Friday, December 30, 2016

New Issue of Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law - Special Section on Torture

Editors-in-Chief: Simon NM Young and Kelley Loper
Publisher: Brill, Leiden

Special Section on Torture 

Introduction: Special Section on Post 9/11 Perspectives on Torture 179
Cynthia Banham

Forced Confession as a Ritual of Power: The Case of Diyarbakır Military Prison in Turkey 185
Yeşim Yaprak Yıldız

Transferring Responsibility? The Influence and Interpretation of International Law in Australia’s Approach to Afghan Detainees 240
Sean Richmond
Articles

Searching for the Elusive? Examining the Right to Health’s Status in the Pacific 257
Jennifer Y Kallie, Claire E Brolan and Nicola C Richards

Friday, December 23, 2016

The Inaugural HKU-Boase Cohen & Collins Criminal Law Lecture (20 Jan 2017) (video available)

The Faculty of Law at The University of Hong Kong is delighted to announce the inaugural HKU-Boase Cohen & Collins Lecture Series in Criminal Law was delivered by award-winning international barrister Clare Montgomery QC on Friday, 20 January 2017, at the HKU’s Centennial Campus.
     Ms. Montgomery, of Matrix Chambers in London, is a barrister of international renown and, among the many accolades that have come her way, she has twice been named Crime Silk of the Year in the Chambers & Partners Bar Awards as well as Crime Silk of the Year in the inaugural Legal 500 Awards.
     She spoke about “Joint Enterprise” – a topic which has been in the news due to a landmark ruling by the UK’s Supreme Court and Privy Council in early 2016 and its historic connection with Hong Kong.  She commented on the Court of Final Appeal's December 2016 decision in HKSAR v Chan Kam Shing, which decided not to follow the UK's landmark ruling.  Her lecture can be viewed below.


Thursday, December 22, 2016

Cheng and Kwok on Joint Ventures as Facilitators of Collusion Across Markets (new article)

"A neglected theory of harm: joint ventures as facilitators of collusion across markets"
Thomas Cheng and Kelvin Kwok
Journal of Antitrust Enforcement
Oct 2016 (advance access)
Abstract: While there has been extensive discussion in the antitrust literature on the procompetitive and anticompetitive effects of joint ventures, there is a lack of systematic analysis on the potential of a joint venture to have collusive harm beyond its home market. This article aims to fill the gap in the literature by systematically accounting for the possible ways in which a joint venture can facilitate collusion by its members outside of the venture’s home market, namely: (i) as a punitive mechanism for the cartel; (ii) as a provider of an important input; and (iii) as a facilitator of information exchange. In addition to discussing these theories of harm, this article will attempt to offer some ways in which such anticompetitive concerns raised by joint ventures can be alleviated or addressed under US antitrust law, including ex ante behavioural remedies and ex post conduct enforcement. The proposals are intended to preserve the efficiency-enhancing potential of joint ventures by permitting them as long as their collusion facilitating potential can be reasonably contained.  This article was nominated and shortlisted for the Concurrences Antitrust Writing Awards 2017 (concerted practices category).

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Macau's Response to the November 2016 Interpretation of Hong Kong's Basic Law

