Yun Zhao and Yating Ling on Extraterritorial Arbitration For Domestic Disputes In China (ILJ)

"Extraterritorial Arbitration For Domestic Disputes In China- Liberalization In The Greater Bay Area As A Prelude To The Process Of Legal Convergence"
Yun Zhao and Yating Lin (PhD 2026)
The Boston University International Law Journal, Vol 43, Spring 2025
Published online: 2025

Abstract: Extraterritorial arbitration, with domestic parties selecting a foreign jurisdiction as the seat for arbitration and applying foreign laws for the proceedings, holds theoretical and practical significance in international arbitration. China’s legislative framework imposes restrictions on extraterritorial arbitration in purely domestic cases, diverging significantly from practice in various jurisdictions. Established arbitration hubs like the UK and Singapore have long embraced extraterritorial arbitration, while India, an emerging player in the Asian arbitration market, has recently implemented reforms to support the global reach of its businesses and display its pro-arbitration attitude. This article argues that China needs to relax its restrictions on extraterritorial arbitration to enhance the internationalization and competitiveness of its arbitration mechanism under its ongoing “Foreign-Related Rule of Law” initiative. Despite empirical case analysis and political-legal analysis suggesting that China is unlikely to completely overturn the restrictions in the short term, a significant breakthrough has recently occurred. The Supreme People’s Court of China and the Department of Justice in Hong Kong are exploring avenues to ease restrictions on extraterritorial arbitration within the Greater Bay Area (GBA), serving as a valuable testing ground for China’s extraterritorial arbitration practice. This article further examines three possible legal frameworks to facilitate extraterritorial arbitration within the GBA and suggests that the most appropriate legal technique is “Regional and Mutual Arrangement.” Overall, the pilot initiative to liberalize extraterritorial arbitration within the GBA showcases the institutional advantages of the “One Country, Two Systems” and serves as a precursor to China’s future approach towards unrestricted extraterritorial arbitration.

New Issue of Hong Kong Journal of Legal Studies (Volume 19, 2025)

HONG KONG JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES

Volume 19, 2025

Editors-in-Chief: Hai Du, Arthur Chan

Publisher: University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface
Hai Du and Arthur Chan...i


Article

Termination over Modification: Addressing Circumstantial Changes in the Chinese Civil Code

Xixi Xiang...1

Case Notes

Reconsidering Re Chime in Light of Ntzegkoutanis v Kimionis
Holly Leung and Kenneth Ip...29

Hague Convention Article 13(2): New Procedural Choice and Orthodox Use of Discretion in Re M (Child Abduction) [2024] 5 HKLRD 658, [2024] HKCFI 2821

Justin Wan Chan...45

New book by Yahong Li on Intellectual Property and Technology: International Legal Framework, Policy and Practice (LexisNexis)

Intellectual Property and Technology: International Legal Framework, Policy and Practice
Yahong Li
LexisNexis
Published in June 2026

The major breakthroughs in cutting-age technologies in the last two decades have fundamentally changed the world, so as the intellectual property (IP) law, which is closely connected with, and constantly affected by, the technological advancement from its birth. This new edition of the book, on one hand, follows the basic structure of the first edition to systematically introduce the international framework such as TRIPS Agreement within which IP law operates, the enforcement and WTO dispute settlement mechanism concerning international IP disputes, the overall implications of international IP protection for global competition between developed and developing countries in an integrated world market, as well as major national differences in IP protection, focusing on three major jurisdictions: the US, the EU and China. On the other hand, the new edition devoted more content on the interaction between IP and cutting-age technologies such as digital, Internet, software, AI, and life sciences based on the subject areas of IP law, and increased the weight on China’s IP laws and practices because China has become the world leader in some key technologies, and as a result started to lead in IP law and practices. The new edition is intended not only to fill the void in IP law between the past and the present, but also to bridge the gap of understanding of IP systems between the east and the west.

New book by Shahla Ali on Dispute Prevention through Community Engagement in Infrastructure Development in the Asia Pacific (CUP)

Dispute Prevention through Community Engagement in Infrastructure Development in the Asia Pacific
Shahla Ali
Cambridge University Press
Published online: June 2026
300 pp.

