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.

Craig Purshouse on Rethinking negligence liability for ‘pure psychiatric damage’: an analogy with assault (Legal Studies)

"Rethinking negligence liability for ‘pure psychiatric damage’: an analogy with assault"
Craig Purshouse
Legal Studies
Published online: July 2026

Abstract: Orthodox accounts of negligence liability for ‘pure psychiatric damage’ view it as protecting the claimants’ interest in their psychiatric health and often attack English law’s restrictive duty of care rules for inadequately safeguarding this right. This paper challenges this widespread consensus by presenting and evaluating an alternative explanatory rationale. Drawing an analogy between the ‘paradigm case’ of primary victims and the tort of assault, the crux of the argument is that the interest protected in ‘accident’ cases is in avoiding anticipated immediate physical violence but the law sometimes extends the protection of this right to secondary victims in order to preserve the law’s legitimacy. From this perspective, several intractable doctrinal problems that have long troubled adherents to the orthodox view become explicable.

New book by Julius Yam on Judging for Democracy (Cambridge University Press)

Judging for Democracy: Principles and Strategies in Hybrid Regimes
Julius Yam
Cambridge University Press
Published in July 2026
276 pp.

Book description: This book examines how constitutional courts can sustainably contribute to advancing democratic norms in hybrid regimes, i.e. regimes that are neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian. Using a comparative approach analysing cases from across the globe, particularly from Hong Kong, Pakistan, and Uganda, Julius Yam makes the case that courts can assume a democracy-enhancing role in hybrid regimes. The book reveals the challenges faced by courts in performing such a role. It also proposes an adjudicative framework that systematically integrates principled judging with judicial strategy, and suggests nonadjudicative techniques that judges can adopt to reinforce democracy. While theoretical in substance, this book is informed by empirical studies and draws on a wide range of disciplines, including law, political science, sociology, and psychology. The book will be a key resource to judges, academics, and practitioners who are interested in the study of democracy and courts. Its insights are particularly pertinent in an age of democratic backsliding and resurgence of authoritarianism. This title is also available as open access on Cambridge Core.

Trevor Wan on Anchoring Proportionality in China (International Journal of Constitutional Law)

"Anchoring Proportionality in China"
Trevor Wan
International Journal of Constitutional Law
Published online: July 2026

Abstract: Proportionality, the lingua franca of rights adjudication across the globe, is not a lost cause in China. It has attained a modest jurisprudential, epistemic, and discursive presence, with proportionality-resembling formulations scattered across statutes and judicial decisions. An opportunity structure has emerged in favor of proportionality’s expansion into the domain of personality rights adjudication under the Civil Code of 2021—a “surrogate” of constitutional rights review. This opportunity structure is enabled by a semi-autonomous private law sphere lodged within China’s dual state, the structure of the Civil Code, which delegates to judges the authority to adopt a stable criterion to assess the scope of personality right provisions and their limits, and the proactive agency of prominent publicists and judges who have advocated for, and experimented with, proportionality in real cases. Despite such impetus, anchoring proportionality remains constrained by two “micro-level” obstacles in everyday judicial praxis, which are the sheer size of the judiciary and truncated judgment-writing practice. Ultimately, the fate of proportionality in China hinges on the extent to which the party-state tolerates the evolution of its private law in a rights-protective direction, which in turn bespeaks the future of the Chinese legal system.

HKU Law Welcomes Prof. Michael Tsimplis

Welcome to Prof. Michael Tsimplis, who joins the Faculty of Law as a Professor.

Professor Michael (Mikis) Tsimplis has been with the Faculty of Law since July 2026. Before joining HKU Mikis worked for CityU (2018-2026). Before 2018 Mikis worked in various academic and leadership positions for the University of Southampton and before that for the UK Natural Environment Research Council. He has taught various courses, including Admiralty Law, Admiralty Enforcement, Charterparties, Bills of Lading, Energy and Environment Law, Law of International Sales, Legal Concepts, Insurance Law, Private International Law, Commercial Contracts, Legal Concepts Law of the Marine Environment in academic and professional courses around the world. Mikis undertakes research in marine, maritime, commercial, and environmental law as well as keeping an interest in oceanography and environmental science. He has led and contributed to various international and interdisciplinary projects and has published mainly in law, oceanography and sea level rise, with extensive interdisciplinary collaborations. He has been involved in the quality assessment and accreditation of university departments and the evaluation of research proposals for national and international bodies. 

