Tipping the Scales for Public Health (Eric Ip Profiled in HKU Bulletin)

"Tipping the Scales for Public Health"
Eric Ip
HKU Bulletin
Published in November 2024

Pandemics, vaccination programmes and other public health measures cannot succeed without good legal regimes. Professor Eric Ip Chi-yeung presents the case.

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government announced that it was “following the science” in implementing severe interventions. The approach sounded reasonable, but soon revealed serious limitations, particularly in regard to people’s freedoms and mental health. Similarly, in Hong Kong, stringent interventions, such as mandatory masking and quarantine, were initially appropriate, but over time, with vaccinations and community immunity, they seemed unduly restrictive.

Professor of Law and public health bioethicist Eric Ip Chi-yeung, who is Co-Director of the Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, argues that policymakers tend to forget that the rule of law is as important to public health as science, in his new book The Law and Regulation of Public Health: Global Perspectives on Hong Kong.

“My book has two general messages. The first is that all the incredible achievements in public health during the 20th century were made possible by law, whether it be criminal law to punish those who do not wear seatbelts or administrative law to empower certain public authorities to enforce sanitation policies, administer immunisation programmes, and so forth,” he said.

“The second message is that while we need the guidance of scientists in making public health decisions, to rely exclusively on them would be woefully inadequate. Science can’t answer the crucial questions that governments face such as the trade-offs in the social relationships between the individual, the population and the state. During a lockdown, an appropriate balance must be struck between respiratory health and other dimensions of human flourishing, such as familial love, friendship, mental well-being, and economic stability.”

The Hong Kong case

His book outlines why and how the rule of law should be given its due place in protecting mental and physical health. Professor Ip chose Hong Kong as a case study because...

Click here to read the full text.

Weixia Gu comments on Hong Kong's rising significance for international arbitration in China

"As Chinese firms expand overseas, legal spotlight turns on cross-border disputes"
Alyssa Chen
South China Morning Post
6 October 2024

Chinese enterprises setting up overseas are navigating a minefield of legal challenges, making effective dispute resolution through arbitration more crucial than ever...

International arbitration is a preferred method for resolving cross-border commercial disputes outside traditional court systems and involves parties from different jurisdictions submitting their conflicts to a neutral arbitration centre...

Experts cautioned that Chinese companies face significant hurdles in international arbitration because of limited understanding, language barriers, the selection of arbitration venues and differences in legal systems – obstacles that require additional support and guidance from the Chinese government...

Chinese firms might find themselves at a disadvantage because of differences between the civil law system they are accustomed to in China and the common law systems prevalent in many Western countries, particularly regarding the handling of document requests and evidence procedures...

In the realm of international arbitration, Hong Kong was increasingly proving to be an indispensable bridge between Chinese legal practices and global standards, leveraging its unique position under the “one country, two systems” principle, Weixia Gu said.

Hong Kong’s legal system presented multiple strengths in international arbitration, such as the robustness of its common law, a deep-seated legal culture, abundant bilingual legal talent and the judicial reasoning embedded in its case law system, according to Gu.

“The city – the only place in China practising common law – brings a wealth of case law and a distinctive legal thinking that provides significant learning opportunities for arbitration institutions in mainland China,” Gu said...

Click here to read the full text.

Weixia Gu on China’s Modernization of International Commercial Arbitration and Transnational Legal Order (JITCL)

"China’s Modernization of International Commercial Arbitration and Transnational Legal Order"

Weixia Gu

The UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2024

Published online: October 2024

Abstract: China’s interaction with international commercial arbitration (ICA) norms reveals a trajectory from initial resistance to gradual alignment and potential emergence as a rule contributor. This early resistance manifested in its unique dual-track arbitration mechanism and institutional arbitration monopoly. Reforms signal a shift towards global standards, driven by pro-arbitration judicial efforts and institutional competition in China’s vibrant arbitration market. As China’s global influence expands, it is innovating to shape the ICA landscape through initiatives like the China-Africa Joint Arbitration Centre, the China International Commercial Court’s one-stop dispute resolution platform, and the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization. The role of transnational legal elites in China further facilitates this evolution.