Macau's Legislative Assembly.
Credit: Doraemon.tvb
MACAU’S RESPONSE TO THE NOVEMBER 2016 INTERPRETATION OF THE HONG KONG BASIC LAW
Jason Buhi *
Macau’s Government has proposed legislation to bring its electoral law regime into compliance with the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s 7 November 2016 interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law (the ‘November Interpretation’). 
     Macau had already been working on amendments in anticipation of next year’s quadrennial Legislative Assembly election. The original proposal generated controversy for expanding the candidate screening powers of the local Legislative Assembly Election Affairs Commission (CAEAL) – a municipal body whose membership is appointed by the Chief Executive. Macau’s Secretary of Administration and Justice, Sonia Chan, sought deeper amendments following the November Interpretation. The revised version was introduced along with an explanatory text on 7 December 2016. 
     The reform package seeks to amend Law 3/2001: The Electoral Law of the Legislative Assembly of the Macau Special Administrative Region. The documents are notable for their drafters’ views of Macau’s obligations following an NPCSC interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law. Indeed, the Macau Government enthusiastically seeks to embrace the November Interpretation despite lacking the contextual background for which it was prescribed. Macau has no independence movement.
     Notable amendments include:
1) Making ineligible legislative candidatures “who refuse to declare that they uphold the Basic Law […] and that they are faithful” to Macau and China, and unseat those who “do not uphold the Basic Law […] or are not faithful […]” (Articles 6.8, 30.2, and 47-A); 
2) Restricting officers of foreign governments from serving in the Legislative Assembly (Articles 4 and 6); 
3) Tweaks to the CAEAL’s composition (Article 9);  
4) Introducing statutory definitions for the concepts of “electoral propaganda” and “electoral activities” (Article 75-A); 
5) Introducing a duty to communicate any “electoral propaganda activities” to CAEAL for approval at least 18 days in advance of an election (Article 75-B); 
6) Introduction of criminal liability for legal persons or their agents who violate electoral law (Articles 143 and 148), including the application of Macau electoral law to circumstances occurring abroad.
     I share my unofficial English translation of the statutory reform proposal, to which I have added translations of the accompanying explanatory notes for only the aforementioned articles. Any errors therein are my responsibility alone. The official versions are here (Portuguese / Chinese).
* Author is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law.

Autonomy with Portuguese Characteristics (HKLJ)

Jason Buhi (PhD Candidate)
Hong Kong Law Journal
2016, Vol 46, Part 3, pp 879-902
Abstract: In December 2015, the National People’s Congress Basic Law Committee sent a six-person delegation to investigate the relationship between mainland Portugal and its two “ultraperipheral” autonomous regions: the Azores and Madeira archipelagos (PARs). To the residents of Hong Kong and Macau, this occurrence begs understanding of what form that autonomy takes, and what its implications could be for the future development of China’s Special Administrative Regions (SARs). The answers present both rich opportunities and challenges. This article is intended as a primer on Portuguese-style autonomy for the SAR audience. It examines both normative and empirical resources in describing Portuguese practice. Variations in context, political architecture, central-local relations and international identity are explored. Essentially, while the PARs do not have all of the privileges of the SARs in terms of economic liberty and legislative competence, they do enjoy universal suffrage, permanent constitutional recognition and privileged access to the most extensive fundamental rights regime in the world.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

New Book: The Making of the Modern Chinese State (Humphrey Ko)

The Making of the Modern Chinese State
Humphrey Ko
Palgrave Macmillan
2016, 258 pp.
Description: This text addresses the corporate causes of the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and the emergence of modern Republican China. Weaving together political, legal and business histories, it focuses on the key relationship between China, cement and corporations, and demonstrates how the particular circumstances of cement manufacturing in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century China serve to illuminate key aspects of Chinese political economy and illustrate the importance of legal frameworks in the emergence of industrial enterprises. Examining the centrality of legal personality in China’s historical story, seen from the angle of cement manufacturing corporations, it offers an alternative historical perspective on the making of the modern Chinese States and delves into the involvement of larger-than-life historical figures of modern China such as Yuan Shikai, Chiang Kai-shek and the revolutionary and the father of modern China, Sun Yat-sen, in the unfolding of these events.

Felix Chan Presents at the 9th East Asia Maritime Law Forum in Korea


Felix Chan attended the 9th East Asia Maritime Law Forum in South Korea on 11-12 November 2016. He presented a paper on the principles of English private international law relating to maritime contracts, while Professor Yvonne Baatz of Southampton Law School discussed the possible impact of Brexit on the EU conflict of laws. Other speakers from Waseda University, Kyushu University, Korea University, Dalian Maritime University and Shanghai Maritime University surveyed a range of topics regarding shipping, conflict of laws and admiralty jurisdictions. The forum was co-hosted by Korea University, Korea Maritime Law Association and the Incheon Port Authority of the South Korean Government.

