Suhong Yang spoke at the 120th American Society of International Law Annual Meeting and elected Co-Chair of the Asia Pacific Interest Group

From 22 to 25 April 2026, the American Society of International Law (“ASIL”) convened its 120th Annual Meeting with the theme, “Advancing and Defending the Rule of Law” in Washington D.C.

Suhong Yang was invited to speak on the panel “International Criminal Justice in the Contemporary Asia-Pacific Region” with co-panelists Emma Palmer (Griffith University) and Azadah Raz Mohammad (Melbourne Law School), which was moderated by David Luban (Georgetown University Law Center). The panel discussed the following issues: situations under investigation by the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) in the Asia-Pacific Region, such as the Philippines and Myanmar; mechanisms for international criminal justice in addition to the ICC, including domestic prosecutions, universal jurisdiction, and hybrid tribunals in the Asia-Pacific Region; and initiatives and efforts concerning Afghanistan at international and domestic levels, including the UN-mandated investigative mechanisms for Afghanistan, the ICC arrest warrants, gender apartheid and the draft convention on crimes against humanity, and the People’s Tribunal for Women of Afghanistan. Suhong focused on mechanisms other than the ICC, addressing hybrid courts in East Timor and Cambodia, the International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh), and future possibilities for tackling human trafficking in East and Southeast Asia. The panelists also actively engaged with audiences for various questions. This panel was well attended and received lots of good comments. A recording of the panel can be watched online. Last year in September, Suhong and Professor Simon Young organized a successful two-day workshop on the topic of this panel at HKU.

In addition, at the time of the 2026 ASIL Annual Meeting, Suhong got elected as Co-Chair of the ASIL Asia Pacific Interest Group for a three-year term. She looks forward to serving the members and fostering conversations on diverse topics regarding international law and the Asia-Pacific Region. Meanwhile, Suhong’s three-year term as Secretary of the ASIL Women in International Law Interest Group came to an end. Suhong will continue to serve as a member of the Steering Committee and contribute to enhance the role and careers of women in the field of international law.

ASIL is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational membership organization founded in 1906 to foster the study of international law and to promote the establishment and maintenance of international relations on the basis of law and justice. The Society’s members are from more than 100 nations. ASIL advances international law scholarship and education for international law professionals as well as for broader policymaking audiences and the public. ASIL holds Special Consultative Status to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations and is a constituent society of the American Council of Learned Societies.

ASIL’s Asia Pacific Interest Group brings together lawyers, scholars and others interested in the topic to inform each other of developments relating to international law and international relations in this vast and important region. Topics include such diverse areas as gender discrimination, sovereignty and the state, Taiwan-Mainland relations, Hong Kong’s political future, islands in the Pacific, human rights, intellectual property, the impacts of Western countries, and many more. Among our faculty, Professor Weixia Gu was a Co-Chair of the Asia Pacific Interest Group from 2018 to 2021.

HKU Team wins the Best Memorial for Prosecutor in The 24th Red Cross International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Moot

From left: Fung Chun Hei Justin, Kok Karina Ka Ying, Heng Adriel Wee Xin

Congratulations to Mr Justin Fung Chun Hei (BSocSc(Govt&Laws)&LLB 3), Ms Kok Karina Ka Ying (BA&LLB 3), and Ms Adriel Heng Wee Xin (BBA(Law)&LLB 3), for winning the Best Memorial prize for the Prosecutor in The 24th Red Cross International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Moot.

The Team takes this opportunity to express their sincere gratitude to the team coaches, Mr Ernest Ng and Mr Jason Ko for their unfailing support and helpful guidance throughout. The Team would also like to thank Mr Chak Hei Lau, Mr Raphael Leung, Mr Jason Louie and Mr Kevin Lau, as well as members of the previous Red Cross Moot Teams, Ms Christy Suen, Mr Fergus Tam and Mr Martin Lau for their kind assistance.

[Summer course] Law/Data: An Introduction to Computational Methods for Legal Research

This is a 5-Day Course Designed for PhD Students and Legal Academics.

Period: August 24 – 28, 2026 (Monday – Friday)

Venue: The University of Hong Kong

 

課程中文資料，請按此 (Click here for course information in Chinese)

 

Course Overview

This five-day intensive course introduces PhD students and early career researchers in law and law-related disciplines to computational methods for legal research. Designed specifically for participants with no prior experience in computer programming, the course provides a practical and conceptually grounded introduction to how computational techniques can be used in contemporary legal scholarship.

 

Computational methods—such as text analysis, data collection, and visualization—are increasingly used across legal studies, socio-legal research, and interdisciplinary work that engages with courts, legislation, policy, regulation, and legal institutions. Yet many legal researchers lack structured opportunities to acquire these skills in a supportive, methodologically oriented environment. This course addresses that gap.

 

Lecturers:

• Ryan Whalen (Associate Professor & Director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Legal Studies, The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law)

• John Zhuang Liu (Associate Professor, The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law)

 

The course is hosted at The University of Hong Kong and sponsored by the HKU Centre for Interdisciplinary Legal Studies.  The course will be taught in English.

