Adrian Kuenzler on Regulatory Diffusion Beyond Digital Empires – Searching for a Resilient Competition Law Framework (GRUR International)

"Regulatory Diffusion Beyond Digital Empires – Searching for a Resilient Competition Law Framework"
Adrian Kuenzler
GRUR International
Published online: December 2024

Extract: Regulation has had a resurgence across many jurisdictions of late, with digital platforms being distinct new objects that need to be addressed. The emergence of this new regulatory object is part of a global – and vital – tendency toward reassessing tech power and state sovereignty. However, there are considerable differences in how digital platforms are dealt with across jurisdictions. The European Union, the United States, and China have each adopted their own regulatory approaches, ranging from rights-based to market- and state-driven models. While this has led to concerns about regulatory fragmentation and increased costs for consumers, considerable uncertainty also remains regarding how to regulate, identify, and adopt the most suitable regulatory approach.

A largely underappreciated aspect of this debate is the rapid process of regulatory diffusion – the adoption of substantially similar rules – in different jurisdictions beyond the major digital empires. Examples include the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and its trading partners, where a shift from an ex post to an ex ante regulatory approach in competition law is underway, with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) emerging as a blueprint that different countries customize to fit their digital ecosystems and domestic policies.

Shahla Ali on Conciliation Beyond the Courts – Aspirations and Limits of Mandated and Voluntary Court Mediation Programmes From a Multi-Jurisdictional Perspective (CPLJ)

"Conciliation Beyond the Courts – Aspirations and Limits of Mandated and Voluntary Court Mediation Programmes From a Multi-Jurisdictional Perspective"

Shahla Ali

in Comparative Procedural Law and Justice, edited by B Hess,M Woo,L Cadiet,S Menétrey, and E Vallines García (CPLJ Part XV Chapter 2)

Published online: November 2024

Introduction:

As judicial systems advance, evolving conceptions of justice are reflected in varying emphasis on the role, place and practice of conciliation beyond civil courts. How such programmes provide opportunities for party-directed reconciliation on the one hand while ensuring access to formal legal channels on the other remains an area of continued enquiry. The question this section seeks to explore is what drives the development of a nation’s particular approach to its court mediation system, whether voluntary or mandatory. How important is party choice in the success of court-connected mediation programmes? Given that ‘public means available for financing dispute resolution are not unlimited,’ a balancing of individual process choices and social efficiency requires careful investigation. Variation among such programmes in diverse societies reflects, to a large extent, distinct approaches to individual and collective responsibility for the financial, social and temporal resources required for resolution. In some jurisdictions, the design of court mediation structures may align with a view of conciliation as the mainstream, normatively preferable, rather than an ‘alternative’ approach to the resolution of disputes. In others, individual rights, protections, and choices are prioritized, with parties given the option to decide whether to engage in conciliation processes. The first part of this paper explores the motivations behind varying court mediation programme designs, voluntary or mandated, and the relative benefits, challenges and implications of such design choices. Examples of jurisdictions in which mediation has long been considered mainstream are explored to understand continuities in court-connected mediation programmes. This is followed by a discussion of comparative survey findings examining the impact of judicial mediation structure (mandated or voluntary) on perceptions of justice, efficiency and confidence in courts in ten jurisdictions.

Please click here to read the full text.

Taorui Guan on Collaborative Protection of Intellectual Property (University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law)

"Collaborative Protection of Intellectual Property"
Taorui Guan
University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Vol. 46 (2024), Issue 2
Published online: January 2025

Abstract: What constitutes the optimal approach to intellectual property (“IP”) protection? The mainstream method, prevalent in many countries, including the United States, is a court-centric model. In contrast, in response to heightened international innovation competition, China adopted an expansive collaborative protection model. This groundbreaking approach extends beyond governmental bodies, such as courts and administrative agencies, to non-governmental entities like private actors, social organizations, and educational institutions.

This paper offers a comprehensive analysis of China’s collaborative protection model, including its policies, legislation, and practical applications. It incorporates literature from public administration and administrative law on collaborative governance to dissect the model’s essence. It suggests that this model allows collaboration among diverse entities to integrate resources and information, aiming to achieve more effective IP protection.