Book description: This book explores the emerging development of community-investor dispute prevention and facilitation mechanisms employed by multilateral and national development banks in the Asia Pacific region. In the decades since the development of the first accountability mechanisms were introduced, much has been learned about public consultation, community engagement and dispute prevention during the early stages of major infrastructure development programs. Drawing on case studies, project statistics and survey data, this book explores the achievements, challenges and lessons learned in community-investor dispute prevention and resolution in infrastructure projects in 12 states in the Asia Pacific region. Given the widescale impact of such projects, understanding how to advance consultation practices with local communities is necessary to realize the benefits of sustainable growth. This book allows readers to understand that localized decision-making channels, far from aggregating disputes, conversely provide a conduit to incorporate joint aspirations into project design such that disputes are avoided.

Anfield Tam on Harassment as a Common Law Tort and the Limits of Corporate Standing (Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly)

"Harassment as a Common Law Tort and the Limits of Corporate Standing"
Anfield Tam (PCLL graduate)
Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
Published online: August 2026

Abstract: Sir Elly Kadoorie & Sons Ltd v Samantha Jane Bradley marks the first time that an apex court in a common law jurisdiction has recognised a common law tort of harassment, but it was also held, rightly, that a corporate entity has no standing in its own right to claim for it. While the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal should be praised for keeping the common law abreast of technological advancements, the reasoning of the ruling would have been more convincing if the tort had not been justified as a departure from the recognised psychiatric condition requirement for compensable mental distress, but based on a personal right of being treated with dignity. Furthermore, while the Court was principled in limiting harassment to only natural persons, it also outlined the doctrinal justifications for corporate entities to restrain harmful acts against its employees.

Shahla Ali et al on Digital Assets and Arbitration: Observations from the Payward v. Chechetkin Decision (Journal of International Arbitration)

"Digital Assets and Arbitration: Observations from the Payward v. Chechetkin Decision"
Kabir Duggal, Shahla Ali, Elizabeth Ebelechukwu Arubalueze
Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 43, Issue 3/4 (2026) pp. 415 – 440
Published online: August 2026

Abstract: The rapid expansion of digital asset markets has transformed commercial exchange while exposing structural tensions between private dispute resolution and mandatory public regulation. As English law has evolved to recognize cryptoassets as property, disputes concerning ownership, fraud, platform governance, and regulatory compliance have proliferated, with arbitration emerging as a preferred mechanism for their resolution. However, the deployment of arbitration in consumer-facing digital asset markets raises difficult questions about the limits of party autonomy where statutory rights and public policy are engaged.

This article critically examines those limits through a close analysis of Payward, Inc. d/ b/a Kraken, Payward Ventures, Inc. & Payward Ltd v. Chechetkin, situating the decision within the broader framework of the Arbitration Act 1996 (as amended in 2025) and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). It argues that Payward reveals three interrelated constraints on arbitral autonomy: the non-derogable character of statutory consumer protection, the principled operation of public policy at the enforcement stage, and the heightened scrutiny applied to standard-form arbitration clauses in cross-border digital transactions. Far from signalling hostility to arbitration, the decision reflects a recalibration of arbitral autonomy in regulatory contexts. The article concludes that, in an increasingly mature and regulated digital asset market, arbitration remains viable only to the extent that it operates consistently with mandatory consumer and financial regulatory norms.

New book by Eric Ip on Planetary Health Law and Governance (Cambridge University Press)

Planetary Health Law and Governance
Eric Ip
Elements in Earth System Governance, Cambridge Elements

Cambridge University Press

Published online: Aug 2026
86 pp.