 

Aims and Learning Objectives:

 

By the end of the course, participants will:

 

• Understand how computational approaches can be integrated into doctrinal, empirical, and interdisciplinary legal research

• Gain hands-on experience with basic computational techniques commonly used in legal studies

• Develop foundational literacy in programming concepts relevant to research

• Learn to critically assess the strengths and limitations of computational methods in legal contexts

• Be equipped to begin using computational tools independently or in collaboration with other researchers

 

The emphasis throughout is on methodological understanding and research design, rather than technical mastery.

 

Course Structure and Content:

The course runs over five consecutive days and combines short lectures, guided hands-on exercises, and discussion sessions. Topics include:

 

• Introduction to computational legal research and research design

• Working with legal texts and documents

• Basic text analysis and legal corpus exploration

• Data collection, cleaning, and management for legal research

• Visualization and exploratory analysis for legal questions

• Reproducibility, transparency, and ethical issues in computational legal research

 

Practical sessions are carefully scaffolded and assume no prior coding experience. Examples and exercises are drawn from law and law-related research contexts.

 

Teaching Approach

The course adopts a beginner-friendly, research-led pedagogy. Technical concepts are introduced slowly and motivated by concrete legal research problems. Participants will work with real legal materials and research scenarios, allowing them to reflect on how computational methods intersect with doctrinal reasoning, qualitative interpretation, and normative analysis.

 

No prior programming experience is required, and no technical background is assumed.

 

Who Should Attend?

This course is designed for PhD students in law and law-related disciplines, early career researchers conducting legal, socio-legal, or interdisciplinary research, and researchers interested in incorporating computational methods into their work. Participants from all legal traditions and research areas are welcome.

 

Fees (in Hong Kong dollars):

• HKU students and staff: $ 2,500

• Students (non-HKU): $ 4,000

• Public: $ 6,000

• $500 discount for early-bird payment by June 15, 2026, Hong Kong Time

 

Certificate of attendance will be given out to course participants. Register for the course: https://hkuems1.hku.hk/hkuems/ec_hdetail.aspx?guest=Y&ueid=104795.  A payment link will be sent to registrants later.

 

For inquiries, contact Ms. Grace Chan at mcgrace@hku.hk / 39174727.

Craig Purshouse on The Montgomery mistake (New Book Chapter)

"The Montgomery mistake"
Craig Purshouse
in José Miola (ed) and Louise Austin (ed), Research Handbook on Medical Consent, (Edward Elgar Publishing, April 2026), Chapter 6, pp. 98 - 111
Published in April 2026

Introduction: Until very recently, the arc of the law of negligent information non-disclosure appeared to be bending towards ever-greater protection of patient autonomy. The high point of this vision was the 2015 UK Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. Mrs Nadine Montgomery was a pregnant diabetic woman who was not warned of a 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia, a medical emergency where the baby’s shoulder become trapped behind the mother’s pelvis, associated with a vaginal delivery. Shoulder dystocia carries with it a much smaller risk of serious complications and, unfortunately, both risks eventuated during her labour and so she brought a claim on behalf of her son for the injuries he had sustained. In their joint leading judgement, Lord Kerr and Lord Reed held that a doctor is under a duty ‘to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments’. The test of materiality was said to be ‘whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attached significance to it’. The much-maligned House of Lords decision in Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital – where the majority had supported the Bolam test, with its focus on whether a professional’s actions complied with responsible peer opinion – was dead.

Ambiguities in Montgomery about what makes an alternative or variant treatment ‘reasonable’ have recently been the subject of another UK Supreme Court decision. McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board was a claim brought by the window and family members of Mr Neil McCulloch, who had died of a heart attack at home after being discharged from hospital with potential acute pericarditis. His family argued that he should have been offered a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), such as ibuprofen, by the defendants. The claim…...

Ryan Whalen et al on The institutional dynamics of inequality for women inventors who break with conventional thinking (PNAS)

"The institutional dynamics of inequality for women inventors who break with conventional thinking"
Tara Sowrirajan, Ryan Whalen, and Brian Uzzi
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
Published online: April 2026

Significance: The gender innovation gap—where women’s inventions are less likely to be patented or pursued—raises concerns about its potential to slow scientific progress. Our analysis of millions of patent applications reveals that the gender gap in patenting is not uniform across conventional and unconventional patents. Rather, it manifests for women inventors who attempt to patent unconventional inventions—innovations that combine knowledge in unfamiliar ways. We find the USPTO’s practices overassign women inventors to women examiners who are relatively inexperienced and more likely to reject unconventional inventions due to their inexperience, not due to gender stereotypes. By identifying these institutional barriers, we propose that organizational policies can complement gender bias explanations and may more immediately address the gender innovation gap.

