Benjamin Chen on Do Linguistic Canons Matter? (Connecticut Law Review)

"Do Linguistic Canons Matter?"
Benjamin Chen
Connecticut Law Review
Published online: December 2025

Abstract: For a long time, linguistic canons have been dismissed as dissonant and deficient. But there are ambitions to make linguistic canons guide again. Maxim majoritarianism promises to dissolve opposing canons through the elimination of unsupported pretenders. By empirically identifying the canons that register dominant habits of speech, contemporary jurists hope to bring order to the practice of statutory interpretation.

This Article submits that maxim majoritarianism is futile. It argues that arbitrating between rival canons poses conceptual difficulties that are virtually impossible to resolve. At the same time, it maintains that the co-existence of canon and counter-canon is not necessarily embarrassing. Like practical proverbs, linguistic canons can—and can only—matter if they change beliefs, judgments, and actions—that is, if they are efficacious.

So, do linguistic canons matter? An original experiment tests the efficacy of four classic canons on over 1,500 everyday speakers of English. The last antecedent rule, noscitur a sociis, did not seem to influence how participants construed ambiguous text whereas expressio unius did. These results might be interpreted as further proof of the hollowness of linguistic canons. Yet they also leave open the possibility that linguistic canons can, by signaling avenues of further inquiry, cast fresh light on the ordinary meaning of the law.

Ryan Whalen et al on Measuring the Value of Trademark Distinctiveness: Evidence From the Market for Bordeaux Wine (JELS)

"Measuring the Value of Trademark Distinctiveness: Evidence From the Market for Bordeaux Wine"
Christopher Buccafusco, Jonathan S. Masur, Ryan Whalen
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Published online: September 2025

Abstract: The market value of distinctive trademarks is a fundamental assumption of both trademark law and marketing theory. However, there is little empirical evidence underlying this assumption. We examine the relationship between brand dissimilarity and market prices in the context of the Bordeaux wine market. Using a unique dataset covering thousands of wines and their associated prices and professional ratings, we find that brand distinctiveness is related to higher wine prices. We further show that this relationship persists across the wine quality spectrum, with both lower quality and higher quality wines benefiting from dissimilar marks. Finally, we show that while there is a dissimilarity price premium for lower quality wines, producers who invest in higher quality wines are rewarded with an even greater premium for dissimilar names in absolute dollar terms.

HKU Law Welcomes Prof. James Zeng

Welcome to Prof. James Si Zeng, who joins the Faculty of Law as an Associate Professor.

Prof. Zeng works on corporate law, the Chinese legal system, and empirical legal studies. His independently authored works have appeared or will appear in highly selective peer-reviewed journals such as the American Journal of Comparative Law, American Business Law Journal, American Bankruptcy Law Journal, International Review of Law and Economics, European Business Organization Law Review, Journal of Environmental Law,  Journal of Corporate Law Studies, Peking University Law Journal(中外法學), Global Law Review(環球法律評論), Political Science and Law(政治與法律), and Hong Kong Law Journal, as well as leading student-edited law reviews such as the Columbia Journal of Asian Law, N.Y.U. Journal of Law and Business, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Berkeley Business Law Journal, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, and Review of Banking and Financial Law. His doctoral dissertation, State Ownership as a Substitute for Costly Regulation, was supported by the Oscar M. Reubhausen Fund at Yale Law School and is currently under contract for publication by Cambridge University Press. He has also conducted research on Chinese corporate law supported by the Early Career Scheme of the Research Grant Council of Hong Kong, China.