Hong Kong Legal History: Student Umbrella Movement of 1919 (HKLJ)

Michael Ng
Hong Kong Law Journal
Dec 2016, Vol 46, Part 3, pp 829-847
Abstract: English law is central to the history of colonial Hong Kong. Traditional colonial historians conceptualise it as a gift to the colonised, and it is still widely acknowledged by Hong Kong citizens today as a core contributing factor to the city’s continued growth and prosperity. The traditional narrative is that the rule of law, which embraces the principles of judicial independence and offers such safeguards of individual liberty as freedom of expression, is the most important legacy of British colonial rule, a legacy that is very often cited to distinguish the legal and societal development of Hong Kong from that of its neighbour across the border, mainland China. This article, drawing on unexplored archival materials, challenges this widely accepted narrative, thereby severing the link between common law’s legal past and present in Hong Kong. Through a close reading of a widely reported court case concerning students’ anti-Japan movement in 1919, the article further argues that the common law system practised in pre–World War II Hong Kong played a more important role in reinforcing an authoritarian form of colonial law and order to achieve the British Empire’s strategic aim of maintaining its overseas territorial and economic possessions than in safeguarding individual liberty and the impartiality of the judicial process.

Comment on Wong Chak Sin v Collector of Stamp Revenue - Legislation by Press Release (HKLJ)

Chen Jianlin
Hong Kong Law Journal
Dec 2016, Vol 46, Part 3, pp 813-827
Abstract: This analysis critically examines Wong Chak Sin v Collector of Stamp Revenue, the first-ever local judicial decision, dealing with “legislation by press release”. The analysis highlights how both the judge and lawyers in the case failed to appreciate the distinct operating mechanism and practical effects of legislation by press release, and argues that the decision’s holding that the government power to tax is exempted from the requirement of proportionality under Art 105 of the Basic Law is a far-reaching extension of existing judicial precedents that should have been subjected to more circumspect scrutiny.

The Right to Social Welfare and Hong Kong's Retirement Protection Reform (HKLJ)

Karen Kong
Hong Kong Law Journal
Dec 2016, Vol. 46, Part 3, pp 779-791
Abstract: This article discusses the proposals for retirement protection reform in the public consultation conducted by the Commission on Poverty. It analyses the relevant human rights obligations of the government under the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the protection of the right to social welfare and the right to an adequate standard of living. It argues that there is a minimum essential level of retirement protection that the government must provide to the elderly in poverty in order to satisfy the human rights obligations, and calls for a more comprehensive human rights impact assessment to be conducted before the implementation of the reform.

New Issue of Hong Kong Law Journal (Part 3 of 2016)


Hong Kong Law Journal
Vol. 46, Part 3 of 2016
Editor-in-Chief: Professor Rick Glofcheski
Associate Editor: Professor Albert Chen


Table of Contents

Lecture
Developing Common Law in Hong Kong Hon Mr Justice Tang PJ    761
Articles
“All for Some” or “Some for All”? Assessing the Realisation of the Right to Social Welfare in the Retirement Protection Reform in Hong Kong Karen Kong    779
Making Good: Dealing with Illegal Drug Consumption in Hong Kong Jack Burke and Sheldon Leung  793
Misfiring the First Judicial Shot at Legislation by Press Release: Wong Chak Sin v Collector of Stamp Revenue Chen Jianlin   813
Rule of Law in Hong Kong History Demythologised: Student Umbrella Movement of 1919 Michael Ng  829
What is a Conflict of Laws? The Case of Chinese Customary Law in Hong Kong Lutz-Christian Wolff   849
Autonomy with Portuguese Characteristics: A Primer on the Privileges of Portugal’s Autonomous Regions for the Special Administrative Region Audience Jason Buhi   879
Punishing Copyright Piracy: What is Sufficient to Provide a Deterrent? an Assessment of the Australian and Singaporean Criminal Copyright Regimes Ainee Adam   903
China Law
Is Australia’s “Twin Peaks” System of Financial Regulation a Model for China? Andrew Godwin, Guo Li and Ian Ramsay   935
Legislation and Adjudication of Tort Liability in Environmental Pollution: An Empirical Study Based on Health-Related Cases in China Heng Li   961
Contesting Legitimacy in China: The Politics of Law in Modern Chinese Jurisprudence Xie Libin and Haig Patapan   991
The (IR)Relevance of ADRs in Resolving Financial Disputes: An Empirical Assessment and Roadmap of Shanghai Shen Wei and Yu Tao   1017
Book Reviews
International Copyright Law: US and EU Perspectives: Text and Cases, Jane C Ginsburg and Edouard TreppozYanbing Li   1055