Ryan Whalen et al on Measuring Human Contribution in AI-Assisted Content Generation

"Measuring Human Contribution in AI-Assisted Content Generation"
Yueqi Xie, Tao Qi, Jingwei Yi, Xiyuan Yang, Ryan Whalen, Junming Huang, Qian Ding, Yu Xie, Xing Xie, Fangzhao Wu
ACL Anthology
Published online: July 2026

Abstract: With the growing prevalence of generative AI, an increasing amount of content is no longer exclusively generated by humans but by generative AI models with human guidance. This shift presents notable challenges for the delineation of originality due to the varying degrees of human contribution in AI-assisted works. This study raises the research question of measuring human contribution in AI-assisted content generation and introduces a framework to address this question that is grounded in information theory. By calculating mutual information between human input and AI-assisted output relative to self-information of AI-assisted output, we quantify the proportional information contribution of humans in content generation. Our experimental results demonstrate that the proposed measure effectively discriminates between varying degrees of human contribution across multiple creative domains. To further enhance real-world applicability, we extend the framework to estimate the minimal necessary human contribution for any text without requiring human input and validate its effectiveness. We hope that this work lays a foundation for measuring human contributions in AI-assisted content generation in the era of generative AI.

Benjamin Chen and Xinyu Xie on The Alignment Target Problem: Divergent Moral Judgments of Humans, AI Systems, and Their Designers (FAccT '26)

"The Alignment Target Problem: Divergent Moral Judgments of Humans, AI Systems, and Their Designers"
Benjamin Chen, Xinyu Xie (PhD Candidate)
ACM FAccT '26
Published online: June 2026

Abstract: The project of aligning machine behavior with human values raises a basic problem: whose moral expectations should guide AI decision-making? Much alignment research assumes that the appropriate benchmark is how humans themselves would act in a given situation. Studies of agent-type value forks challenge this assumption by showing that people do not always judge humans and AI systems identically. This paper extends that challenge by examining two further possibilities: first, that evaluations of AI behavior change when its human origins are made visible; and second, that people judge the humans who program AI systems differently from either the machines or the human actors they are compared against. An experiment with 1,002 U.S. adults measured moral judgments in a runaway mine train scenario, varying the subject of evaluation across four conditions: a repairman, a repair robot, a repair robot programmed by company engineers, and company engineers programming a repair robot. We find no significant difference in evaluations of the repairman and the robot. However, judgments shifted substantially when the robot's actions were described as the product of human design. Participants exhibited markedly more deontological, rule-based reasoning when evaluating either the programmed robot or the engineers who programmed it, suggesting that rendering human agency visible activates heightened moral constraints. These findings indicate that people may evaluate humans, AI systems acting in the same situation, and the humans who design them in meaningfully different ways. The fact that these evaluations do not necessarily converge gives rise to the alignment target problem: which normative target should guide the development of artificial moral agents in high-stakes domains, and whether these plural judgments can be reconciled within a coherent account of value alignment.

Congratulations to Professor Ying Xia and Professor Ying Zhu!

Congratulations to Prof. Ying Xia and Prof. Ying Zhu on their promotion to Associate Professor! 

Prof. Xia is an interdisciplinary scholar whose work focuses on environmental governance and developmental studies, taking a socio-legal approach. She is a leading contributor to the rapidly growing field of environmental governance in China. To read more about Prof. Xia's research and publications, click here.

Prof. Zhu is a distinguished legal scholar specialising in trade and investment, in particular sanctions, compliance, and other cutting-edge fields, working closely with policy-makers at both the national and international levels. To read more about Prof. Zhu's research and publications, click here.