Sida Liu et al on China’s Pragmatic Approach to International Human Rights Law (JITCL)

"China’s Pragmatic Approach to International Human Rights Law"
Sida Liu,Yun Xian, Sitao Li
The UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2024
Published online: October 2024

Abstract: China has adopted a pragmatic approach to international human rights law in the early 21st century, characterized by pragmatic experimentation in the appropriation and modification of human rights norms, selective decoupling of international and domestic human rights rules, and divergent enforcement in the legislative and practical responses to various human rights issue areas. This approach permits significant gaps between “law on the books” and “law in action,” as well as between domestic rules and international law. Analysis of China’s engagement with the ICCPR and CEDAW, respectively focused on criminal procedural rights and women’s rights, reveals the complex and uneven nature of China’s human rights governance. While China has gradually reduced overt violations of human rights within criminal procedures, it has concurrently developed a more opaque and institutionalized punitive system. In comparison, despite recent legislative advances, limited practical enforcement and increased state control on feminist activists characterize women’s rights protections in China. Understanding China’s pragmatic approach is crucial for effectively addressing human rights concerns within the country.

Welcome the new Global Academic Fellow Dr Suhong Yang!

Welcome to Dr Suhong Yang who joined the Faculty of Law as a Global Academic Fellow. Dr. Suhong Yang is an international lawyer interested in criminal law, human rights, and environmental law issues. Her S.J.D. dissertation investigates the legitimacy of international and hybrid criminal tribunals that try atrocity crimes in post-conflict situations. Suhong was awarded as a David D. Caron Fellow and a Salzburg Cutler Fellow for her research. Her work has appeared or is forthcoming in the Chinese Journal of International Law, Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, European Papers, George Mason International Law Journal, International Legal Materials, and Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting.

At the HKU Faculty of Law, Suhong is engaged in teaching activities and assisting the Director of the Centre for Comparative and Public Law in research-related activities. Prior to joining the HKU, Suhong was a Judicial Fellow at the International Court of Justice, working with Judge H.E. XUE Hanqin. She also served the Office of the President of the U.N. International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and the Legal Policy Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Suhong holds a Bachelor of Laws degree from Renmin University of China, and LL.M. and S.J.D. degrees from Georgetown University Law Center. In addition to the academic degrees, she also studied at the University of Oxford, Kathmandu School of Law, and Cheng-Chi University (Taiwan) in different capacities. Suhong has facilitated teaching or been invited to give guest lectures on tort law, international law, US law, and Chinese law at Georgetown University, Leiden University, and Renmin University.

Suhong is currently Vice-Chair of the International Criminal Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law (ASIL), and Secretary of ASIL Women in International Law Interest Group. She served as Co-Chair of ASIL New Professionals Interest Group from 2019 to 2023.

Welcome the new Global Academic Fellow Dr Alex Zhicheng Huang!

Welcome to Dr Alex Zhicheng Huang who joined the Faculty of Law as a Global Academic Fellow. Dr Alex Huang’s research focuses on bankruptcy law, corporate law, judicial behavior, and the application of economics and data science to legal questions. His current projects involve the use of network analysis and natural language processing to examine a large number of judicial opinions related to Chapter 11 reorganization. He explores computational doctrinal analysis to examines the content of law—legal reasoning and justification—in an empirical way. Computational doctrinal analysis sets itself apart from both the outcome-oriented empirical legal studies and the case study-driven doctrinal analysis. Additionally, he is interested in the role of courts, judicial performance evaluation, and public trust in the judiciary, particularly the impacts of new technologies like artificial intelligence on these fields.

His writings have appeared in the Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal and Research of Institutional Economics, and he has contributed chapters to several books. His research has been featured in several media outlets and academic blogs including the Financial Times, The Deal, Reorg, Oxford Business Law Blog, and Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable. He has received several research awards, including the Best Paper Award at the Annual Law and Economics Conference in China and the Most Innovative Presentation Award at the INSOL ERA Annual Workshop.

Dr Alex Huang holds a JSD and LLM from the University of California, Berkeley, where he was named to the Dean’s List. He was also a Lloyd M. Robbins Fellow at the Berkeley School of Law and a Berkeley Empirical Legal Studies Fellow at the Berkeley Center for the Study of Law and Society. He earned his Bachelor of Laws from Sun Yat-sen University, where he received the China National Scholarship.