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Dean Hor Speaks on Death Penalty and Public Opinion in Singapore

Credit: The Online Citizen
"Singapore can no longer use majority support as the reason for not abolishing the death penalty"
Martha Soezean
The Online Citizen
15 December 2016
Speaking in a panel of a public forum held on last Friday (9 Dec) , Michael Hor, Dean of the Faculty of Law in University of Hong Kong, said that with the results from the survey, "Public Opinion on the Death Penalty", the Singapore government can no longer support the use of death penalty by claiming it has majority support of the Singapore population.
     While Roger Hood, the Professor Emeritus of Criminology at Oxford University and an Emeritus Fellow of All Souls College, spoke on the ambiguity of the death penalty and how the general public change their impression of the death penalty when probed further about the implications of the punishment.
     Along with Mr Hor and Professor Hood, Chan Wing Cheong, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore; Jack Tsen-Ta Lee, Assistant Professor at the School of Law, Singapore Management
University; Tan Ern Ser, Associate Professor of Sociology and Academic Adviser to Social Lab,
Institute of Policy Studies and Braema Mathi is founder and former president of MARUAH were present at the panel.
     The survey on Public Opinion on the Death Penalty conducted by the National University of Singapore (NUS) in April to May 2016, showed support for mandatory death penalty by Singaporeans is much lower that what have been inferred from previous surveys which sought opinion about the death penalty in general... Click here to read the full article.

Friday, December 16, 2016

Congratulations to Po Jen Yap on his 2016 Research Awards

Congratulations to Po Jen Yap who was awarded the University of Hong Kong's Outstanding Young Researcher Award 2015-16.  He was also awarded the University's Faculty Research Output Award 2015-16 for his book, Constitutional Dialogue in Common Law Asia published by Oxford University Press.  Dr Yap recently co-organised a successful one-day conference on Constitutional Dialogue at HKU on 9 December 2016.  The event featured a keynote speech from Mr Justice Matthew Palmer (New Zealand High Court), six papers from leading scholars in the area (Rosalind Dixon (UNSW), Aileen Kavanagh (Oxford), Kent Roach (Toronto), Scott Stephenson (Melbourne), Po Jen Yap (HKU), Swati Jhaveri (NUS)), and commentaries from Mark Tushnet (Harvard) and Stephen Gardbaum (UCLA).  Dr Yap presented a paper on Hong Kong cases of dialogue between the courts and legislative/executive branches involving rights exclusive to the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Roda Mushkat on Greater China as Fertile Ground for Building and Testing International Legal Theory (new article)

"Great China Constitutes Fertile Ground for 'Building' and 'Testing' Positive International Legal Theory"
UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs
2016, Vol. 26, pp 354-390
Abstract: Behavioral analysis of international law has neither moved beyond the exploratory stage nor yielded conclusive results. There have been few meaningful attempts to broaden and synthesize conceptual observations rooted in different analytical perspectives and expand the scope of empirical inquiry by juxtaposing hypotheses with data in non-Western geographic and historical contexts. On a modest scale, but productively so in some key respects, the Greater China setting is the exception to the rule by virtue of serving as an emerging platform for a methodical dissection of an array of behaviorally oriented theoretical schemes. It is worthwhile to highlight the contribution to knowledge made by scholars who have ventured into this challenging intellectual domain and the task that lies ahead. 