Prof. Ying Xia and Prof. Ying Zhu are valuable members of our Faculty, and this promotion is a well-deserved recognition of their contributions.

Congratulations to HKU Law Student Finalists in Law Reform Essay Competition 2026

Congratulations to the 6 HKU Law student finalists in this year's Law Reform Essay Competition organised by the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong. The topic was 'The legal doctrines of maintenance and champerty, developed some 700 years ago, still apply to most litigation in Hong Kong. Should these doctrines be reformed in relation to such litigation? If so, why and how? If not, why not? ' The six students are

• Hui Chun Tak, Chezkel (Bachelor of Social Sciences (Government and Laws) and Bachelor of Laws (Year 4)),
• Jennifer Peng Jiayi (Bachelor of Laws (Year 2)),
• Shan Siyuan (Bachelor of Laws (Year 2)),
• Wang Zhiyu (Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws (Year 3)),
• Xiong Xiao Meng, Lauren (Bachelor of Social Sciences (Government and Laws) and Bachelor of Laws (Year 3)) and
• Yu Tung Ching (Postgraduate Certificate in Laws)

All of their essays can be downloaded here.

RGC Awards $5 Million in Research Funding to HKU Law 2026/27

Congratulations to our eight colleagues who were successful in the 2026-2027 round of research grant funding by Hong Kong's Research Grants Council (RGC). Seven General Research Fund (GRF) projects were funded to evaluate the Infrastructure Consultation in the Asia Pacific; to explore Human-AI Interaction in Legal Processes; to regulate Donation-Based Crowdfunding Platforms in China; to assess how can AI help Debt Mediation; to analyse Damage in Hong Kong's Law of Negligence; to examine the role of corporate law in advancing ESG in China; to evaluate the structured issues of FILs and identifying ways to minimize FILs’ impact on citizens’ rights. One Early Career Scheme (ECS) project was funded to evaluate the Necessity and Feasibility of a Sentencing Council in Hong Kong. The details of the new funded projects are as follows:

GRF:
Professor Shahla Ali
Infrastructure Consultation in the Asia Pacific, HK$827,180

Professor Benjamin Chen
Artificially Enhanced Justice: An Exploration of Human-AI Interaction in Legal Processes, HK$777,600

Professor Hui Jing
Regulating Donation-Based Crowdfunding Platforms in China: Challenges and Future Directions, HK$633,900

Professor John Liu
Can Artificial Intelligence Help Debt Mediation? A Field Experiment, HK$650,000

Professor Craig Purshouse
Damage in Hong Kong's Law of Negligence, HK$147,500

Professor James Zeng
Corporate Law and ESG in China, HK$816,000

Dr. Han Zhu
Rule of Law or Rule of Values? A Critical Comparative Analysis of Foreign Influence Laws, HK$549,240

ECS:
Professor Florence Lee
Evaluating the Necessity and Feasibility of a Sentencing Council in Hong Kong: Lessons from Comparative Perspectives, HK$599,984

Alwin Chan on The Social Good Shortfall: Reframing Takings Doctrine for Housing-Scarce Cities (The Asian Business Lawyer)

"The Social Good Shortfall: Reframing Takings Doctrine for Housing-Scarce Cities"
Alwin Chan
The Asian Business Lawyer, volume 37, pp.161-206
Published in May 2026

Abstract: This article argues that takings doctrine in housing-scarce cities should be reoriented around a “social good shortfall” standard. In Hong Kong and other dense urban settings, acute housing shortages coexist with fragmented ownership, underused land, and redevelopment regimes that either defer too readily to economic development or fail to generate meaningful housing supply. Existing formulations of public use, public purpose, and public interest are too indeterminate to discipline redevelopment, yet too narrow to justify the land assembly needed to address scarcity. The article proposes that compulsory acquisition should be justified only where the current or reasonably foreseeable use of land falls materially short of a feasible alternative in delivering socially important outcomes under conditions of scarcity. Grounded in a modernized reading of Locke’s spoilage proviso, the article also develops a framework of “propriety in the taking”: a substantial evidentiary basis for acquisition, compensation exceeding bare market value while respecting autonomy, and a decision-making process insulated from capture. It further argues that takings should ordinarily proceed through private-to-private redevelopment subject to independent expert review and judicial scrutiny. Comparative analysis of Hong Kong, the United States, and Seoul shows both the limits of permissive redevelopment and the promise, and trade-offs, of mandatory social housing requirements.

