Sida Liu, Gihad Nasr
The American Sociologist
Published online: June 2025
Follow the research activities and scholarship of the Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong
"The Dominance of Regulatory Oversight in Chinese Investment Trusts"
Lusina Ho and Hui Jing
Asia-Pacific Trusts Law, Volume 3, Boundaries in Context, Part II, Chapter 10
Hart Publishing
Published online: May 2025
Abstract: Cryptoassets, introduced in the wake of the Great Recession (2007-2009), have proven to be very divisive. Embraced by some as part of a revolutionary future, they are derided by others as the misconceived fever dream of naïve technologists who don’t understand how the real world works. Despite a recent meltdown in the cryptoasset markets, or perhaps because of it, the courts will increasingly have to resolve disputes over cryptoassets. An important question that has dramatic implications on how such disputes are resolved is, “Should cryptoassets be considered property?” In this bifurcated contribution, two contrasting positions are taken. “The Case for Cryptoassets as Property” presents the case for classifying cryptoassets as property, arguing that it greatly simplifies dispute resolution. “Better Left to the Legislature?”, on the other hand, disputes the capacity of the courts to do so. It is our shared hope that, through this adversarial process, we shine a clearer light on the arguments that judges and other lawmakers ought to consider as they face the coming deluge of disputes.
Please click here to read the book chapter on SSRN.
International Arbitration Symposium Provides Better Understanding of International Arbitration![]() |
Pictured (from left to right): Dr. Yuh-Ming Yan, Dr. Weixia Gu, Bianca Lin, and Professor Yun-chien Chang |
"Centralization in Decentralized Finance: Systemic Risk in the Crypto Ecosystem and Crypto’s Future as a Regulated Industry"
Douglas W Arner, Tanvi Ratna, Sijuade Animashaun, Jatin Bedi, Naveen Mishra
Law and Contemporary Problems, Volume 87, Number 2 (2025), pp. 185 - 210
Published online: April 2025
Introduction: A paradigm shift is manifesting in the global crypto ecosystem. Akin to traditional financial systems, crypto markets have developed networks of complex interrelationships between infrastructures, intermediaries and market participants. As an example, the events of the so-called “Crypto Winter” of 2022-2023, which began in early 2022 with the crash of sister tokens USDTerra and Luna and resulted in a series of cascading failures and collapses including that of the major crypto conglomerate FTX, underscore the significant potential that interconnection, interdependencies, concentration and contagion have in the evolving ecosystem. Compared to traditional finance, which is underpinned by a wide range of regulatory and supervisory interventions of central banks and other international and domestic regulatory bodies, the crypto ecosystem has until recently remained largely unregulated. This however is changing rapidly in major economies around the world and is expected to change as well in the United States, as crypto increasingly becomes a regulated industry.
The crypto ecosystem is typically described as and characterized by decentralization and disintermediation. We have seen a range of situations however where the system does not operate in this way......
(click here to view full article)
Abstract: In a sequel of two articles, we comprehensively examine China’s evolving AI regulation, focusing on the interplay between fragmented laws, technical standards, and sectoral governance frameworks. This reflects the tension between central regulatory control and sector-specific governance in aligning rapid technological advancement with coherent legislative oversight. The two papers, read together, argue that a phased legislative strategy emphasizing flexibility, cross-sectoral consistency, and proactive engagement with emerging technologies is essential for China to sustain global competitiveness while ensuring ethical and safe AI development. By integrating local piloting, sectoral adaptation, and incremental national standardisation, it advocates for balancing regulatory oversight with technological innovation. Ultimately, the findings reflect China’s efforts to craft a resilient legal framework that mitigates AI risks while fostering sustained and responsible innovation and iterating its industrial policies. The first part cover fragmented laws and technical standards, and the second part will address sectoral governance, emerging proposals, and analysis.
"The Global Scope of Competitive Legalities in the Early 19th-Century South China Sea: The Topaz Incident"
Jedidiah Kroncke and Haimo Li
European Journal of International Law, Volume 35, Issue 4, November 2024, pp. 929–958
Published online: February 2025
Description: This book is a one-stop reference to Hong Kong private international law.
It provides clear expositions on questions of jurisdiction, choice of law, recognition and enforcement, transnational arbitration, and inter-regional and international harmonisation of Hong Kong conflict of laws. It covers a range of areas, including the law of obligations at common law and in equity, the law of real and personal property, intellectual property law, family law, company law, insolvency and bankruptcy law, competition law, and admiralty law. It includes discussions of cross-border dispute resolution, jurisdiction and choice of law clauses.
The book focuses on the practical issues, emphasising the rapidly developing local jurisprudence of recent years. It also offers theoretical insights and suggestions for law reform when appropriate. Moreover, it systematically analyses conflict of laws issues arising out of inter-regional cases between Hong Kong on the one hand and Mainland China, Taiwan, and Macao on the other.
The book will be indispensable to judges, practitioners, scholars, and students in Hong Kong, Greater China, Asia, and worldwide.
A book launch will be held by the Asian Institute of International Financial Law (AIIFL) at HKU Law on Tuesday 29 April 2025. Details and registration are available here.
The oral rounds of the 2024 Herbert Smith Freehills Competition Law Moot were held at King’s College London on 14-15 June 2024. The HKU Team consisted of Chan King Hei (BBA (Law) & LLB 3), Connor Gregory (LLM (CFL)), Lee Zee Faith (LLB 4), and Wong Ching Ho (PCLL). Based on EU competition law, the moot problem raised several issues concerning potentially abusive practices under Article 102 of the TFEU, the scope of the single economic entity doctrine under Article 101 TFEU, and the applicable standard of proof in EU competition law proceedings.
After surviving the preliminary rounds and two elimination rounds, the HKU Team advanced to the final round against Utrecht University from the Netherlands. There, the Team defended its case against a series of challenging questions from the judging panel, chaired by The Right Hon Lady Rose of Colmworth, Justice of the UK Supreme Court. The HKU Team ultimately emerged as the Champion, marking the fourth time HKU has won the competition since its inauguration in 2015.
In addition, the Team took home 3 individual awards in recognition of their advocacy skills, including Best Advocate for Connor Gregory and honourable mentions for Lee Zee Faith and Wong Ching Ho. The team’s written pleadings were also ranked 2nd out of 49 participating teams.
The Team would like to express their sincerest gratitude to Professor Thomas Cheng, Professor Kelvin Kwok, and Ms Allison Wong for their support and guidance. The Team would also like to thank the practice moot judges, Mr Byron Chiu, Mr Peter Dong, Mr Alex Yeung, Ms Clara Wong, Mr Martin Lau, and Mr Zixin Jiang, for their kind assistance and constructive feedback.
![]() |
(Left to right): Professor Thomas Cheng, Chan King Hei, Connor Gregory, Lee Zee Faith, Wong Ching Ho, Ms Allison Wong |