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

The Evolution of Chinese Property Law (new book chapter)

"The Evolution of Chinese Property Law: Stick by Stick?"
Shitong Qiao
in YC Chang, W Shen & WY Wang (eds), Private Law in China and Taiwan
Nov 2016, Cambridge University Press, pp 182-211
Abstract: Chinese land reform has managed to maintain and disintegrate state and collective land ownership simultaneously by discarding the unitary conception of ownership. It is consistent with the idea that “property comprises a complex aggregate of social and legal relationships” rather than being “the simple and nonsocial relation between a person and a thing.” Regardless of Chinese legal scholars’ enthusiasm for or leftists’ hatred of the idea of individuals having sole and despotic dominion over private property, law and policy makers of Chinese land reform have often taken a more pragmatic approach, reconfiguring land rights in China “stick by stick.” The two main achievements of Chinese land reform, i.e., the establishment of land use rights (LURs) in the urban area and the establishment of land management and contract rights (LMCRs) in the rural area, are examples of the stick by stick approach. The ideological debate over privatization, in contrast, has more often intensified conflicts within the country’s political system. When such ideological enthusiasm dominates the law-making process, it hampers land reform, as exemplified in the making of the 2007 Property Law. It is therefore misleading to ask who owns and who prevails in the context of Chinese land reform. The better question is how the bundle of sticks is arranged among government, communities, and individuals. This bundle of rights metaphor, or conception of legal relations, as Michael Heller calls it, is useful because society is generating more forms of property than the simple thing-ownership metaphor captures. This chapter also examines the recent policy developments following the third plenum of the 18th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and finds that law and policy makers have stuck to the stick by stick approach. The chapter develops its arguments by reviewing the major property laws and policies over the past three decades to outline the basic contours of the Chinese property system.  Click here to download the chapter.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Sentencing in Hong Kong (new book chapter)

"Sentencing"
Simon NM Young
in Eric WH Chui & T Wing Lo (eds), Understanding Criminal Justice in Hong Kong, 2nd Edition
Sept 2016, Routledge, 400 pp
Abstract: Constitutional norms, statutory rules and common law principles govern the art and science of sentencing in Hong Kong. Death penalty and corporal punishments are sentencing measures of the past. As reflected in a 2014 law reform report on suspended sentences, the emphasis now is on discretionary sentencing, although murder still carries a mandatory life imprisonment. Hong Kong courts have a full range of sentencing options to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and offender. Sentencing decisions are informed by traditional purposes of punishment including public protection, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation and reparation for victims. The purpose of denunciation has been cited by judges more frequently in recent years. Restorative justice, however, is not commonly referred to. Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal provides guideline sentences for specific offences; such guidelines assist courts in setting the starting point sentence in a particular case. Aggravating and mitigating factors serve respectively to move the sentence marker up and down. While proportionality is an applied constitutional principle of sentencing, courts still enhance sentences in cases of prevalent organised crime and routinely give sentencing discounts on pleas of guilty or for assistance given to the authorities.  Click here to download the chapter.

Monday, December 12, 2016

Recent Developments in China's Regulation of Digital Financial Services (Picker, Zhou, Arner & Buckley)

Colin Picker, Weihuan Zhou, Douglas Arner, Ross Buckley 
Australian Law Journal
May 2016, Vol. 90, No. 5, pp.297-300
Introduction: The growth of digital financial services (DFS) in China in the past three years has been phenomenal. China is now “one of the world’s largest DFS markets and among the most active of regulators of digital finance”. For decades, the government of China (GOC) has committed to the expansion of financial services to underserved segments, particularly small and medium sized enterprises and consumers in rural areas. The rapid rise of digital finance in China came out of the government’s endorsement of DFS as one of the most important approaches to promote financial services to previously underserved sectors. In the meantime, the digital finance boom has created serious concerns and challenges for Chinese regulators in relation to issues such as the maintenance of financial stability, the protection of consumers and efficient competition in the financial market, the prohibition of money laundering and other illegal activities. To address these issues, the GOC has taken a balanced approach whereby the promotion of digital finance will continue under a comprehensive regulatory and supervisory framework so as to ensure the sustainable development of DFS in China.

