared insights and perspectives on preparing for the academic job market and gave advice on how to attend related interviews. 

Panel Session One - The State Apparatuses 
Jane Richards, a PhD candidate at HKU, moderated the first panel on the State Apparatuses, with Professor Scott Veitch (HKU) and Dr. Benjamin Chen (HKU) as lead discussants. Shuyu Chu, a PhD candidate at HKU spoke on Between Right and Punishment: Party Rules as Political Normalization. She gave fascinating insights into how, as a method of political social control, political rules operate in mainland China. She raised key issues in relation to how authoritarian rule in China is maintained, and political expectations are internalized by citizens as a form of CCP governance. The second speaker Teng Li, from the NYU school of law spoke on Justifying the State; with some overlap in the theme of his topic with Shuyu, his concern was with how the state justifies coercion of its subjects. He noted that there are limits to the legitimate exercise of state power, which may trigger citizens rights to use coercion.  The third speaker, Jiajun Luo, also from HKU gave another Chinese themed presentation, this time on The Autonomy of Chinese Courts in Commercial Disputes: Evidence from Intellectual Property Cases. His is an empirical study draws on an analysis of case law to make an argument about the relative independence and autonomy of Chinese courts and the judiciary. Finally, Sumit Sonkar, a PhD Candidate at CUHK presented his talk on Reimagining Equality: An Anatomy of Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. The State of Kerala. The case analysis tested the limits of equality from India’s Constitution in relation to women’s rights and also the caste system. 

Panel Session Two - Commercial, Trade and Investment Tensions 
Sau-Wai Law (Samuel), a third-year part-time PhD candidate at HKU, moderated the second panel on Commercial, Trade and Investment Tension, with Prof Jiangyu Wang (CityU) and Dr Angel Zhang (HKU) as discussants. Ziyu Liu, a third-year PhD candidate at HKU, observed that the drafting of the Foreign Investment Law of China (FIL) had been seriously affected by Sino-U.S. relations. It leads to the fact that FIL is only a compromise made. She argues that the Sino-US relation will continue to affect the formation and implementation of foreign investment policy in China. Abdulkadir Yilmazcan, a fourth-year PhD candidate at HKU, shared his empirical findings of the procedural rules of US and EU against China in its anti-dumping measures. He argued that the main purpose of the Anti-dumping Agreement may be defeated given a lack of procedural justice. Dr. Chao Wang from CUHK, shared his empirical studies of the Chinese shareholding disclosure rules of the Chinese shareholding disclosure rules and public enforcement by the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and proposes that China to adopt a relatively tolerant regime for shareholding disclosure so as to avoid the stifling effect on market developments. Shanyu Xiao, 3rd year PhD candidate at City University of Hong Kong, shared her empirical findings that the Mixed Ownership Reform has achieved initial success in promoting the internal corporate governances of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China; although more shall be done as most SOEs only limited the introduction on non-state capital, giving limited control rights to new strategic investors 

Panel Session Three - Rights, Safety and Geography 
Abdulkadir YILMAZCAN, a fourth-year PhD candidate at HKU, moderated the third panel on rights, safety and geography, with Prof Zhiyuan GUO (CUPL) and Dr. Jedidiah KRONCKE (HKU) as lead discussants. PhD candidate Jane RICHARDS presented “Abolition of the insanity defence: a new model of criminal responsibility inclusive of all mental capacities”. Richards argues that the proposed model would ensure that the criminal justice system functions to bring more substantial justice for all. MPhil candidate Elaine Lok-Lam YIM delivered her presentation titled “Why the Right to Collective Self-determination of a People Cannot Support Extensive Immigration Control”. Yim argues that the scope of legitimate authority of a state vis-à-vis non-citizens is limited to what is sufficient for attaining the collective autonomy of the citizens, whereas the scope of legitimate authority of a state vis-à-vis citizens is not limited to a sufficientarian standard. Yi Seul KIM presented her study “The Formalistic Ebb and Flow in China’s Food Safety Regulatory Governance: Periods of Under-Regulation and Over-Regulation”. Kim, in her study, examines how accurate it is to say that law reforms de facto mean improvement in food safety based on empirical findings. PhD candidate Dhiraj NAINANI presented his work “Gold & Darkness: The Legal Geography of Hong Kong’s ‘Last Ghetto’. His paper attempts to paint a portrait of the complex assemblage that is Chungking Mansions. 