Summary: This Element examines the legal infrastructure required to address the intertwined health and environmental crises of the Anthropocene. It introduces planetary health law as an emerging transdisciplinary paradigm that integrates global health law and international environmental law to tackle the impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution on humanity and the broader biosphere. The Element highlights the shortcomings of current frameworks, which remain largely voluntary and anthropocentric. It makes the case for a comprehensive planetary health law framework that recognizes both the human right to a healthy planet and the planetary right to health. This integrated approach would catalyze systemic institutional reform. Key proposals include the creation of a Planetary Health Organization to coordinate the work of the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, alongside a Planetary Health Tribunal to enforce Nature-oriented norms and accountability. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

Michael Tsimplis comments on Legal Responsibility for Damage to Underwater Infrastructure

In an interview with BBC News Chinese, Professor Michael (Mikis) Tsimplis explained the legal framework governing liability for damage to underwater infrastructure, with reference to the NewNew Polar Bear and Eagle S cases. He discussed the powers of the coastal and the  flag-state in instituting criminal proceedings for such damage and  the challenges posed by existing international legal regimes in addressing such incidents. He further discussed how proceedings against the Chinese master of the NewNew Polar Bear, who allegedly damaged underwater infrastructure in the Baltic Sea, have been brought in Hong Kong.  

Please click here to read the full article on BBC News Chinese.

New Books Network interview with Valeria Vázquez Guevara (4 Sep 2026)

Professor Valeria Vázquez Guevara was interviewed by Dr Miranda Melcher from The New Books Network about her new book Truth Commissions and International Law: Jurisdiction, Representation, Authority (Cambridge University Press, 2026). You can listen to the interview wherever you get your podcasts or here: https://newbooksnetwork.com/truth-commissions-and-international-law

New issue of Hong Kong Law Journal (Vol. 56, Part 1 of 2026)

HONG KONG LAW JOURNAL

Vol. 56, Part 1 of 2026

Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Eric C Ip

Deputy Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Trevor Wan

Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Articles

Purposive, Holistic and Contextual

Kemal Bokhary...1

Discretion in the Legal System: A Roundtable Exchange (with Simon Young and Amanda  Whitfort et al)

Trevor T W Wan...9

Beyond 4–18: Gendered Labour Precarity and the Limits of Law Reform in Hong Kong

Darcy Davison-Roberts, Yu Yiran and Li Jiawei...21

Regulating Targeted Advertising Through the Informed Consent Model

Luo Jiakun...55

Symposium: Trust, Wealth Management, and Philanthropy

Reimagining Charity Law

Matthew Harding...89

For-Profit Philanthropic Innovation in the US

Dana Brakman Reiser...107

Offshore Philanthropy: A Critical Look at Family Offices using Hybrid Trusts

Tang Hang Wu...129

Perpetual Charitable Trusts and Artificial Intelligence

Ian Murray...151

Treatise Writing Technique and a Problem in English Charitable Donation Law

John Picton...181

Regulating Trustee Investment in the Pacific Rim

M Scott Donald...199

Data Charitable Trusts: Balancing Privacy and Sharing Value in Healthcare Data Governance

Yuxin Zhao...229

Planning with Purpose: Purpose Trusts, Charitable Gifts, and Business Succession Planning

Susan Gary...265

The Nature of Recipients in Charitable Trusts and Discretionary Trusts

Zhicheng Wu and Dongying Ye...295

Resilience and Social Justice: Rethinking Responses to Southeast Asia’s Substandard Housing Crisis

Rebecca Lee and Jodi Gardner...313

Trevor Wan on Discretion in the Legal System: A Roundtable Exchange (with Simon Young and Amanda Whitford et al) (HKLJ)

"Discretion in the Legal System: A Roundtable Exchange (with Simon Young and Amanda  Whitfort et al)"
Trevor Wan
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 56, Part 1 of 2026, pp.9 - 20

    Discretion is an unavoidable feature in any functional legal system. Cognitive limitations, due in no small part to the heterogeneity and unpredictability of earthly circumstances, prevent both the common law judge and the legislator from developing a comprehensive, military-grade operational manual standardising responses to every conceivable contingency. While some scholars and jurists regard discretion as a virtue, others bemoan it as a vice, a source of arbitrariness or inconsistency. Nevertheless, across the debate there is broad agreement on one point: discretion must be subject to some forms of meaningful control. In Stradling v Morgan, the Court of Exchequer said that the intention of the legislature is always taken according to what is consonant to reason and good discretion. In Scott v Scott, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline said that “[t]o remit the maintenance of constitutional right to the region of judicial discretion is to shift the foundations of freedom from the rock to the sand”. That goes to the heart of what the United States Supreme Court referred to in Marbury v Madison as “a government of laws and not of men”...