The paper highlights the theoretical implications of the collaborative protection model on the dual nature of the IP system. As a property system, the emergence of the collaborative model implies that relying largely on courts might not offer optimal protection for IP, given its nonrivalrous and non-excludable nature. The pluralistic nature of collaborative protection enhances accessibility, diversity, and timeliness in IP protection, despite challenges like interest divergence, insufficient incentives, and rising costs. As a system of innovation regulation, the model reveals that states can improve the granularity of their innovation incentives through diverse enforcement institutions. While this approach complicates the IP framework, its adaptability in varied innovation scenarios might offset the intricacies, presenting a viable supplement to traditional innovation incentive regulation based on the structure of IP rights.

Anaïs Mattez on Indigenous Advocacy and the Compliance Mechanisms of the World Heritage Convention: a TWAIL Reading (International Journal of Cultural Property)

"Indigenous Advocacy and the Compliance Mechanisms of the World Heritage Convention: a TWAIL Reading"
Anaïs Mattez (PhD 2025)
International Journal of Cultural Property, First View, pp. 1 - 18
Published online: December 2024

Abstract: This article examines how Indigenous Peoples who depend on World Heritage sites for their culture and livelihood can appeal to the Committee when State Parties fail to comply with their obligations. While scholars criticize the World Heritage Convention for the lack of participation of Indigenous Peoples, particularly in the inscription and management processes, the framework of the Convention also allows representation and visibility. Indeed, compliance mechanisms offer opportunities for Indigenous advocates to negotiate Land sovereignty and environmental protection. TWAIL, which places the worldview of Indigenous Peoples at the center of legal practice, is crucial to understanding the interactions between Indigenous Peoples and the 1972 UNESCO Convention. TWAILers highlight how international law historically denies sovereignty rights to Indigenous Peoples. Article 6(1) echoes this absence of sovereignty. This article examines three cases in which Indigenous advocates petition to protect Native Lands against environmental degradations and colonization: Kakadu, Wood Buffalo, and Uluru. Ultimately, the challenges of Indigenous activists in their quest to preserve nature and culture reveal that the absence of sovereignty prerogatives remains a substantial issue. While the Convention provides a venue for advocacy and international awareness, Indigenous Peoples still must negotiate Land autonomy and cultural sovereignty with the State.

Michael Ng awarded honorable mention of the ISCLH 2024 Biennial Book Prize

Congratulations to Michael Ng (吳海傑), whose book Political Censorship in British Hong Kong: Freedom of Expression and the Law (1842–1997) was awarded the honorable mention of the International Society for Chinese Law & History (ISCLH) 2024 Biennial Book Prize. The book was published by the Cambridge University Press in September 2022.

    Background on the prize: The International Society for Chinese Law and History (ISCLH) has established a biennial book prize for the monograph that has been published in the previous two years and made a major and unique contribution to improving understanding of Chinese law and history. Eligible monographs shall be based on original research on Chinese law in history, historical works with extensive and substantial legal analysis, or historically grounded legal studies comparing China and another society. For more information on the book prize, click here.

Trevor Wan on Contesting Collateral Challenge: HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung (2024) 27 HKCFAR 71 (Judicial Review)

"Contesting Collateral Challenge: HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung (2024) 27 HKCFAR 71"
Trevor Wan
Judicial Review
Published Online: December 2024

Introduction: 

1. A collateral challenge exposes to legal scrutiny a public law act or decision in proceedings the primary object of which is not to impugn the validity of that act or decision. The public law challenge, rather, is ‘collateral’, ‘indirect’, or ‘incidental’ to the main issue under determination, which may be the liability or guilt of the defendant. As a collateral challenge is asserted outside the parameters of conventional judicial review, it is neither subject to nor encumbered by the procedural peculiarities that underpin the latter, thus rendering it an ‘exception’ to the well-recognised rule of procedural exclusivity in O’Reilly v Mackman. In the criminal context, a collateral challenge typically contests a public law act, the lawfulness of which constitutes an essential ingredient of the offence with which the defendant is charged, relying on for example the familiar grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. If successful, the collateral challenge will undermine the prosecution’s case and potentially lead to an acquittal.