Panel Session Four - Regulating Digital and Robotic Platforms 
Pattamon Anansaringkarn, a second-year PhD candidate at HKU, moderated the fourth panel on regulating digital and robotic platforms, with Dr. Yahong Li (HKU) and Dr. Marcelo Thompson (HKU) as lead discussants. Miss Tian Zeng, a PhD candidate at Peking University, considered the issue of exclusive behaviour in the online platform market from a competition law perspective in her presentation “Access to Premium Content in Online Content Platform Market: Research on Exclusive Behavior under Competition Law”. Miss Xingsi Di, a PhD candidate from the Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong, shared her insight on the development of a regulatory mechanism for Robo-advisors in China in her presentation, “From Prosperity to Deadlock: China's Path on Financial Supervisions on The Robo-advisors”. Mr. Zihao Li, a PhD candidate at the University of Glasgow, discussed personalised pricing in the context of EU data protection laws in his presentation “A critical review of Automatic Price-making Algorithm and EU Data Protection Law: Is GDPR Enough to Achieve the Goal of Transparency and Fairness in the Era of E-commerce?”. Mr. Yifan Huang, a lecturer at the School of AI & Law, Shanghai University of Political & Law, shared his research on the possibility of introducing a judicial AI assistive case-handling system across different legal regimes in China in his presentation “Legal Challenges for Establishing a Unified Artificial Intelligence Assistive Platform in Judicial Practice”. 

Keynote Speech
Dr Shitong Qiao, Associate Professor of the University of Hong Kong, gave a wonderful keynote speech on "Publishing Your Doctoral Thesis during and/or after Your PhD Studies." In his speech, Dr Qiao gave lots of helpful advice on selecting journals/law reviews; publishing books based on PhD thesis with multiple interesting examples; and many other things. The keynote speech was moderated by Elaine Yim.

The inaugural HKULDC Annual Conference was concluded by the closing remarks and further suggestions from Professor Scott VEITCH, Paul K C Chung Professor in Jurisprudence and Dr. Alex SCHWARTZ, Deputy Director of RPG Student Affairs. 

What is #HKULDC? 
HKULDC is HKU’s student-driven online platform for intellectual exchange among global early-stage legal researchers. It has framed six sub-fields such as, Comparative Chinese Law (CCL), Public Law (PL), Legal Theory/Law and Humanities/Law and Society (LTHS), Financial, Competition and Commercial Law (FCCL), Technology and Intellectual Property Law (TIPL), Arbitration, Dispute Resolution and International Law (ADRIL), and Food, Medical and Health Law (FMHL).

Why is #HKULDC? 
The COVID-19 Pandemic has made MPhil/PhD life digital, remote and somewhat disrupted. However, it has also been observed that online doctoral seminars and colloquiums are being organised to create a formal and serious environment for intellectual exchange globally. MPhil/PhD life is not only reading and writing all the time. It is also about practising scholars’ life. MPhil/PhD candidates have to transfer themselves from students to early-stage researchers (ESRs) in the degree-seeking process. 
How will #HKULDC proceed? 

Annual HKULDC Conference 
Initiated by the FHDC committee members and convened by HKU’s Law PhD Candidates - Wayne Wei Wang, Yi Seul Kim, Jane Richards, Sau-Wai Law (Samuel), Abdulkadir Yilmazcan, Pattamon Anansaringkarn, and Elaine Lok-Lam Yim, University of Hong Kong Law Doctoral Colloquium (HKULDC) Annual Conference is viewed as an experimental event aimed at ”learning by practice” for HKU Law RPg (MPhil and PhD) students. Presenting at and hosting a panel within one's research area will be an essential skill for her/his potential academic future while attending and contributing to conference discussions is an underestimated but important aspect of training in MPhil/PhD studies. 

Global Doctoral Webinars 
Through HKULDC’s Support Services, RPg students at HKU Law have the potential to make a real and positive change in the community. HKULDC will try to invite the established scholars within global PhD fellows’ research fields to be the panel members, providing them with mentors’ experience and expertise. 

Interdisciplinary Talks 
HKULDC will be organising interdisciplinary sharing events on campus and beyond. They expect to invite those external PhD fellows outside Law Faculty and HKU's Law RPg students, who share similar research interests for a series of interdisciplinary talks. It aims at breaking the traditional lines between subjects and increasing the originality and visibility of RPg students' research. 

Methodology Bootcamps 
HKULDC will also be initiating a regular platform for introducing emerging research methodologies. Our RPg students have observed that empirical studies are emerging in the academic job market. Dozens of law schools are introducing data science courses. Research students have to recognize that new data and methods can help our RPg fellows communicate their research into the general public and policymakers. 

中國法律全球化 (Chinese Law Goes Global) 
Most of HKULDC’s efforts pertaining to this program involve studying new approaches and developing innovative ways to implement them. They evaluate their geographical advantages in this field and remove the language obstacles for the global understanding of the Chinese legal system. 

To know more about HKULDC, please follow the twitter account @hkuldc and subscribe to HKULDC Global Mailing List at!forum/hkuldc.