Professor Zeng graduated from Yale Law School with an LL.M and a J.S.D. degree. Prior to that Professor Zeng graduated from Peking University (LL.B., B.A. in Economics, Mphil in Law). He passed the National Judicial Examination of China and is admitted to the New York State Bar. Prior to joining HKU, he served as a tenured Associate Professor of Law, Convenor of the Faculty Seminar Series, Deputy Executive Director of the Center for Comparative and Transnational Law, and Deputy Director of the LLM Program at the Faculty of Law, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Benjamin Chen and Xiaohan Yin on Data Still Needs Theory: Collider Bias in Empirical Legal Research (HKLJ)

"Data Still Needs Theory: Collider Bias in Empirical Legal Research"
Benjamin Chen and Xiaohan Yin (PhD candidate)
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 53, Part 3 of 2023, pp.1241 - 1258
Abstract: Big data is characterised not only by the amount but also the kinds of information that can be created, stored, and processed. This explosion of data, accompanied by the capacity to analyse them, has catalyzed large n, quantitative approaches to the study of law and legal institutions. But neither size nor quality guarantees the validity of causal inferences drawn from observational data. For example, although the inclusion of control variables can help isolate causal effects, not all variables are good controls. Bad controls are not harmless and can create the impression of a causal relationship where none exists. This spurious association is called collider bias. We introduce the concept of collider bias and give motivated examples of how it can arise in empirical legal research. The selection of good controls requires knowledge and assumptions about causal structures. Theory and domain knowledge are essential for quantitative analysis, even in the era of big data.

Please click here to view the full article on SSRN.

Sida Liu and Sitao Li on How to Do Empirical Legal Studies without Numbers? (HKLJ)

"How to Do Empirical Legal Studies without Numbers?"
Sida Liu and Sitao Li
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 53, Part 3 of 2023, pp.1260 - 1273

Abstract: How to do empirical legal studies without numbers? This article addresses this methodological question at a crossroads of empirical legal studies in China. It does not aim to provide a normative defence for the value of qualitative methods. Instead, we demonstrate how a ‘scientific turn’ in the 2010s has made empirical legal research in China almost exclusively about quantitative research and then illustrate how qualitative methods can also benefit from the rise of digital technology. We draw on three recent studies as examples to compare and contrast the methodological challenges and opportunities for doing empirical legal studies without numbers: (1) Ke Li’s book Marriage Unbound as an example of ethnography in combination with archival research; (2) Sitao Li’s article ‘Face-Work in Chinese Routine Criminal Trials’ as an example of trial video observation; and, (3) Di Wang and Sida Liu’s article ‘Performing “Artivism”’ as an example of online ethnography. The discussion shows that, despite the rising popularity of ‘big data’ computational analysis in recent years, quantitative methods are not necessarily more technologically advanced than qualitative ones. Technology-assisted interviews and ethnography can open up many new possibilities in data collection and data analysis, sometimes resulting in more exciting and innovative research.

Please click here to view the full article on SSRN.

Laura Pedraza-Fariña & Ryan Whalen on The Ghost in the Patent System: An Empirical Study of Patent Law’s Elusive “Skilled Artisan” (Iowa Law Review)

"The Ghost in the Patent System: An Empirical Study of Patent Law’s Elusive “Skilled Artisan” "

Laura Pedraza-Fariña & Ryan Whalen
Iowa Law Review, Volume 108, Issue 1,

pp. 247-302 (online version)

Published in November 2022

Introduction: Patents are widely understood to serve two interrelated, yet conceptually distinct, functions: They are at once legal and technical documents. Like a property deed, patents set out the metes and bounds of an inventor’s property rights. But patents also serve an important technological function by disclosing and explaining the technical details necessary to practice an invention, therefore contributing to the storehouse of technological knowledge that drives innovation. The “person having ordinary skill in the art” (or “PHOSITA”) emerged as a fulcrum to support this dual role. The word “ordinary,” however, is deceptive. Although it evokes common-sense behavioral qualities that any “average” practitioner would have, it also compiles ideal characteristics not reflected by any real-world actors, therefore making understanding who the PHOSITA is and how the PHOSITA would act as much of a theoretical as a factual exercise.