Darcy Lynn Davison-Roberts et al on Beyond 4–18: Gendered Labour Precarity and the Limits of Law Reform in Hong Kong (HKLJ)

"Beyond 4–18: Gendered Labour Precarity and the Limits of Law Reform in Hong Kong"
Darcy Davison-Roberts, Yu Yiran and Li Jiawei
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 56, Part 1 of 2026, pp.21 - 54

Abstract: This paper critically examines Hong Kong’s continuous contract requirement under the Employment Ordinance (Cap 57), which conditions eligibility for employment benefits and protections on meeting prescribed minimum hours over a four-week period. This threshold, known as the 4–18 Rule, requires at least 18 hours of work per week for the same employer over four consecutive weeks. In June 2025, the Legislative Council enacted the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance 2025, which replaced the 4–18 Rule with a dual threshold from 18 January 2026. Under the amendment, employees may qualify as being continuously employed by either working 17 hours of work per week over consecutive four weeks or a cumulative total of 68 hours within the same period (the 4–17–68 Rule). Drawing on qualitative legal analysis and empirical data, this paper argues that the 4–18 Rule creates a situation of employment precarity, disproportionately affects women, and facilitates employer-driven scheduling strategies that exclude workers from key statutory protections and benefits. Judicial interpretation remains constrained, with courts unable to remedy employer avoidance in the absence of statutory reform. This paper further argues that the 4–17–68 Rule reform constitutes only a numerical adjustment and fails to address the structural, legal, and institutional roots of exclusion that characterise the 4–18 Rule. Drawing on international models, particularly from Singapore, Australia, and the UK, the paper advocates for substantive legislative amendments, including anti-avoidance provisions and a proportional entitlement system. Without these, the revised 4–17–68 Rule will preserve, rather than remedy, systemic precarity and gender inequality in statutory employment benefits and protections.

Luo Jiakun on Regulating Targeted Advertising Through the Informed Consent Model (HKLJ)

"Regulating Targeted Advertising Through the Informed Consent Model"
Luo Jiakun (LLM TIPL 2025)
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 56, Part 1 of 2026, pp.55 - 88

Abstract: The rise of targeted advertising, powered by algorithmic technologies and extensive personal data collection, has significantly transformed the digital landscape. While such practices generate considerable economic benefits, they also pose critical risks to the protection of personal information. The informed consent model, derived initially from medical ethics and integrated into contemporary data protection laws, aims to safeguard individuals’ informational self-determination by ensuring transparency, voluntariness, and genuine user control. This article critically examines the implementation of the informed consent framework in different jurisdictions and an empirical audit of privacy policies from 25 prominent Chinese platforms. The research identifies substantial gaps between regulatory ambitions and actual practices, including the erosion of users’ right to be informed, systemic distortion of consent through manipulative interfaces, and impeded withdrawal mechanisms. To bridge these gaps, this article proposes targeted reforms emphasising user-centric transparency, rigorous consent standards, and accessible withdrawal mechanisms. The findings underscore the necessity of shifting from formal compliance to substantive user empowerment to achieve meaningful personal information protection.

Rebecca Lee and Jodi Gardner on Resilience and Social Justice: Rethinking Responses to Southeast Asia’s Substandard Housing Crisis (HKLJ)

"Resilience and Social Justice: Rethinking Responses to Southeast Asia’s Substandard Housing Crisis"
Rebecca Lee and Jodi Gardner
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 56, Part 1 of 2026, pp.313 - 331

Abstract: Rapid urbanisation, speculative land practices and inadequate governance have driven a substandard housing crisis across Southeast Asia, leaving marginalised populations in informal and insecure dwellings. This article proposes a framework that combines Resilient Property Theory (RPT) and the social minimum to address these challenges. While the social minimum establishes enforceable rights to adequate, secure housing grounded in social justice, RPT emphasises adaptive, resilient governance through stakeholder engagement and institutional flexibility. Using Hong Kong as a case study, we evaluate recent housing policies against this integrated framework, illustrating how it can reimagine housing governance and offer a pathway for Southeast Asian governments to develop inclusive, rights-based and adaptable responses to substandard housing.