2. The doctrine of collateral challenge was recently considered by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA), the apex court of the jurisdiction, in HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung. In a split decision by a narrow margin of three-to-two, a majority of the CFA reaffirmed the principles governing the availability of collateral challenge in criminal proceedings laid down in R v Wicks and Boddington v British Transport Police, which are rooted in statutory interpretation. Furthermore, the CFA explicitly recognised a discrete category of collateral challenge, where the challenge stems not from statutory non-compliance or conventional public law grounds (i.e. ordinary collateral challenge), but incompatibility with constitutional provisions in the Basic Law and Hong Kong Bill of Rights, the Special Administrative Region’s statutory charter of rights incorporating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (i.e. constitutional collateral challenge).

3. While the defendant in the end fell short of escaping conviction, the judgment...

(Click here to read the full article)

New Book: Archbold Hong Kong 2025 (Sweet & Maxwell)

ARCHBOLD HONG KONG 2025
Editor-in-Chief: The Hon Mr Justice Bokhary
General Editor: Professor Simon Young
Sweet & Maxwell
October 2024

Preface by the General Editor

The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (Ord. No. 6 of 2024) (“SNSO”) entered into force on 23 March 2024, only 15 days after the bill was read the first time in the Legislative Council. The SNSO adds 121 new provisions to our criminal law and amends/repeals 94 provisions across 28 Ordinances, including subsidiary legislation. Naturally, the changes brought about by the SNSO figure prominently in some of the chapters in this year’s volume, especially in Chapter 26 (National Security). Going forwards, legal updates in national security law will be captured in Chapter 26, except for those relating to sentencing (Chapter 5), proceeds of crime and production orders (Chapter 41), and other police powers (Chapter 15), which will be captured in the respective chapters indicated. I am grateful to the contributing editors of these and other chapters for their efforts in updating Archbold Hong Kong to reflect these new changes.

The SNSO fulfils the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s duty to enact laws on its own to prohibit seven types of national security threats, as mandated by Article 23 of the Basic Law. The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“NSL”) of June 2020 covered two of those prohibitions (i.e. secession and subversion) and added new crimes to address terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or external element. The SNSO completes the national security ecosystem by modernising previous offences (e.g. treason, misprision of treason, unlawful drilling, incitement to mutiny or disaffection, sedition, and offences in connection with state secrets and espionage), adding new ones (e.g. insurrection, sabotage, acts in relation to computers and electronic systems, external interference, disclosing a national security investigation, harassing persons handling national security cases/work), and conferring new executive powers to prohibit organisations endangering national security.

Perhaps the most controversial aspects of the SNSO are the departures from procedural norms that apply to other offences (e.g. extended detention of arrested person, restricted access to legal representative, movement restriction orders of persons on bail, disregarding 8-day rule on remand, translation of statements and exhibits only by order of magistrate, dispensing with preliminary inquiry, no section 16 discharge, anonymity measures). Those convicted of offences endangering national security cannot have a sentence of imprisonment suspended (i.e. they are excepted offences) and face presumptions against remission and early release. Finally, there are new measures aimed at facilitating the return of specified “absconders” who are not in Hong Kong.

Unlike the NSL, the offences and measures in the SNSO may be judicially reviewed for compatibility with the Basic Law and Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The “Principles” of the SNSO states that “human rights are to be respected and protected” and the rights and freedoms “enjoyed under the Basic Law, the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as applied to the HKSAR, are to be protected in accordance with the law” (s.2(b)). The presumption of innocence and other legal rights in the criminal process are also expressly mentioned in the statement of Principles (s.2(c)). No doubt cases in the future will raise issues as to the proportionality of the new rules and decisions executed under those rules. For now, the number of notable national security law judgments can still be listed on less than two pages (see list below).

I wish to express my deep appreciation for the hard work of contributing editors in providing updates throughout the year for the supplements and main work, for the continuous support of the Sentencing Editor and Editor-in-Chief, for the diligent research done by my student editors (Oscar Wong, Jonathan Ho, and Cover Lai), and for overall management by Thomson Reuters colleagues, especially Wing Yan Ng.