      Neither a real-world “person” nor a complete legal fiction, the hypothetical ordinary artisan is meant to help judges and juries achieve both technological and policy goals. From a technological perspective, the PHOSITA’s vantage point ensures a patent contributes to the storehouse of knowledge and makes a technologically meaningful advance. From a policy perspective, the PHOSITA ensures that patent rights advance social welfare. This dual role can perhaps be seen most clearly in the obviousness inquiry, meant to differentiate trivial technological advances from those meriting patent protection. The obviousness PHOSITA is somewhat of a plodder with only a minimum of creativity but a wealth of factual knowledge—not likely representative of any average or ordinary inventor in any particular field. From a normative perspective, however, limiting a PHOSITA’s creativity arguably helps identify those inventions that would take place in a counterfactual world where only market, but not patent, incentives are present.

      Although emerging initially as a common law innovation in the obviousness doctrine, the concept of the PHOSITA quickly expanded to serve as a reference point in disclosure doctrines (concerned with ensuring the inventor adequately communicates details of the invention to the public) and infringement doctrines (concerned with setting out the metes and bounds of the invention). The modern-day PHOSITA scaffolds every major patent law doctrine, providing a unifying prism to determine patent validity and infringement, both at the patent office and in the courts. The PHOSITA’s vantage point is considered so self-evident and foundational to the field, that virtually every patent textbook and judicial opinion emphasizes that doctrinal outcomes are tied to the technical perspective of the PHOSITA, not that of the judge or an ordinary observer.

     And yet, court observers and legal scholars have also noted that the PHOSITA at times appears to do little work in driving doctrinal outcomes. Called at turns a “ghost,” a “mysterious,” and an “enigmatic” character, the role of the PHOSITA in patent law is a bit like “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time”: Despite its theoretically expected central role in patent law, it often appears to do little real, outcome-determinative work in the very patent doctrines it is supposed to help define. 

     In this Article, we present a large-scale empirical analysis of the PHOSITA in litigation. Through close readings of seven hundred court opinions as well as automated textual analysis of over seven thousand cases we ask: How deeply do courts engage with factual evidence to define who the PHOSITA is? Does the identity of the PHOSITA, once established, in fact drive legal decision-making? Is the court’s depth of engagement correlated with the expected technical difficulty of the particular invention at issue? And, have recent Supreme Court decisions that emphasize the centrality of the PHOSITA had an impact on lower courts’ decisions?

      We show that, although the PHOSITA is implicated in a wide variety of patent doctrines, its appearance in litigation is in large part related to three key doctrinal areas: obviousness, enablement, and claim construction. We find little evidence to suggest that the PHOSITA plays an outcome-determinative role in litigation. On the contrary, we find that when courts do engage with skilled artisan related issues, they tend to do so in quite perfunctory ways. The majority of cases that make PHOSITA-related holdings provide little-to-no reasoning or evidentiary support to justify those holdings. It is only in relatively rare instances that the court even provides limited reasoning or evidence to support its PHOSITA holdings, and quite rare indeed to see thorough reasoning and evidentiary support for holdings related to the PHOSITA. Although one might expect courts to engage in more reasoning or demand more evidentiary support in technologically complex cases, our analysis finds no evidence that this occurs. Finally, despite predictions that a trio of Supreme Court decisions—KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. —would dramatically increase the importance of the PHOSITA’s perspective in litigation, we see only a modest increase in courts’ depth of engagement following KSR and no change following both the Teva and Nautilus decisions.