Please click here to view the full article on SSRN.

New book by Gary Meggitt: Wilkinson's Professional Conduct of Lawyers in Hong Kong Desk Edition 2026 (LexisNexis)

Wilkinson's Professional Conduct of Lawyers in Hong Kong Desk Edition 2026
Gary Meggitt
LexisNexis
Published in May 2026
1122 pp.

Wilkinson's Professional Conduct of Lawyers in Hong Kong - Desk Edition 2026 continues to incorporate the best of its previous editions, enhanced by recent developments introduced by legislation, Law Society Circulars, Bar Circulars, Law Society and Judiciary Practice Directions and numerous cases from many relevant jurisdictions. This new edition contains much new material, the most significant developments include annotations on admission to practice; confidentiality and legal professional privilege; competence;, undertakings; and disciplinary proceedings. This title will prove indispensable to law students studying the PCLL and Overseas Lawyers Qualification Examination candidates.

Trevor Wan and Victor Li on A Confucian Virtue Ethics Approach to Medical Internship in Hong Kong (BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics Forum)

"A Confucian virtue ethics approach to medical internship in Hong Kong"

Trevor Wan and Victor Li

BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics Forum

Published online: January 2026

In Hong Kong, an internship, also called housemanship, is a 12-month period during which fresh medical graduates rotate across four departments in public hospitals and acquire hands-on clinical experience through daily care of patients. Yet this phase is fraught with inherent tension: interns, with relatively limited clinical experience, are held to the same, exacting standards of competence that bind fully licensed practitioners. High-profile intern mishaps over the years have brought this tension into sharp relief, including cases of mispositioned nasogastric feeding tubes being missed on X-rays that led to catastrophic feeding into the respiratory tract and subsequent aspiration pneumonia, errors in pre-transfusion blood cross-matching procedures, and delays in diagnosing acute myocardial infarction. These cases, which have elicited considerable public scrutiny and comment, most recently from the city’s health minister, reveal deeper systemic concerns regarding accountability, patient safety, and professional responsibility.

In examining these issues, we find that a Confucian virtue ethics approach is......

Please click here to read full text on BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics Forum.

New book by Valeria Vázquez Guevara: Truth Commissions and International Law (Cambridge University Press)

Truth Commissions and International Law: Jurisdiction, Representation, Authority
Valeria Vázquez Guevara
Cambridge University Press
Published in June 2026

252 pp.

Abstract: This book examines how truth commissions construct authoritative accounts of conflict, and how they account for the plurality of accounts across affected communities. Vázquez Guevara examines three of the earliest and most influential truth commissions: Argentina (1983–1984), Chile (1990–1991), and El Salvador (1992–1993), and examines how relevant cultural objects support or counter the official account for each. In doing so, she argues that these truth commissions drew on international law to authorise their accounts of violent conflict, and that this had the consequence of privileging an internationally-authorised truth over other truths, whilst simultaneously strengthening the authority of international law over the post-conflict state. By demonstrating how truth commissions turn to international law for authority, the book shows how this produces an official account of past violence and promises of future community, which fundamentally affects how communities live together in the aftermath of violent conflict. 

The book's Preface and Introduction (excerpt) can be read here and here.