Professor Simon NM Young

Ian Davies Professor in Ethics

Parkside Chambers

18 August 2024

List of Notable National Security Law Judgments

HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi [2024] HKCFA 25 (CO 9(1), legal certainty and proportionality of previous sedition offence)

HKSAR v Lui Sai Yu (2023) 26 HKCFAR 332, [2023] HKCFA 26 (NSL 33, sentencing bands, mitigating factors)

Secretary for Justice v Timothy Wynn Owen KC (2022) 25 HKCFAR 288, [2022] HKCFA 23 (NSL 3, courts' duty to safeguard national security and proper adjudication)

HKSAR v Ng Hau Yi Sidney (2021) 24 HKCFAR 417, [2021] HKCFA 42 (NSL 42(2) applies to Crimes Ord ss.9-10)

HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying  (2021) 24 HKCFAR 33, [2021] HKCFA 3 (NSL 42(2), NSL not subject to constitutional review, grounds for granting bail)

Secretary for Justice v Persons Conducting Themselves in Acts Prohibited (Use of Protest Song) [2024] 3 HKLRD 32, [2024] HKCA 442 (NSL 21, secession, civil injunction in aid of criminal law, necessity test)

HKSAR v Tam Tak Chi [2024] 2 HKLRD 565, [2024] HKCA 231 (Crimes Ord ss.9-10 sedition, jurisdiction under NSL 41(3), elements of offence, constitutional challenge)

Lai Chee Ying v Commissioner of Police [2022] 5 HKLRD 205, [2022] HKCA 1574 (NSL Implementation Rules (“IR”) Sch.1, journalistic materials)

HKSAR v Ma Chun Man [2022] 5 HKLRD 246, [2022] HKCA 1151 (NSL 21, sentencing, "serious nature")

Tong Ying Kit v Secretary for Justice [2021] 3 HKLRD 350, [2021] HKCA 912 (NSL 46(1) SJ certificate for non-jury trial, unamenable to constitutional review)

HKSAR v Ng Gordon Ching Hang [2024] HKCFI 1468 (NSL 22(3), elements of subversion, "unlawful means")

HKSAR v Chow Hang Tung [2024] HKCFI 553 (failing to comply with IR Sch.5 notice)

HKSAR v Kwok Man-hei [2024] HKCFI 280 (sentencing of Returning Valiant, conspiracy to commit terrorist activities)

Lai Chee Ying v The Committee for Safeguarding National Security of the HKSAR [2023] HKCFI 1382 (NSL 12, 14, Committee decision not amenable to judicial review)

HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying  [2023] 3 HKLRD 534, [2023] HKCFI 1440 (NSL 44, stay of proceedings)

Lai Chee Ying v Secretary for Justice [2023] 3 HKLRD 275, [2023] HKCFI 1382 (NSL 14, 47, NPCSC Interpretation, no jurisdiction over National Security Committee, certification against overseas lawyers)

Chow Hang Tung v Secretary for Justice [2022] 4 HKLRD 183, [2022] HKCFI 2225 (Magistrates Ord s.87A(2), lifting of reporting restrictions in committal for NSL charges)

J v Commissioner of Police [2021] 5 HKLRD 708, [2021] HKCFI 3586 (IR Sch.7, judicial authorisation)

HKSAR v Leung Kam Wai [2021] HKCFI 3214 (IR Sch.5, NSL 42(2) bail grounds apply to scheduled offences)

Lai Chee Ying v Secretary for Security [2021] 4 HKLRD 695, [2021] HKCFI 2804 (IR Sch.3, dealing with "specified property" includes exercising shareholder voting rights)

HKSAR v Tong Ying Kit [2021] 5 HKC 100, [2021] HKCFI 2239 (NSL 20-21, 24, sentencing, 9 years imprisonment)

HKSAR v Tong Ying Kit [2021] 5 HKC 100, [2021] HKCFI 2200 (NSL 20–21, 24, elements of secession and terrorism, assessment on protest slogan )