     In brief, what emerges from our empirical investigation is a deep disconnect between the centrality of the PHOSITA to patent law on paper and its empirical relevance to doctrinal outcomes. We suggest two central explanations for our findings. First, judicial decisions provide little guidance on how to reconcile definitions of the PHOSITA as an empirical, real-world construct with its hypothetical (and normative) dimension. Second, courts fail to tailor the PHOSITA to the underlying normative goals of each of the different doctrines that rely on the PHOSITA as a reference point. Indeed, our empirical research shows the PHOSITA to be a monolithic construct that remains unchanged across doctrines, rather than a nimble concept that is responsive to the different underlying normative goals of the doctrines it mediates. Put differently, courts do not sufficiently examine whether the PHOSITA should be a designer and researcher, a user or reader of the technology, or a competitor in the same technological field. Because deciding whether, for example, the PHOSITA is a patent reader versus a researcher requires also engaging with the normative goals underlying each doctrinal area, addressing these questions would not only provide normative content to the PHOSITA’s real-world characteristics, but would also help achieve its dual technological and policy goals. These explanations also ground our reform proposals for reimagining the PHOSITA’s role as a mediator between patent law’s technical and normative goals across patent doctrines.

      The Article proceeds as follows: Part I provides a brief historical background of the concept of the PHOSITA, situating its origins as a common law innovation in the obviousness doctrine and tracing its expansion to other validity and infringement doctrines. Part II lays out our empirical findings. Part III turns from the empirical to the normative, developing a framework to reconcile the PHOSITA’s empirical and normative dimensions. We build upon literature in tort law about the reasonable person and in sociology about expert communities, to develop three different PHOSITAs (the obviousness, enablement, and infringement PHOSITA) that reflect the distinct normative goals of each doctrine.

Click here to view the full text. 

John Zhuang Liu et al on Precedents and Chinese Judges: An Experiment (Am J of Comp L)

"Precedents and Chinese Judges: An Experiment"
John Zhuang Liu, Lars Klöhn, Holger Spamann
The American Journal of Comparative Law
Published on 30 July 2021

Abstract: We experimentally study the decision-making process of judges in China, where judges are specifically prohibited from citing prior decisions as the basis for their judgments, and where, in past surveys, most judges explicitly stated that precedent played at most a marginal role in their decisions. In an experiment resembling real-world judicial decision making, we find, however, that precedent seems to have a significant influence on the decisions of the participating Chinese judges. Indeed, judges spend more time reading prior cases than statutes, and they typically read precedents before they access the statutes. On the other hand, judges rarely mention the precedent in their reasons. Our findings suggest that the Chinese judiciary operates much more similarly to its homologues in the United States and elsewhere than their written opinions and much folklore would suggest.

John Liu on Jury Trial And Public Trust in The Judiciary (APLR)

"Jury Trial And Public Trust In The Judiciary: Evidence From Cross-countries Comparison"

John Zhuang Liu & Lei Chen

Asia Pacific Law Review

Published Online: 2021-9-14

Abstract: The jury is an institution that has evoked praise and criticism throughout its history. Recently, it has also triggered debate in many countries as they reform their judicial processes. Gathering data on 111 countries from various sources to analyse the jury as part of the judicial system, we find that public trust in the judiciary is higher in countries with jury trials than in countries without them. Countries that conduct jury trials also tend to have stronger judicial constraints on other sources of governmental power and better-performing criminal adjudication systems. These analyses reveal correlation rather than causation, but they are helpful for challenging conventional wisdom and for better understanding the function of the jury system. The seemingly paradoxical patterns that are identified — namely, that the jury, designed to constrain the judiciary, ends up correlated with stronger judicial power, and that laypeople, supposedly less proficient than professionals in deciding cases, are in fact positively associated with judicial performance — suggest an internal connection between the jury as a judicial body and as a political institution.

He Xin & Jing Feng on Procedural Justice and Litigants’ Attitudes Toward Civil Justice in Southern China (Law & Society Review)

"Unfamiliarity and Procedural Justice: Litigants’ Attitudes Toward Civil Justice in Southern China"