Before teaching Cross-border Insolvency Law at HKU Law, he taught Law and Economics I & II, Sociology of Law, Law in Chinese Society, and Fundamentals of U.S. Law as a lecturer and graduate student instructor in the legal studies program and the law school at UC Berkeley.

Huang is also a Research Associate at the Sun Yat-sen University Law and Economics Research Center, where he serves as a co-investigator for a key project funded by the National Social Science Fund of China.

Welcome the new Global Academic Fellow Dr Pangyue Cheng!

Welcome to Dr Pangyue Cheng who joined the Faculty of Law as a Global Academic Fellow. Dr. Pangyue Cheng is a legal scholar focusing on corporate law, financial regulation, and AI governance. Her research interests encompass institutional stewardship, corporate governance, sustainability, and AI regulation. Pangyue’s work explores the legal challenges companies face in a rapidly changing global environment, particularly how shifts in investor roles, technological advancements, and increasing sustainability demands shape corporate governance and regulatory practices. Her research has been published in international law reviews and peer-reviewed journals such as the Columbia Business Law Review and the European Business Law Review.

Currently, Pangyue’s research focuses on the intersection of corporate governance, sustainability, and technological innovation. She examines how institutional investors foster corporate responsibility and long-term value creation through ESG integration. Additionally, her research on AI governance addresses the opportunities and legal challenges that emerging technologies pose to corporate systems and governance frameworks.

Pangyue holds a Bachelor of Laws from Beijing Normal University, an LLM in Corporate and Financial Services Law, and a PhD from the National University of Singapore, where she researched institutional stewardship in Chinese listed companies. Her work on ESG integration and corporate sustainability was fully funded by the MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale University. She has been invited to share her research at esteemed institutions, including Yale University, Harvard University, the University of Michigan, the Edinburgh Centre for Commercial Law, the Society of Legal Scholars, and the American Society of Comparative Law.

Pangyue currently teaches China Company Law and Securities Regulation at the HKU Faculty of Law. She was a Fox International Fellow at Yale University and worked as a researcher on several projects at the National University of Singapore Law School. Before entering academia, she practiced law in mainland China and served as legal counsel for a listed AI company.

Congratulations to Xin He, Mok Sau-King Professorship in Law

Congratulations to Professor Xin He who has been appointed to the Mok Sau-King Professorship in Law at the University of Hong Kong.

Professor He is a leading authority and an imminent scholar on comparative Chinese law. He writes principally on the role of courts and the judicial process in Chinese society. He is an award-winning author and undoubtedly one of the most prolific and best-published Chinese law scholar in the English world. His record of publication is exceptional, in terms of both volume, as measured by annual output, and quality, as judged by the ranking of journals and the reputation of publishers.

Congratulations to Professor Cora Chan!

Congratulations to Professor Cora Chan on her promotion to full professorship! Professor Chan is a versatile scholar who excels in research, teaching, knowledge exchange, and service. She has contributed significantly by engaging in international debates on comparative constitutional law and constitutional theory, as well as providing unique expertise in China-Hong Kong constitutional relations. Her impressive international recognition is especially noteworthy. Cora is a valuable member of our faculty, and this promotion is a well-deserved recognition of her achievements.

Trevor Wan on Unshackling from Shadows of the Anisminic Orthodoxy: Reconceptualising Approaches to Ouster Clauses in Hong Kong (AsJCL)

"Unshackling from Shadows of the Anisminic Orthodoxy: Reconceptualising Approaches to Ouster Clauses in Hong Kong"
Trevor Wan
Asian Journal of Comparative Law, First View, pp. 1 - 27
Published online: October 2024

Abstract: Ouster clauses have perennially borne the mantle of a ‘litigation minefield’, where clashes between legislative and judicial powers unfold in open fora. Recent jurisprudential advancements in the United Kingdom and Singapore demonstrate how judicial approaches to ouster clauses can evolve in the face of constitutional developments. Hong Kong has, however, remained muted while these jurisprudential advancements bear fruit in other parts of the common law world, notwithstanding the fact that its constitutional framework, umpired by the Basic Law, has been in existence for over twenty-five years. This article argues for the need to reconceptualise approaches to ouster clauses in Hong Kong, grounded firmly in its post-1997 constitutional framework. Drawing on comparative jurisprudence, it presents a spectrum of approaches, animated by the dynamic interplay between various ‘macrocontextual’ and ‘microcontextual’ factors, ranging from a localised version of Anisminic, remedial interpretation, and invalidation of ouster clauses on the grounds that they impermissibly affront the constitutional right of access to courts, allocation of judicial power, and constitutional supremacy.