A and B v Commissioner of Police [2021] 3 HKLRD 300, [2021] HKCFI 1801 (IR Sch.7, legal professional privilege)

Next Digital Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2021] 5 HKC 411, [2021] HKCFI 1677 (IR r 2, empowers all police officers)

HKSAR v Tong Ying Kit [2021] 3 HKLRD 87, [2021] HKCFI 1644 (Criminal Procedure Ord s.23(1), late addition of alternative non-NSL charge, jurisdiction of designated judge)

HKSAR v Wan Yiu Sing Edmund [2021] HKCFI 1261 (bail refused)

Next Digital Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2021] 2 HKLRD 857, [2021] HKCFI 1128 (order to enable access to digital device refused)

HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying [2021] HKCFI 448 (bail application after CFA decision)

HKSAR v Cheung King-sang Kinson [2021] HKCFI 3584 (bail granted)

Tong Ying Kit v HKSAR [2020] 4 HKLRD 382, [2020] HKCFI 2133 (NSL 42(2),  lawful authority for refusal of bail, habeas corpus refused)

HKSAR v Cheung King Sang Kinson [2023] HKDC 1463 (sentencing for advocating terrorism)

HKSAR v Wong Denis Tak Keung [2023] HKDC 168 (sentencing for incitement to subversion)

HKSAR v Lai Man-ling [2022] HKDC 1004 (sentencing in speech therapists’ sedition case)

HKSAR v Lai Man-ling [2022] HKDC 981 (verdict in speech therapists’ sedition case)

HKSAR v Wan Yiu Sing Edmund [2022] HKDC 958 (sentencing for conspiracy to do acts with seditious intention)

New Issue of Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law (Volume 25, Issue 3, Dec 2024)

ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW

Editor-in-Chief: Simon NM Young

Publisher: Brill, Leiden

2024, Volume 25, Issue 3

Table of Contents

Articles:

Male Rape Victims and the Case for a Gender-Neutral Definition of Rape in Bangladesh
A Gender and Human Rights Perspective

Author:  Arifur Rahman

Pages: 215–245

Online Publication Date: 29 Nov 2024

From Semi-democracy to Autocracy
The Reform of Macau’s Electoral System

Author: Sérgio de Almeida Correia

Pages: 246–281

Online Publication Date: 02 Dec 2024

Collection of DNA and the Creation of DNA Databases in India: A Proportionality Analysis on Whether There is a Violation of Genetic Privacy

Author: Rudra Chandran

Pages: 282–308

Online Publication Date: 29 Nov 2024

Review Article:

Scholarship with a Purpose: Frontiers of Gender Equality Pushes the Boundaries for Students and Scholars Alike

Author: Carole J. Petersen and Kate Atanasio

Pages: 309–328

Online Publication Date: 29 Nov 2024

back matter:

Back matter

Pages: 329–330

Online Publication Date: 10 Dec 2024

Ryan Whalen et al on Clearing Dense Drug-Patent Thickets (NEJM)

"Clearing Dense Drug-Patent Thickets"
Bernard Chao, Ryan Whalen, Aaron S. Kesselheim, and S. Sean Tu
The New England Journal of Medicine
Published online: November 2024

Brand-name drug manufacturers in the United States charge high prices during market-exclusivity periods, enabled by patents that block direct competition from generics and biosimilars. When bringing a generic or biosimilar drug to the market, potential competitors must avoid infringing on each patent protecting the brand-name drug by waiting for relevant patents to expire, making product-design choices to avoid overlap with patented inventions, or challenging patents and having them invalidated by a court. Successful drugs are frequently protected by a large number of often-overlapping patents, known as a patent thicket. These patent portfolios make it difficult for generics or biosimilars to enter the market and can extend market-exclusivity periods.