He Xin & Jing Feng

Law & Society Review, 

2021, Vol. 55, Issue 1, pp. 104-138

Abstract: While procedural justice has been regarded as a distinct and essential factor shaping litigants’ views on civil justice, few studies have focused on China, a country with a unique legal tradition and frequent legal reforms. Drawing on surveys and interviews with litigants in a basic-level court in Southern China, this study examines attitudes toward the civil justice system. Echoing several existing studies from China, our mixed methods analysis confirms that their views are dominated by outcomes—litigants with favorable outcomes are more likely to be satisfied, while those with unfavorable outcomes are more likely to be dissatisfied. Their unfamiliarity with the operation of the system constitutes a major reason for the dominance of substantive outcomes in their evaluations of the system. Many cannot distinguish between process and outcomes, nor do they feel control over the process. Moreover, they are dissatisfied with the process because it fails to meet their oftenerroneous expectations. Our results do not necessarily challenge the importance of procedural justice, but they do suggest that China may be different. Litigants’ perceptions of justice and fairness are situated and shaped by specific contexts.

Frank He & Yang Su on Flexibility and Authority: Resolving Labor Disputes in a County Government in Western China (Law & Soc Rev)

"Flexibility and Authority: Resolving Labor Disputes in A County Government in Western China"

Xin He & Yang Su

Law & Society Review 
First published: 22 November 2019

Abstract: Existing literature regards flexibility and authority as key characteristics of informal justice. We further contend that the combination of the two is crucial for informal justice to be effective. We investigate the process of dispute resolution by a Chinese labor agency. Following the life cycles of a sample of 810 labor disputes, we find that this informal justice forum was efficient and effective, made possible by the combination of flexibility and authority. Flexibility means that the agency attracts certain types of cases that are usually screened out of the formal legal system and that agency officials use “informal,” hence flexible, techniques. Authority means that the administrative agency possesses additional powers over the disputants; hence, the disputants are under pressure to follow its suggestions and decisions. A comparative analysis of various cases of informal justice reinforces the importance of combining flexibility and authority. We further demonstrate that flexibility without authority is insufficient and that some informal justice forums are effective because they enjoy both.

Xin He and Huina Xiao on A Typology of Tax Compliance in Developing Economies: Empirical Evidence from China's Shoe Industry (Law & Policy)

"A Typology of Tax Compliance in Developing Economies: Empirical Evidence from China's Shoe Industry"

Xin He and Huina Xiao 

Law & Policy 

April 2019, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 242-266

Abstract: Drawing on fieldwork investigations of shoe manufacturers in southeastern China, this article provides empirical evidence for understanding these businesses’ taxpaying practices. We find that since business taxpayers largely regard tax law as illegitimate, instrumental considerations dominate these taxpayers’ decisions to pay or not pay taxes. We then incorporate “structural opportunities for evasion” and “perceived costs of evasion” to develop a two‐by‐two matrix to understand the following types of behavior: aggressive evasion, obliged compliance, strategic compliance, and reciprocal compliance. We argue that this matrix explains why value added tax fraud is widespread in China while voluntary compliance is rare. It also helps to illuminate compliance more generally in developing economies.

Chen, Cheung & Chan on 'Doxing: What Adolescents Look for and Their Intentions' (Int'l J Env Res & Pub Health)

"Doxing: What Adolescents Look for and Their Intentions"
Mengtong Chen, Anne S Y Cheung and Ko Ling Chan

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
14 January 2019
Abstract: Doxing is a form of cyberbullying in which personal information on others is sought and released, thereby violating their privacy and facilitating further harassment. This study examined adolescents’ doxing participation using a representative sample of 2120 Hong Kong secondary school students. Just over one in 10 had engaged in doxing, and doxing behavior significantly increased the probability of disclosing personal information on others (odds ratio ranged between 2.705 and 5.181). Social and hostile doxing were the two most common forms of doxing. Girls were significantly more likely to conduct social doxing (χ 2 = 11.84, p < 0.001), where their target was to obtain social information (χ 2 = 4.79, p = 0.029), whereas boys were more likely to engage in hostile doxing aimed at obtaining personally identifiable information (χ 2 = 4.31, p = 0.038) and information on others’ current living situations (χ 2 = 4.17, p = 0.041). Students who had perpetrated doxing acts were more likely to have experienced information disclosure as victims, perpetrators, or bystanders. Future studies should examine doxing’s impacts and its relationship with other forms of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Because doxing may lead to on- and off-line harassment, family, adolescents, schools, and communities must work together to develop effective approaches for combating it.