Congratulations to Professor Michael Ng!

Congratulations to Professor Michael Ng on his promotion to full professorship! Professor Ng is a legal historian specialising in modern China and colonial Hong Kong history. He has an impressive publication record and has published in top-tier peer-reviewed journals both in the legal and history field. Professor Ng's work, which has been cited by renowned legal scholars and historians at top international universities, has earned him strong international recognition. This is a testament to the global impact of his research. He is a valuable member of our faculty, and this promotion is a well-deserved recognition of his achievements.

HKU Law’s Inaugural ASEAN Academic Fellow Lecture

LL.M. Arbitration and Dispute Resolution

HKU Law’s Inaugural ASEAN Academic Fellow Lecture

Resolving Disputes Regarding Business Involvement in Arbitrary Land Takings: Lessons from Cambodia

Speaker: Dr. Sao Socheata
Date: 31 October 2024
Time: 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Venue: Room 824, 8/F, Cheng Yu Tung Tower, Centennial Campus, HKU
Moderator: Prof. Shahla Ali
For Registration, please click here.

About the Speaker:

Socheata Sao is the Deputy Director of the English Language-Based Master of Law (ELBML) Programme at the Royal University of Law and Economics in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. She teaches Legal Research and Business and Human Rights. Socheata is also a member of the Global Business and Human Rights Scholars Association, a business and human rights researcher, and a commercial arbitrator at the National Commercial Arbitration Centre of Cambodia (NCAC). Socheata completed her Ph.D. in Law at Monash University, Australia. Her thesis assessed avenues for access to effective remedies for land-grabbing victims in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). She obtained her LL.M. in International Commercial Law (Distinction) from the University of Kent (the United Kingdom) and bachelor’s degrees in Law (Cambodia), Business Economics (Cambodia), and Business Administration (France). Prior to pursuing her Ph.D. at Monash, she worked as a legal associate in the corporate practice group at a leading regional law firm in Phnom Penh.

Edward Lui on A limited case for the closed material procedure: natural justice, open justice and the clear advantage variation (Legal Studies)

"A limited case for the closed material procedure: natural justice, open justice and the clear advantage variation"
Edward Lui
Legal Studies
Published online: October 2024

Abstract: The closed material procedure (CMP) – ever since its introduction to English law – has been subjected to a very significant amount of academic criticism. But over time, the CMP has become increasingly settled as a fixture in English law. Whilst the existence of the CMP per se in English law seems settled, the extent of its deployment is not. Given this development, it seems important and constructive to examine whether – and the conditions under which – a CMP can ever be normatively justified, all things considered. Two propositions will be made. First, a common argument for the CMP – the maximising argument – does not demonstrate that the CMP is normatively justified, all things considered, for it does not sufficiently mitigate the two main objections to the CMP, based respectively on the principles of natural justice and open justice. Secondly, where the clear advantage variation is deployed – ie when a CMP allows the excluded party to make use of material that: (a) clearly advantages him; and (b) would otherwise be unavailable for the court's consideration – both objections are sufficiently mitigated. In such a case, the CMP is normatively justified, all things considered. This constitutes a limited normative case for the CMP.

Daisy Cheung on The fatal shooting of a man with mental illness shows Hong Kong police need a better response to such crises (HKFP)

"The fatal shooting of a man with mental illness shows Hong Kong police need a better response to such crises"
Daisy Cheung
Hong Kong Free Press
Published online: October 2024

The recent incident in North Point involving the death of a man with mental disorder at the hands of police responding to an emergency at his home is tragic, but unfortunately not uncommon worldwide.

In jurisdictions all over the world, police often act as first responders in cases involving mental health crises, even though in most cases they severely lack training on how best to support such individuals. A quick search reveals the names of countless vulnerable individuals who met untimely deaths due to interactions with police over just the past year. 