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Li Yahong Partners in HK$1.44M ARC Project on Digital China

The Australian Research Council has awarded a HK$1.44M Discovery Project to Professor Michael Keane of Curtin University of Technology for the inter-disciplinary project "Digital China: from cultural presence to innovative nation". The project investigates how digital platforms and technologies are enabling Chinese culture and ideas to reach the world. It argues that while China's global cultural presence has increased it is yet to be seen as an innovative nation. The project examines how the Chinese government’s internet+ strategy is changing power dynamics among political institutions, commercially motivated digital companies, and online communities. Through investigating internationalisation strategies and consumption of Chinese culture on digital platforms in China, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea the project contributes to understanding the implications of China's digital ascendency and the lessons for Australia in the post-resources boom era.  Li Yahong is a partner investigator to this project which involves institutions from Australia, Hong Kong and Mainland China.  The project will run for five years starting from 2017.

CL Lim Speaks at the Mega-regulation after TPP Conference in Tokyo

CL Lim recently spoke at the Megaregulation after TPP Conference organised by NYU's Institute for International Law and Justice in cooperation with the United Nations University and the National Institute for Policy Studies.  The conference was held in Tokyo from 24-25 November 2016.
Professor Lim spoke on Investor-State Dispute Settlement on panel chaired by Annelise Riles.  Earlier this year, Professor Lim's co-edited 2012 book, The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Quest for the Twenty-first Century Trade Agreement (originally published by Cambridge University Press) was translated and published in Chinese.  The book is published by Law Press China.

Call for Papers: 4th Legal Scholarship Workshop @ HKU (1-2 June 2017)

Call for Papers
4th Legal Scholarship Workshop @ HKU (LSW@HKU)

June 1 & 2, 2017, University of Hong Kong

OVERVIEW: The 4th Legal Scholarship Workshop @ HKU (LSW@HKU) offers a unique forum for current doctoral candidates in law to present their work in a focused workshop setting that aims to approach legal scholarship holistically. In addition to the traditional emphasis on the paper’s content and argument, the LSW@HKU is also oriented towards academic training in preparation for the academic job market. Thus, presenters will receive both substantive comments on the paper and stylistic feedback on the presentation, and along the way educate ourselves about what makes a successful paper topic, paper, and presentation. 
     FORMAT: The two-day workshop will host a total of not more than 8 presenters. Each presenter will be allocated an exclusive 90-minute session (i.e., no panel format and no concurrent sessions) for presentation, substantive Q&A and stylistic feedback. Each presenter can expect an earnest discussion on both substance and style from the workshop participants. The workshop participants will primarily include students from the University of Hong Kong led by the hosting faculty member, invited faculty members whose expertise coincide with the presented paper, and invited research postgraduate students from other institutions. 
     The workshop will include papers from all areas of law, with no restrictions on jurisdiction and methodology. There is no strict limitation on paper length, though papers whose format and length are meant for either an one-hour workshop discussion or an one-hour job talk presentation are preferred. 
     Presenters and participants must commit to attend the entire Workshop, including reading the presented papers of all presenters prior to the session.
     QUALIFICATIONS: current postgraduate students enrolled in a doctoral program in law (e.g., PhD or JSD, but excluding JD) in any law school around the world. Recently graduated doctoral candidates who have not obtained a tenure-track academic position may also apply.
     FINANCIAL SUPPORT: There is no conference registration fees. In addition, the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law will provide each presenter with travel reimbursement of up to HK$9000 (approx USD 1125) for return economy airfare from either the presenter’s academic institution or home country, and accommodation reimbursement of up to HK$3000 (approx USD 375) for three night stay in Hong Kong.
     PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: To apply, send a paper or abstract, together with a CV and a cover letter stating the intended format/purpose of the paper to Jianlin Chen (jianlin@hku.hk) by March 3, 2017. Decisions will be made and communicated to applicants no later than March 17, 2017. The finalized paper to be presented is due by May 15, 2016 for distribution before the workshop. 
     PARTICIPANTS APPLICATION PROCEDURE: Postgraduate students may also apply to join the workshop as invited participants (i.e., no paper presentation). There is no conference registration fees for invited participants. Constraints of financial resources prevent travel reimbursement for invited participants, but meals and tea will be provided for all invited participants. This option is particularly suitable for postgraduate students who have just started their program and/or who happens to be in the vicinity of Hong Kong at the time of the workshop. To apply, send a CV and a cover letter stating the intended purpose of participation to Jianlin Chen (jianlin@hku.hk) by March 3, 2017. Decisions will be made and communicated to applicants no later than March 17, 2017. Applicants who are applying for paper presentation may simply include in their cover letter whether they would be interested to be considered as invited participants, which would be independently considered without any prejudice or preference in relation to the selection of presenters.