Empirical Study by Yuqing Feng and Frank He into How Petitioners Frame Disputes in Chinese Courts (The China Journal)

"From Law to Politics: Petitioners’ Framing of Disputes in Chinese Courts"
Yuqing Feng and Xin He

The China Journal

July 2018, Issue 80, pp. 130-149

Abstract: Drawing on empirical data collected from petitioners in Chinese courts, this article analyzes how the regime’s political concern for social stability transforms petitioners’ disputes and shapes the evolution of their legal consciousness. Compared with first time petitioners, who often address their complaints within a legal paradigm, the veteran petitioners take advantage of the judges’ political concern for social stability and present their disputes as potentially threatening social stability. They hold the judiciary responsible for their plight; they petition courts during “sensitive periods”; they employ innovative tactics to draw official attention; and they seek to secure government stability-maintenance funds as a substitute for legal remedies. However, in framing a legal dispute as a political problem, the veteran petitioners risk retaliation. This article’s analysis provides insights into the operation of the court petition system, how the legal consciousness of Chinese petitioners evolves, and how in the petitioners’ eyes the legitimacy of the legal system gets eroded.

Embedded Courts Awarded 2018 Distinguished Book Award of the Asian Law & Society Association

Congratulations to Professor Frank He, whose co-authored book, Embedded Courts: Judicial Decision-Making in China (Cambridge University Press 2017) (with Kwai Hang Ng of University of California, San Diego) was awarded the 2018 Distinguished Book Award of the Asian Law & Society Association (ALSA).  The award will be presented at an award ceremony to be held during the ALSA Conference on 1 December 2018 at Bond University.

    Embedded Courts "offers a penetrating discussion of the operation of Chinese courts... [and] explains how Chinese judges rule and how the law is not the only script they follow - political, administrative, social and economic factors all influence verdicts" (CUP website).

     ALSA was established in 2015 with the aims of fostering scholarship and engaging the broader research community. It succeeds the East Asian Law and Society Collaborative Research Network (CRN 33) of the Law & Society Association as the regional body. Its executive office is housed at Waseda University, Japan. ALSA aims to develop the Asian law and society field into a vibrant and cohesive discipline. Its annual meeting provides a timely platform to define the field, advance theory, and cultivate empirical work and new scholarship.

     This year the selection committee consisted of Setsuo Miyazawa (Chair and Immediate Past President of ALSA), Nick Cheesman (Australian National University), Matthew Erie (University of Oxford), Eric Feldman (University of Pennsylvania) and Dimitri Vanoverbele (Catholic University of Leuven). The awards will be presented at the ALSA 2018 Conference, from 29 November to 1 December 2018, at Bond University in Australia.
     UPDATE (July 2019).  Embedded Courts was the Runner-Up Winner of the 2019 International Society of Public Law Book Prize (ICON-S).

David Law on The Global Language of Human Rights (Law & Ethics of Human Rights)

"The Global Language of Human Rights: A Computational Linguistic Analysis"

David Law

Law & Ethics of Human Rights
2018, Vol. 12, Issue 1

Abstract: Human rights discourse has been likened to a global lingua franca, and in more ways than one, the analogy seems apt. Human rights discourse is a language that is used by all yet belongs uniquely to no particular place. It crosses not only the borders between nation-states, but also the divide between national law and international law: it appears in national constitutions and international treaties alike. But is it possible to conceive of human rights as a global language or lingua franca not just in a figurative or metaphorical sense, but in a literal or linguistic sense as a legal dialect defined by distinctive patterns of word choice and usage? Does there exist a global language of human rights that transcends not only national borders, but also the divide between domestic and international law?