• Responds to increasing world-wide interest in Truth Commissions and their legacies for post-conflict states
• Models a methodology for innovative legal, historical, and cultural analysis of international law
• Explains how international law plays a fundamental role in a Truth Commission process
  

Protecting Human Creativity from AI’s Grip (Haochen Sun Profiled in HKU Bulletin)

"Protecting Human Creativity from AI’s Grip"

Haochen Sun

HKU Bulletin
Published in May 2026

Professor Haochen Sun of the Faculty of Law has been looking at the threats to human creativity from AI, and possible legal and ethical remedies.

Every big AI platform has faced lawsuits for using existing creative works to train their models without permission or compensation, with plaintiffs ranging from Hollywood studios to media outlets to individual artists and authors. For Professor Haochen Sun, Founding Director of HKU’s Programme on Artificial Intelligence and the Law and an expert in technology law and policy, this use of creative works is a legal and ethical problem for both creators and society.

“These works are the foundation of our human civilisation. They embody human thought, from philosophy to literature, music and art, and they should be highly valued. When they’re used in the AI training process, it demeans their value by transforming them into tokens. What would be the implications, then, for the future of human creativity?” he asked.

Using content without permission is problematic on several fronts, he said. First, whoever controls the inputs to the AI training process can shape how AI develops and makes decisions, so the creators who provide that input could be excluded.

Second, there is the possibility that copyright protection could extend to AI-generated material, knowingly or not. While most jurisdictions do not allow this (apart from one judge in the Chinese Mainland who decided that an AI prompt was creative input), Professor Sun believes there is little to stop humans from presenting AI content as their own.

“It’s so easy to conceal this content and pretend it was made by a human,” he said. “I can foresee that an enormous amount of AI-generated content, ranging from text answers to images and videos, could end up being protected by copyright law because the threshold as the law stands – called the ‘originality requirement’ – is extremely low.”

In awe of AI

In such a scenario, ‘AI copyright trolls’ may be incited to launch lawsuits to see what they could extract. Most importantly, content flows to the public domain would be restricted, ultimately harming human creativity......

Click here to read the full text.

Kelvin Kwok on Rethinking the Antitrust-Securities Interface (American Business Law Journal)

"Rethinking the antitrust-securities interface"
Kelvin Kwok
American Business Law Journal, Summer 2026, pp. 151-175
Published online: May 2026

Abstract: This article proposes a new theoretical framework for resolving conflicts between antitrust law and securities regulation, which is distinctive in four respects. First, it eschews the traditional approach of resolving antitrust-securities conflicts through implied antitrust immunity, which unjustifiably prioritizes securities regulation above antitrust law. Second, it argues for a narrow definition of conflict, encompassing only conduct presently authorized or required by the securities regime that also has likely and significant anticompetitive effects; practices that are illegal under both antitrust law and securities regulation are thereby excluded. Third, this article builds on the literature on the antitrust-intellectual property interface to recommend a structured, rule-of-reason framework for resolving conflicts at the antitrust-securities interface. Unlike implied antitrust immunity, which automatically allows securities regulation concerns to trump antitrust concerns, the rule of reason seeks to strike a proper balance. The analysis begins by asking whether the securities practice has likely and significant anticompetitive effects. It then inquires into the securities regulation concerns behind the conduct and whether there is a less restrictive means of addressing those concerns. Fourth, a two-stage procedure is proposed for implementing the rule of reason to resolve antitrust-securities conflicts in rulemaking and adjudication, involving the collaboration of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, and the courts.

Please click here to read the full article on SSRN.

Alric Wong and Wilson Lui on Four problems in appellate review of foreign law: Evaluating the Spectrum Approach (Common Law World Review)

“Four problems in appellate review of foreign law: Evaluating the Spectrum Approach”

Alric Wong (LLB 2025, PCLL Candidate) and Wilson Lui (Research Fellow, Centre for Private Law)
Common Law World Review
Published online: May 2026