HKU Law Welcomes Prof. Yu Fan

Welcome to Prof. Yu Fan, who joins the Faculty of Law as an Assistant Professor.

Yu is a tenure-track Assistant Professor of Data, AI & Law at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law and School of Computing and Data Science. He is also a PhD candidate in Legal AI at ETH Zurich and an associated researcher at the ETH AI Center. His research lies at the intersection of law, computational social science, machine learning, natural language processing, and data science. His work has been published at leading AI and NLP venues, including the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), and Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL). Yu holds a Master of Arts in Sociology from Freie Universität Berlin, with a focus on computational social science; a Professional Certificate in Artificial Intelligence from Stanford University; and a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Sociology from Universität Bielefeld, with a focus on theoretical philosophy.

Research Areas:

• Legal AI
• Natural language processing
• Computational social science
• AI for social good

Adrian Mak and Wilson Lui on Agentic AI and International Arbitration: A Three-Tier Taxonomy and Model Agentic AI Protocol (Journal of AI Law and Regulation)

“Agentic AI and International Arbitration: A Three-Tier Taxonomy and Model Agentic AI Protocol”
Adrian Mak (BSocSc(Govt&Laws)&LLB 2019; PCLL 2020) and Wilson Lui (Research Fellow, Centre for Private Law)
Journal of AI Law and Regulation, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp. 138–151
Published online: June 2026

Abstract: The rapid evolution from generative to agentic artificial intelligence (AI) presents both transformative opportunities and novel enforcement risks for international arbitration. Whereas ordinary prompt-response use of generative AI is largely reactive, agentic AI combines generative models with planning, persistent memory, tool use, and autonomous task execution, operating through multi-step workflows with minimal human oversight at each step. This article introduces a three-tier taxonomy: (1) Agent-Assisted, (2) Agent-Supported, and (3) Agent-Decided—to classify the deployment of agentic AI across the arbitral lifecycle, from conflict checks and procedural administration to deliberation and award drafting. It maps the principal enforcement risks under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the New York Convention), particularly Articles V(1)(b), V(1)(d), and V(2)(b), and analyses the regulatory implications of the EU AI Act for high-risk AI systems deployed in dispute resolution. It situates the taxonomy against the principal existing AI-in-arbitration instruments—the SVAMC Guidelines and the CIArb Guideline—and argues that agentic AI requires a more granular, autonomy-based governance model than general AI guidance provides. To address the governance gap, the article proposes a Model Agentic AI Protocol structured around three pillars: (1) Disclosure, (2) Trajectory Logging, and (3) Human Certification—complemented by a technical toolkit comprising arbitration-specific benchmarks, mechanistic interpretability, adversarial robustness testing, and cognitive calibration techniques.

Wilson Lui on Conflict of Laws

“Conflict of Laws”
Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong (2nd Edition)
Volume 16, 2026 Reissue, pp. 63–169
LexisNexis
Wilson Lui (Research Fellow, Centre for Private Law)

The 2026 Reissue is a substantial overhaul of the previous edition, featuring a restructured framework that better reflects the doctrinal architecture of conflict of laws (also known as private international law) as practised in Hong Kong today. The 2026 Reissue incorporates extensive new case law developments and provides in-depth coverage of significant statutory provisions and reforms, most notably the enactment and operation of various statutes regarding the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong (Cap 597, Cap 639, and Cap 645). The 2026 Reissue also offers substantial new analysis and original insights across a range of core conflict of laws topics, including jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, situating Hong Kong's private international law regime within broader comparative and regional contexts. It will serve as a valuable resource for practitioners, academics, and students navigating the evolving landscape of cross-border legal disputes in Hong Kong.