Marcelo Thompson Speaks on AI Panel at Peking-Stanford-Oxford Conference (9-11 Dec 2016)

Marcelo Thompson was a panelist on "The Future of Artificial Intelligence, Law and Policy" at the Peking-Stanford-Oxford Internet Law and Policy Conference 2016 held in Shenzhen, China from 9-11 December 2016. The panel description was as follows:

"Though artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are at the primary stage, AI devices, which are designed for certain tasks, with self-learning and decision-making capability that based on big data analysis are showing us the broad and promising application prospect. What will be the future of artificial intelligence? How to make AI be the safe and trustable tools? How to avoid and prevent the bias and discrimination cause by insufficient data sources and algorithms? How will the accidents and disputes caused by AI decisions challenge the implementation and evolution of current rules of tort laws, contract laws, criminal law, etc.? What role will government regulation play in the development of AI? This panel will explore a series of cutting-edge issues on AI, law and policy."

Friday, December 9, 2016

HKU Class of 2016 Graduates (Law PhD and SJD)

Congratulations to our 14 PhD and 1 SJD graduates who had their degrees conferred upon them at the 196th Congregation on 1 December 2016 at the University of Hong Kong.  The Congregation also saw the graduation of 461 other Faculty of Law students: 24 LLM, 21 LLM in Human Rights, 83 LLM in Corporate & Financial Law, 38 Master of Common Law, 4 LLM in Chinese Law, 27 LLM in Information Technology and Intellectual Property Law, 37 LLM in Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, 38 JD and 189 LLB. The newest members of our RPg alumnae family include the following:

1. Dr Yue LUO, The Myth of Chinese Well-Known Marks: Formation, Debunking and Judicial Practice.  Supervisors: Alice Lee and Po Jen Yap

2. Dr Che Singh KOCHAR-GEORGE, A Disciplinary Model of the Asylum Process: Case Studies from the United Kingdom and Hong Kong.  Supervisors: Simon Young and Kelley Loper


4. Dr A-Jull LIM, Professional Failure and the Degradation of International Humanitarian Law: Narcissist Responses to the Post 9/11 So-called War on Terrorism.  Supervisor: Hualing Fu


6. Dr Huimiao ZHAO, Government Intervention in the Reorganization of Listed Companies in the context of Socialist Market Economy of China.  Supervisors: Xianchu Zhang and Emily Lee



9.  Dr Maria Adele CARRAI, A Genealogy of Sovereignty in Modern China, 1840-Today.  Supervisor: Albert Chen

10.  Dr Annelotte Jorien WALSH, A Children's Right Audit of the International Criminal Court.  Supervisor: Scott Veitch




14.  Dr Wenwen LU, Emergency Powers and Law in China.  Supervisors: Hualing Fu and Tony Carty

15.  Dr Sha LI, Fiction and Human Rights Discourse in China 1897-1927.  Supervisor: Marco Wan.


Google+ Followers