As the number of such deaths increase, places around the world are beginning to take a long, hard look at the suitability of police involvement in situations involving people with a mental disability.

Many countries are calling for police reform, and in some cases, even the police themselves have concluded that they may not always be the most appropriate responders, since their presence may be an “escalating factor” itself.

What lessons can Hong Kong learn from the experiences of these countries? First, the issue of police inadequacy in the face of mental health crises must be recognised and squarely confronted, rather than swept under the rug as merely another incident where the fatality was unfortunate, but the use of force justifiable in the circumstances. 

Concerns about how police in Hong Kong deal with people with mental disability are not new. In 2015, an autistic individual was wrongfully charged with manslaughter......(Please click here to view full text.)

Yi Tang on General Public Policy Exceptions in International Investment Agreements (IIAs): Opportunities and Challenges in Times of Global Health Crisis (AJWH)

"General Public Policy Exceptions in International Investment Agreements (IIAs): Opportunities and Challenges in Times of Global Health Crisis"
Yi Tang (PhD Candidate)
Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy
Published online: Oct 2024

Abstract: This article delves into the efficacy of general public policy exceptions within International Investment Agreements (hereinafter “IIAs”) against the backdrop of the unprecedented global health crisis precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. By empirically surveying the use of general public policy exceptions in IIAs, the research highlights a discernible trend towards the incorporation of such exceptions in new-generation IIAs, aimed at reconciling investment protection with the host state’s regulatory autonomy for public welfare. However, the examination of arbitral jurisprudence reveals the tribunals’ challenges in coherently and effectively applying these exceptions, often resulting in outcomes that diverge from the contracting states’ expectations and the objectives underlying these treaty innovations. This analysis is particularly important and timely in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, where the potential surge in investor-state disputes arising from pandemic-related regulatory measures poses pressing questions about the efficacy and scope of general public policy exceptions. However, the prevailing uncertainties in arbitral interpretations may cast a significant shadow on the prospective utility of these exceptions. In light of these challenges, this article calls for a holistic reform of IIAs and a recalibration of arbitral practice, advocating for enhanced engagement with World Trade Organization (hereinafter “WTO”) jurisprudence and the provision of explicit clarifications within IIAs to ensure that general public policy exceptions fulfil their intended purpose.

Please click here to view the full article on SSRN.

New Issue of Hong Kong Law Journal (Vol. 54, Part 2 of 2024)

HONG KONG LAW JOURNAL
Vol. 54, Part 2 of 2024

Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Eric C Ip

Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Articles

Never say Never: Equity’s Reach in the Modern Age
Lord Briggs of Westbourne...291

Crime and Punishment – The Birth of Justice?
Kemal Bokhary...309

All Roads Lead to Rome? Carving an Inclusive Path towards Global Regulation of State-owned Enterprises
Ying Bi...317

Liability of Remote Controller in Unmanned Ship Carriage
Zikun Chen...351

Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Co-ordination between China’s Foreign Investment Legal Regime and International Investment Treaty Practice
Tianjie Gu...363

When China’s Wealth Management Products Become Vulnerable to Runs: From Liquidity Management to Sponsor Support
Longjie Lu...395

Error of Law in Hong Kong Administrative Law: A Doctrinal Reappraisal
Edward Lui...429

Revisiting the Concept of Effective Nationality in International Investment Law
Kim Anh Dao and Hyokwon Kim...453

The Recording and Review System in Hong Kong: Formation, Evolution and Improvement
Cheng Sun and Fan Xiang...475

Improving the Management System of the Guangdong-Macao in-Depth Co-operation Zone in Hengqin According to Law
Shihai Zhu, Lejuan Zhou and Zhengmin Xu...503

Tying up Your Camel: Rethinking “Self-determination” for Digital Financial Consumer Data Protection
Zi-he Guo and Charlie Xiao-chuan Weng...525

Reconceptualising the Role of Actual Causation in Criminal Law
Dennis J Baker...555

Kemal Bokhary on Crime and Punishment – The Birth of Justice? (HKLJ)

"Crime and Punishment – The Birth of Justice?"
Kemal Bokhary
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 54, Part 2 of 2024, pp.307 - 313