Under U.S. law, companies aren’t supposed to be awarded a patent if an invention is obvious, given existing knowledge. But there is one important exception...(click here to read the full text on NEJM)

David Kwok on Auction Houses in Britain and China: The History and the Law (Art Antiquity and Law)

"Auction Houses in Britain and China: The History and the Law"
David Kwok
Art Antiquity and Law (2024, Vol 29, Issue 3, pp.238)
Published online: October 2024

Abstract: The article "AUCTION HOUSES IN BRITAIN AND CHINA: THE HISTORY AND THE LAW" discusses the historical development of art auctions in Britain and China. In Britain, art auctions have a long history dating back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, reflecting the rise of the middle class during the industrial revolution. In contrast, art auctions in China are a more recent phenomenon, emerging in the late 1980s and early 1990s after the country's transition to a market economy. Both English and Chinese laws protect auction houses from claims brought by buyers, emphasizing the principle of caveat emptor. The legal obligations of auction houses in both countries are similar, with courts often finding auction houses not liable for claims brought by buyers. The article highlights the complexities and uncertainties surrounding the art market, emphasizing the subjective nature of attributions and the challenges of tracing authenticity over time.

Xin He on The Judicial System of China (Oxford University Press)

The Judicial System of China
Xin He
Oxford University Press
Published in November 2024

Abstract: Grounded in both English- and Chinese-language sources, The Judicial System of China is a systematic study of Chinese courts after Xi Jinping took power and thoroughly reformed China’s judiciary. How have Chinese courts come to the shape they are in today? How are decisions made on the major categories of cases—civil, criminal, and administrative? What drives and explains the behavior of the judges? How do the common people view the law and courts? How are the legal professions developed, and what are their roles in court? How do the judges interact with other actors—their political bosses, the prosecutors, and the lawyers? Different from the judicial independence perspective and the rights-protection approach, this book presents a governance model for understanding the operation of the Chinese court system, under which the courts have two overarching characteristics—policy implementation and legitimacy enhancement. The various policies that the courts are tasked with implementing, and the approaches the courts use for enhancing the judiciary’s legitimacy— and, by extension, that of the state, have played key roles in the courts’ evolution. This book is as much an account of Chinese courts in action as a social ethnography of China in the midst of momentous social change.

Bifan Zhao won the First Prize for excellent papers in the seminar “The Integration of Socialist Core Values into the Rule of Law”

Congratulations to Mr. Bifan Zhao, our Ph.D. student, on receiving the First Prize for excellent papers in the seminar “The Integration of Socialist Core Values into the Rule of Law.” On behalf of all prize winners, he presented his paper, “The Meanings and Functions of Socialist Core Values in Legal Interpretation and Reasoning: Analysis Based on 5,028 Chinese Civil Documents,” at East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL) on 30 November 2024.

The seminar was jointly guided by the Publicity and Education Bureau of the Publicity Department of the CPC Central Committee and the Legislative Planning Office for the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. This seminar was also jointly hosted by the Publicity Department of the CPC Shanghai Municipal Committee, the Legislative Affairs Commission of Shanghai Municipal People’s Congress Standing Committee, Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Justice, Shanghai Law Society, and ECUPL on 30 November 2024 in Shanghai. The awarded articles were selected from nearly 200 submitted articles after two rounds of anonymous reviews.

Mr. Bifan Zhao uses natural language processing techniques to count the number of phrases containing “Socialist Core Values” and construct a relevant semantic network to disclose the specific functions and potential problems of invoking Socialist Core Values in legal reasoning. Specifically, Socialist Core Values can play substantive functions in legal reasoning, such as moral evaluation, legal interpretation, and loophole filling. In addition, there are some problems, such as the lack of distinction between judicial reasoning and the judgment basis, the unclear relationship between the Socialist Core Values and the basic principles of law, and the inadequacy of judicial reasoning. He also proposes some measures to solve these problems.

Congratulation to Former AIIFL Postdoctoral Fellow Dr Kuzi Charamba

Congratulations to Former AIIFL Postdoctoral Fellow Dr Kuzi Charamba, whose sustainable finance startup “Tese”, was one of the three winning teams in the “G20 TechSprint 2024 – Technology for the Planet challenge”, a joint initiative between the G20 Presidency and the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) Innovation Hub to seek out best-in-class technological innovations aimed at solving challenges facing the global central banking and regulatory community. This year 15 shortlisted teams from around the world competed to develop innovative technological solutions to address sustainable finance challenges related to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

More details are available here.