     Empirical analysis suggests that the answer is yes, but this global language comes in at least two variants or dialects. New techniques for performing automated content analysis enable us to analyze the bulk of all national constitutions over the last two centuries, together with the world’s leading regional and international human rights instruments, for patterns of linguistic similarity and to evaluate how much language, if any, they share in common. Specifically, we employ a technique known as topic modeling that disassembles texts into recurring verbal patterns. 

     The results highlight the existence of two species or dialects of rights talk — the universalist dialect and the positive-rights dialect — both of which are global in reach and rising in popularity. The universalist dialect is generic in content and draws heavily on the type of language found in international and regional human rights instruments. It appears in particularly large doses in the constitutions of transitional states, developing states, and states that have been heavily exposed to the influence of the international community. 

     The positive-rights dialect, by contrast, is characterized by its substantive emphasis on positive rights of a social or economic variety, and by its prevalence in lengthier constitutions and constitutions from outside the common law world, especially those of the Spanish-speaking world. Both dialects of rights talk are truly transnational, in the sense that they appear simultaneously in national, regional, and international legal instruments and transcend the distinction between domestic and international law. Their existence attests to the blurring of the boundary between constitutional law and international law.  Click here to download the paper.

Roda Mushkat on the Case Study Method in International Legal Research (J Juridical Science)

"The case for the case study method in international legal research"
Roda Mushkat

Journal for Juridical Science
2017, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp. 143-182

Abstract: The exploration of international law has gradually but perceptibly evolved into an increasingly multifaceted enterprise. A notable development, albeit not yet on a large-scale, has been the adoption of empirical approaches relied upon in the Social Sciences for purposes of description, explanation and evaluation. A genuinely rich body of theoretical insights has consequently taken shape, providing a more robust foundation than previously available for pursuing knowledge and engaging in policy action. Much of the information generated has been obtained via the examination, often elaborate in nature, of specific cases. However, the technical underpinnings of this scientific endeavour leave something to be desired, as illustrated by a juxtaposition of methodological requirements with prevailing practices and offering concrete examples of greater technical rigour observed in neighbouring disciplines.

New Book by Shahla Ali: Court Mediation Reform: Efficiency, Confidence and Perceptions of Justice (Edward Elgar)

Court Mediation Reform Efficiency, Confidence and Perceptions of Justice
Shahla Ali
Edward Elgar
March 2018, 296 pages

Description: As judiciaries advance, exploring how court mediation programs can provide opportunities for party-directed reconciliation whilst ensuring access to formal legal channels requires careful investigation. Court Mediation Reform explores comparative empirical findings in order to examine the association between court mediation structure and perceptions of justice, efficiency and confidence in courts.

Recommendations:     

‘Shahla Ali's work is an innovative meta-analysis of the trends in the institutionalization of mediation at the macro level. It has an ambitious approach that had not been attempted yet, and paves the way for other future research, as well as providing guidance to policy makers and professionals.’ – Luigi Cominelli, The University of Milan, Italy

‘Professor Shahla Ali has performed a valuable service for conflict resolution policy makers around the world. Providing diverse and mixed data reports of the uptake and resistance to court (and some private) mediation programs in ten different legal systems, she artfully surveys important legal, social and cultural differences in the uses and effectiveness of voluntary and mandatory mediation programmes. While some seek efficiency, others seek efficacy, through party-tailored solutions or regional integration dispute resolution schemes. Different programme motivations (and the varied role of lawyers) provide variation, not uniformity, in the use of mediation to resolve civil, family, labour and commercial disputes. A must-read for any dispute system designer, or court administrator or mediator.’ – Carrie Menkel-Meadow, University of California, Irvine and Georgetown University Law Center, US

‘Professor Ali's book offers the most comprehensive, qualitative study and insights on Global Court Mediation I have encountered. It should be in the hands of every court in the world.’ – Judge Dorothy Nelson, United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit

Zhang, Liu & Garoupa on Judging in Europe: Do Legal Traditions Matter? (J of Competition Law & Econ)