Welcome the new Global Academic Fellow Dr Xiangyi Ren!

Welcome to Dr Xiangyi Ren who joined the Faculty of Law as a Global Academic Fellow. Dr. Xiangyi (Tami) Ren is a socio-legal scholar studying legal and policy change in Mainland China. Her research examines how legal knowledge is produced, circulated, and transformed through the interaction between court operations and lawmaking processes. Her current research examines the operation of specialized tribunals and courts, public interest litigation regimes, and how specialized judicial institutions reshape governance in China. A common intellectual thread of her work is analyzing how legal institutions mediate interactions among legal, technical, and political knowledge, as well as investigating how individuals and organizations construct, interpret, and deploy legal rules in practice.

Xiangyi received her Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Chicago, an MSc in Politics of China from SOAS University of London, and a B.A. in Political Science and International Studies from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She was awarded the 2025 Surrency Prize by the American Society for Legal History. Her work has appeared in the Journal of Contemporary China, Law and History Review, and China Law and Society Review. Prior to joining the University of Hong Kong as a Global Academic Fellow, she served as a Social Sciences Teaching Fellow at the University of Chicago.

Welcome the new Global Academic Fellow Dr Marianne Von Blomberg!

Welcome to Dr Marianne Von Blomberg who joined the Faculty of Law as a Global Academic Fellow. Marianne von Blomberg is a Global Academic Fellow (postdoctoral researcher) at the Law and Technology Centre of the University of Hong Kong. She also participates in a research project on corporate social responsibility regimes and techno-regulation in Europe and China at the Bern University of Applied Sciences. Her work uses qualitative empirical methods to examine how public regulation of and through digital technologies evolves across China and the European Union.

Her research focuses on social credit systems and related forms of assessment-based governance in China and beyond, as well as on techno-orientalism in media and policy discourse. In her current work, she expands her work on regulation and governance to include processes of technical standardization as key sites where regulatory logics are developed and negotiated.

She completed her PhD at the University of Cologne, funded by the German Academic Scholarship Foundation and the Fritz Thyssen Foundation. The project investigated how evolving social credit systems strengthen, weaken and transform the law in China and is grounded in three years of fieldwork and analyses of official documents.  Her focus on modes of public regulation and their transformation has led her to observe the processes and fora of technical standardization in her postdoctoral work.

Beyond research, Marianne contributes to public and policy-facing engagement on PRC law in Europe through advising EU officials, teaching, and serving as the editor of the blog of the European Chinese Law Studies Association (ecls.eu), and co-organizing its conferences and summer schools. Marianne holds an LL.M. from Zhejiang University in Hangzhou and a BA in Communication and Cultural Studies from Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen. She has been a visiting scholar at the City University of Hong Kong School of Law and has professional experience with several news outlets, the Jingling Law Firm (criminal defense), the Volkswagen Group, and the German Embassy in Ottawa.

Benjamin Chen et al on Mitigating the Judicial Human–AI Fairness Gap (Journal of Legal Analysis)

"Mitigating the judicial human–AI fairness gap"
Benjamin Chen, Yoan Hermstrüwer, Pascal Langenbach, Alexander Stremitzer, Kevin Tobia
Journal of Legal Analysis, Volume 18, Issue 1, 2026, Pages 207–242
Published online: July 2026

Abstract: Machine adjudication is perceived as less fair than human judging. We study whether hybrid procedures, in which a human consults an algorithmic recommendation but retains final authority, mitigate this human-AI fairness gap. In two experiments (⁠N = 7,651⁠), participants evaluate sentencing, bail, and arbitration decisions made by a human, an algorithm, or a human reviewing an algorithmic recommendation. The hybrid procedure eliminates the gap even when human scrutiny is minimal. The effect is complete among White and conservative participants but partial among Black liberals. Insensitivity to review intensity raises the risk of human-washing: nominal oversight may legitimize substantively flawed algorithmic processes.