Stephanie Biedermann awarded Early Career Teaching Award 2024

Congratulations to Ms. Stephanie Biedermann who was awarded the Early Career Teaching Award under the University of Hong Kong Teaching Excellence Award Scheme (TEAS) 2024.

Stephanie is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law, the Programme Director of the Master of Laws in Human Rights, and is a US-licensed lawyer. She specializes in international law, immigration, forced migration, and discrimination issues, particularly for refugees, asylum-seekers, and migrant workers. Her legal experience includes work in the US, the Middle East, and Hong Kong, with a focus on public interest law and access to justice issues as they relate to individual client services, policy decisions, and the development of clinical opportunities for law students. Stephanie teaches across a variety of subject areas at HKU. She is the course coordinator for the Legal Research and Writing programme for LLB students, is Co-Director of the Rule of Law Education project (ROLE), and also teaches courses in human rights and refugee law.

In her time at HKU, Stephanie has emphasized the practical applications of classroom learning, to encourage students to use their creativity, to take initiative to design their own projects, and to excite them about what is possible when they implement what they have learned. Stephanie’s teaching seeks to create opportunities for students to practice and demonstrate a full range of legal skills. She believes that balanced learning requires not only subject matter knowledge, but also practical awareness, understanding the needs of an audience or client, and developing good judgment. She has also incorporated the use of GenAI into to the legal writing curriculum to encourage thoughtful, critical use of this new tool. 

The Teaching Excellence Award Scheme (TEAS) aims to recognise, reward and promote excellence in teaching at the University. Under the Scheme, there are four categories of awards, viz. University Distinguished Teaching Award (UDTA), Outstanding Teaching Award (OTA), Early Career Teaching Award (ECTA) and Teaching Innovation Award (TIA). 

Click here to view the list of 2024 TEAS Winners.

Richard Cullen on Dicey in Hong Kong (new book chapter)

"Dicey in Hong Kong"
Richard Cullen
in Twenty-First Century Perspectives on the Scholarship of AV Dicey, edited by Catherine Marshall and Céline Roynier (Bloomsbury Publishing, December 2024), Chapter 13

Published online: December 2024

Abstract: When one reviews authoritarian jurisdictions with a positive history of adhering to Rule of Law shaped governance systems, Hong Kong is rightly regarded as an exemplar. British Hong Kong (BHK) provides a remarkable story of the effective development and consolidation of such a system, which has continued to apply since July, 1997, when BHK became the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) within the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under the One Country Two Systems (OCTS) governing principle. This chapter: reviews how “Diceyan Constitutionalism” was fundamental, within the pivotal context of “Chinese Familism”, in shaping the development of governance institutions and pivotal operational procedures within this British Colony; and discusses how that system has coped with the most recent, radical political structure reforms imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing (following an extended period of exceptionally violent political disorder) as Hong Kong actively comprehends its future as an inalienable part of China.

Yanru Chen won the Second Prize in the 2024 Annual Conference of the Chinese Society of International Economic Law

Congratulations to Ms Yanru Chen, our Ph.D. student, on receiving the Second Prize for Excellent Papers for Young Scholars in the “2024 Annual Conference of the Chinese Society of International Economic Law”. Her paper “International Regulatory Cooperation Towards Good Regulatory Practices: Reflections Based on the Evolution of Norms” was presented during Panel I on the topic of “Theoretical Issues of International Economic Law with Chinese Characteristics”, on 2 November 2024.

This Annual Conference was hosted by the Chinese Society of International Economic Law (CSIEL) and jointly organized by the Law School of Xiamen University, from 1 to 3 November 2024, in Xiamen, Fujian Province. The awarded articles underwent anonymous review.