Abstract: This article critically evaluates the Spectrum Approach as applied in the appellate review of findings of foreign law. The Spectrum Approach posits that the degree of deference to trial judges’ determinations of foreign law depends on the analogousness of the foreign legal system to the domestic legal system, situating cases on a spectrum between questions of fact (for dissimilar systems) and questions of law (for closely aligned systems). While the Spectrum Approach attempts to offer a structured framework, this article identifies four key deficiencies with the Approach: (1) over-emphasis on the common–civil law dichotomy, (2) circularity in assessing ‘similarity’ between legal systems, (3) artificial separation in the ascertainment and application of foreign law, and (4) indeterminacy for cases occupying the middle of the spectrum. This article argues that the Spectrum Approach involves unnecessary inconsistencies and complexities, which the Privy Council did not adequately address in its decision of Perry v Lopag Trust Reg. This article advocates for a flexible, context-sensitive adjudication without any rigid categorisation or sequential reasoning, ensuring consistency with principles of judicial restraint and fairness. This debate has important implications on the treatment of foreign law in domestic courts amid increasing cross-border litigation.

Wilson Lui on Hong Kong Citation of Legal Authorities and Materials (HKCLAM)

Hong Kong Citation of Legal Authorities and Materials

Revised First Edition

Wilson Lui (Research Fellow, Centre for Private Law)

Published online: April 2026

The Hong Kong Citation of Legal Authorities and Materials (HKCLAM) (香港法律典籍引用格式) is the first legal citation style in Hong Kong. It aims to provide local and foreign legal professionals, law students, and members of the public with a uniform and simple citation style when citing legal authorities and materials commonly used in Hong Kong.

HKCLAM is named by the fifth edition of The Oxford University Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA) as the sole guide for Hong Kong primary legal sources. It is also designated as the citation style for the Hong Kong Journal of Legal Studies, the oldest student-run flagship legal journal in Hong Kong. It has been recognised and welcomed by legal practitioners, academics, and students alike.

The revised first edition of HKCLAM was published in April 2026 to bring it in line with the fifth edition of OSCOLA, published in late March 2026. HKCLAM is freely available and licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Edward Lui on Public interest immunity and judicial deference (Legal Studies)

"Public interest immunity and judicial deference"
Edward Lui
Legal Studies
Published online: April 2026

Abstract: The puzzle underlying the law of public interest immunity (PII) is well known. In ordinary proceedings all relevant evidence should be placed before the court and the parties, including when the government is one of those parties. But what if some of the relevant evidence – due to reasons in the public interest – cannot be disclosed to the other parties involved? The traditional way in which English law tackles this puzzle is by invoking the law of PII. Ever since the landmark decision in Conway, it has been settled that ‘the courts should balance the public interest in the proper administration of justice against the public interest in withholding any evidence which a Minister considers ought to be withheld’. If the public interest favours disclosure of the evidence, the evidence is admitted and made ‘available to both parties and to the court’; but if the contrary is true the evidence will be excluded altogether from the proceedings and made ‘available neither to the other parties nor to the court’.

David Winterton and Michael Dimarco on Future Performance and Proof in Contract Damages (Sydney Law Review)

"Future Performance and Proof in Contract Damages"
Michael Dimarco, David Winterton
Sydney Law Review
Published online: April 2026

Abstract: A longstanding common law controversy is whether, following a contract’s termination for the defendant’s repudiatory breach, the plaintiff’s entitlement to substantial damages depends upon proving its ability to have performed any outstanding, and now discharged, obligations. This question may arise in various distinct contexts and consideration of the relevant case law reveals that courts have not imposed identical proof requirements across these different scenarios. Despite these ostensible inconsistencies, the adoption of a two-stage model reveals the existence of an intelligible order within the leading authorities. The first stage involves determining the nature of the relationship between the parties’ unperformed obligations. This relationship may decisively determine what the plaintiff must prove to recover substantial damages. But if not, the onus of proving whether the plaintiff would have been able to perform any remaining obligations, if relevant to its entitlement to substantial damages, must be allocated. Proper allocation of this onus requires consideration of certain other features of the case, including most notably the presumptive availability of specific performance to the plaintiff. This article explains the operation of this model by analysing the leading English and Australian decisions, providing a framework for resolving the various scenarios that may arise.