"Judging in Europe: Do Legal Traditions Matter?"
Angela Zhang, Jingchen Liu & Nuno Garoupa
Journal of Competition Law & Economics
Published: 03 March 2018

Abstract: EU competition appeals typically involve applications by private businesses to annul decisions made by the European Commission. Moreover, these appeals are first assigned at random to a chamber, with a judge then designated as the rapporteur who will be most closely involved with the case. Using hand-collected original data on the background characteristics of EU judges and on competition judgments by the General Court between 1989 and 2015, we test the extent to which the legal origins of judges bear a statistically significant effect on case outcomes and that the rapporteur plays a crucial role in the decision-making process. In particular, if a rapporteur comes from a country whose administrative law has a strong French influence, the decision is more likely to favor the Commission than if he is from any other EU country. These results are robust to alternative political ideology variables, including left–right politics and a preference for European integration.

Family Victimisation and Adolescent Cyberbullying in China (Child Abuse & Neglect)

"Family poly-victimization and cyberbullying among adolescents in a Chinese school sample"

QiQi Chen,  Camilla K.M. Lo,  Yuhong Zhu,  Anne Cheung,  Ko Ling Chan, and Patrick Ip
Child Abuse & Neglect
March 2018, Volume 77, pages 180–187

Abstract: The sustained increase in their use of social networking facilitates the development of adolescents but comes with the risk of cyberbullying, which creates new challenges in regard to adolescent protection. Past evidence shows that family victimization may play an essential role in the way adolescents learn cyberbullying behaviors. Yet, research on the co-occurrence of family victimization and cyberbullying is limited. This study aims to investigate the associations between cyberbullying and family victimization among adolescents, and to examine the health correlates of cyberbullying and family poly-victimization. A large sample of 18,341 students, aged 15–17, from six cities in China, collected between 2009 and 2010 is employed in the present study, which investigated the association between various kinds of family victimization and adolescent cyberbullying. Data analysis was conducted in 2017. In-law conflict, intimate partner violence, elder abuse and neglect, and child maltreatment were associated with a higher possibility of children becoming internet victims. Parents’ divorce and separation, low family income, mother’s low level of education, and father’s unemployment were all associated with cyberbullying victimization. Cyber victimization was positively correlated to symptoms of PTSD and depression, self-harm, and other physical and mental health variables. Possible explanations for the relationships found in this study are discussed and implications for future research and services are provided. Proactive screening for family poly-victimization and cyberbullying is suggested. Schools are highly recommended to cooperate with parents to promote cyber safety.

Cheng, Chui, Young & Ong on Why Criminal Trials in Hong Kong ‘Crack’? (Asian J Comp L)

"Why Do Criminal Trials ‘Crack’? An Empirical Investigation of Late Guilty Pleas in Hong Kong"
Kevin Kwok-yin CHENG, Wing Hong CHUI, Simon N M YOUNG, and Rebecca ONG

Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Published online: 7 Feb 2018, pp. 1-25

Abstract: ‘Cracked trials’, where defendants enter a late guilty plea after a trial date has been set, are considered a societal problem because public resources set aside for trials are wasted. Various government reports attribute the main cause to tactical defendants playing the system, and reforms have been initiated to encourage early guilty pleas and strongly discourage late ones. The aim of the present study is to investigate the reasons for cracked trials in the Hong Kong context, insofar as the reasons for late guilty pleas can be investigated without the influence of reforms seen in other jurisdictions used to discourage late pleas. A mixed methods approach of courtroom observations and interviews with defendants was adopted. We find that defendants who were represented by publicly-funded lawyers or who were in prolonged pre-trial detention were more disposed to changing their pleas. Subsequent interviews illustrate why these factors are salient. The findings support the notion that it is the pressures of the criminal justice process that lead defendants to ‘crack’ and highlight the costs to defendants for decisions on how to plead that are influenced by considerations other than actual culpability.