Abstract: Even more than they treasure justice, people abhor injustice. There is substance in the proposition that crime and punishment is the birthplace of judicial justice, for historically leaders paid more attention to suppressing offences than to resolving private disputes. The quality of criminal justice was a measure of the leader. Self-help between subjects was not frowned upon. But the taking of revenge by the victims of crime was always prohibited, for the taking of such revenge puts the law out of office. And it would lead to anarchy. The administration of criminal justice stood sorely in need of improvement. Much improvement has been made. But much more remains to be made. Two of the improvements made were surprisingly long in coming. One of these is an accused person’s right to counsel. If defence counsel’s incompetence deprives the accused of a fair trial, that is a ground for quashing a conviction. Prosecutors’ duty is to prosecute but they must do so fairly. Their failure to do so can lead to the quashing of a conviction. The other improvement that was surprisingly late in coming is the conferring of the right of criminal appeal. Exonerating the innocent and calling the guilty to account is the objective of the criminal justice system. Convicting the innocent and letting the guilty go free are both abominations. But the former is the worse. The presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt are directed to avoiding it. Sentencing involves bearing in mind various different interests and sentiments. The reformation of offenders is the main, but no sole, objective of punishment. Comparing Dudley and Stephen’ case with the Conjoined Twins’s case as thought-provoking. Stimulating thought is one of the best ways way of teaching.

Edward Lui on Error of Law in Hong Kong Administrative Law: A Doctrinal Reappraisal (HKLJ)

"Error of Law in Hong Kong Administrative Law: A Doctrinal Reappraisal"
Edward Lui
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 54, Part 2 of 2024, pp.427 - 450

Abstract: English administrative law has once distinguished between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law; establishing an error of law simpliciter was insufficient for an applicant. It is now trite that English administrative law has abandoned this historical distinction; an error of law simpliciter is reviewable. This investigation asks: has Hong Kong administrative law followed the modern English position, or has the historical distinction been retained? In an analysis that has been of influence in the academic literature, Thomson has concluded that the Hong Kong authorities are ambiguous on this point --- and that the doctrinal status quo is perforce problematic. This investigation reappraises Thomson’s conclusion, and contends that the doctrinal status quo is in fact clear: a clear line of authorities from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal affirms that an error of law simpliciter is reviewable, and the historical distinction is no longer relevant for Hong Kong administrative law.

Angus Young and Eurus Yiu on China Evergrande: Liquidation of a Chinese Company Listed in Hong Kong (International Corporate Rescue)

"China Evergrande: Liquidation of a Chinese Company Listed in Hong Kong"
Angus Young and Eurus Yiu
International Corporate Rescue (Vol 21 (2024) - Issue 5)

Synopsis: A legal action to wind up China Evergrande was triggered in Hong Kong where it is listed. This created several legal challenges because it tests the enforcement of Hong Kong court order in China. Furthermore, Hong Kong being an international financial hub, it has wider implications for the territory's reputation. This article will briefly probe into the legal actions that triggered the liquidation of the company, discuss the impact it is has on other stakeholders, the enforceability of Hong Kong's court order in China, and consider what future reforms is needed to improve creditors protection.

New book by Anupama Sharma: Implementation of Rights for Crime Victims in Theory and Practice Lessons from India

Implementation of Rights for Crime Victims in Theory and Practice Lessons from India
Anupama Sharma (PhD graduate)
Routledge
Published in September 2024
224 pp.

Description: There are many different ways in which victims’ rights can be implemented. The implementation pattern may vary depending on the type of rights a jurisdiction offers and the purposes it seeks to achieve via these rights. However, there are a few basic aspects that remain common to the variation in the implementation patterns across jurisdictions. This book provides a theoretical and practical overview of such implementation patterns, their features and underlying differences. It presents theoretical models capturing the different types of implementations of victims’ rights and the purposes that they can achieve. The book also offers a framework comprising the essential aspects involved in implementation of rights such as drafting and presentation, their visibility and accessibility to victims, enforcement of rights in case of breach, and assessment and evaluation of rights to ensure constant monitoring and improvement in implementation. The framework is tested by a sample case study in New Delhi, India, which showcases how the framework can be molded and applied to assess the existing implementation of victims’ rights and the scope for reform. The book will be of interest to those working in the areas of criminal justice, criminal procedure, victimology and human rights.