New Chinese book by Sida Liu: Letters on Sociology of Law (Peking University Press)

法社會學信札(Letters on Sociology of Law)
劉思達(Sida Liu)
北京大學出版社(Peking University Press)
出版日期 (Publication date)：Nov 2024

簡介(Description): 本書採用類似於《波斯人信札》的書信文體，通過一位法科學生與一位社會學教授的書信對話，深入淺出地闡釋法律社會學的發展歷史和經典理論、法律社會學的研究方法、論述法律系統的社會結構與變遷以及一些經典實證研究等，並應用這些理論與方法對中國法律實踐的種種現實問題進行探討，在看似大相徑庭的學術知識之間建立起關聯。

本書不同於一般的學術專著和傳統教材，更像是一個學習法律社會學的路線圖。文后還按信件順序給出了參考文獻，讀者可以按圖索驥汲取更多營養，不必拘泥於某種對理論或者學術傳統的通常解釋。

除了介紹和解讀法社會學，還有一個面向，就是書信體帶來的“符號互動主義”的展現。通過兩個人的對話，使理論的源流、意涵和指向更清晰，同時也展示了年輕學者的一些學術人生中的困惑、掙扎與努力。而且通信的過程，就是不斷建構兩個人之間的關係，這種人與人之間的關係是一直動態變化着的。

Shahla Ali's Project Update with the Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA)

With a growing attention to inclusivity and representation in the context of increased global integration, Professor Shahla Ali's research is inspired by the necessity to expand inclusivity and collaboration in the development of global legal instruments, as well as in the study and participation in cross-border dispute resolution and in the resolution of infrastructure disputes.

Her work includes "Forming Transnational Dispute Settlement Norms. Soft Law and the Role of UNCITRAL''s Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific", "Comparative and Transnational Dispute Resolution", "Diversity in International Arbitration", and a recent article "The Seeming Paradox of Prevention".

To learn more about this, and to hear Professor Ali talk about her research on access to justice, watch this short video prepared for the ITA Academic Council "What I Am Working On" project.

(Please click here to view the original post prepared by ITA on LinkedIn.)

Po Jen Yap on Dialogic Judicial Review and First World Autocracies (new book chapter)

"Dialogic Judicial Review and First World Autocracies"
Po Jen Yap
in Madhav Khosla (ed),Vicki C Jackson (ed),Redefining Comparative Constitutional Law: Essays for Mark Tushnet (Oxford University Press),Chapter 19,pp.274 - 292
Published online: November 2024

Abstract: Dialogic or weak-form review is the only viable and effective path for courts operating in First World autocracies. The judicial use of strong-form review to address problems posed by sedition laws and restrictions on the franchise—as Mark Tushnet suggests—would be counterproductive as this would only be to the detriment of the courts. At the same time, I argue that dialogic review is not judicial abdication. I will also show how weak-form review has enhanced rights protection in Singapore and Hong Kong, and has imposed soft but meaningful controls on state power in these autocracies. Precisely because these autocracies want to remain First World, the perceived independence of the courts must be preserved for their governments to retain talent and continued investments in the economy. Governments in First World autocracies are sensitive to global businesses’ perception of the regime’s commitment to the rule of law as that directly impacts the entity’s economic future. This is unlike military dictatorships and banana republics, where the rent-seeking behavior of autocrats is driven primarily by the self-interest of its cabal. Therefore, in First World autocracies, so long as the courts respect the regime’s plenary agenda-setting powers, the government will in turn acquiesce to the judiciary’s calibrated show of force to preserve rights.

Julian Nowag and Carla Valeria Patiño on Enough of Fairness: Pre-Emption and the DMA (new book chapter)

"Enough of Fairness: Pre-Emption and the DMA"
Julian Nowag and Carla Valeria Patiño
in Annegret Engel(ed),Xavier Groussot(ed),Gunnar Thor Petursson(ed),New Directions in Digitalisation: Perspectives from EU Competition Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights,(Springer, November 2024),pp. 61 - 74
Published online: November 2024

Abstract: This chapter looks at the DMA through the prism of pre-emption and the relationship between EU and national law. It explains the fundamentals of pre-emption in EU law and shows the consequences for the DMA and national rules that are to ensure fairness in the digital market space. It argues that fairness in the digital market with regard to business users and consumers has been exhaustively regulated by the DMA. Thus, existing and future national rules that aim to address additional fairness matters are pre-empted and cannot be applied to gatekeepers. The only option Member States have is to introduce further fairness related matters into their competition laws which elevates the well-known debates about the relationship between competition law and fairness to a new level.