Abstract: Though women comprise a growing share of the scientific workforce, the gender innovation gap in patenting between men and women inventors persists, potentially limiting innovation output and equity. We study millions of scientific and technological innovations and find that the innovation gap faced by women is not universal. No gap exists for highly conventional innovations, which combine ideas in familiar ways. Rather, it exists when women inventors attempt to patent unconventional inventions, which combine ideas in surprising ways and drive scientific advancements. Our data suggest that rather than deliberate bias, a confluence of institutional practices lower women inventor’s chances of patenting unconventional innovations. We find that women examiners relative to men have less of the on-the-job experience needed to appraise unconventional innovations. Additionally, women examiners are overassigned to women applicants, reducing their odds of successfully patenting unconventional inventions. Lastly, traditional explanations weakly account for this innovation gap because men examiners grant comparably more unconventional innovations to women inventors than do women examiners. These institutional barriers reveal new factors that slow innovation, but at the same time can be more directly addressed than deeply rooted gender norms.

HKU ranks 9th and wins M. Cherif Bassiouni Award – Top Memorials from the National & Regional Rounds for Written Memorial in the Jessup Moot in Washington DC

From left: Mr Thomas Lam (Coach), Mr Matthew See, Ms Cherie Cheung, Mr Jonathan Ho, Mr Evan Robinson, Mr Fergus Tam (Coach)

Congratulations to HKU Jessup team for winning the M. Cherif Bassiouni Award – Top Memorials from the National & Regional Rounds for Written Memorial, in the Jessup Moot in Washington DC.

After prevailing as the Overall Champion in the regional rounds of the 2026 Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, the HKU Jessup Team represented Hong Kong in the White & Case Jessup International Rounds held in Washington DC, USA from 28 March 2026 to 4 April 2026. 

Out of more than 700 teams who participated in National Rounds and Regional Rounds, 164 teams went on to participate in the White & Case Jessup International Rounds in one of the largest and most prestigious international mooting competitions in the world. 

This year, the Team captured the M. Cherif Bassiouni Award (known until 2025 as the Hardy C. Dillard Award) for ranking 9th worldwide out of more than 700 teams for its excellent combined scores of both the Applicant and Respondent memorials. This is the first time HKU has won the M. Cherif Bassiouni Award (or its predecessor) since 2006. 

The M. Cherif Bassiouni Award recognises excellence in Memorial writing. The Memorials of the Team with the highest total Memorial score in each National or Regional Round shall be entered to compete for the M. Cherif Bassiouni Award. Each Memorial eligible to compete for the M. Cherif Bassiouni Award is graded by five judges. 

This year’s Jessup moot problem concerned the issues of intervention of non-party states, indigenous rights, general principles of international law and immunities of state-owned enterprises. The 2026 HKU Team, consisting of Cherie Cheung (PCLL), Jonathan Ho (PCLL), Evan Robinson (PCLL), and Matthew See (LLB III), displayed excellence in both written and oral advocacy at all stages of the competition. 

The Team would like to express their sincerest gratitude to the coaches, Mr Fergus Tam and Mr Thomas Lam, for their valuable feedback and support in their final year of coaching HKU’s Jessup Team. The Team would also like to thank the guest judges, Ms Natalie So, Mr Ryan Cheung, Mr Raphael Leung, Mr Jason Louie, Mr Alex CH Chan, Mr Ambrose Yu, Ms Tiffany Ng, Ms Faith Lee, Ms Holly Leung, Ms Ally Chan, Mr Leo Pang, Mr Chung Hin Yue, and Ms Veronica Yu for their kind assistance, helpful advice and rigorous advocacy training before the Hong Kong regional round, as well as in preparation for the international rounds.

HKU Team enters the Quarter-Finals in Oxford International Intellectual Property Law Moot and wins Best Individual Mooter in the Preliminary Rounds

From left: Ms Kei Yin Audrey CHOW, Mr Zheng Yu CHOW, Ms Hin Ching Hillary LO

The University of Hong Kong was among the 32 teams—selected from a pool of over 70—that advanced through the written phrase of the 23rd Oxford International Intellectual Property Law Moot to compete in the oral phase held in Oxford.

During the Preliminary Rounds of the oral phase, the team faced: (i) Goethe Universität, Frankfurt (Germany); (ii) University of Virginia (USA); (iii) Australian National University (Australia); and (iv) King’s College London (UK). The team emerged victorious in all four match-ups, ranking within the top 4 of the 32 participating teams and qualifying for the knock-out stage of the oral phase. In the quarter-finals, the team were eliminated by Osgoode Hall Law School (Canada) following a closely contested round.

As recognition for Mr Zheng Yu Chow's excellent performance in the oral phase, Mr Chow was awarded 4th Place for Best Individual Mooter in the Preliminary Rounds.

The team would like to thank the team coaches, Associate Professor Alice Lee and Ms Phoebe Woo, for their invaluable guidance and mentorship. The team are also deeply grateful to the guest judges, Mr Norman Hui and Mr Byron Chiu, for generously volunteering their time and for providing insightful feedback during the practice sessions.

Sida Liu joined the Asian Law and Society Association (ALSA) as President

Congratulations to Professor Sida Liu, who has joined the Asian Law and Society Association (ALSA) as President.

ALSA is an international association of socio-legal scholars with an Asian perspective on law and society research. ALSA was officially established at the East Asian Law and Society Conference 2015, held at Waseda University, Japan, from August 4–7, 2015.

Since then, ALSA’s membership has grown steadily, including members based in more than 30 countries and regions. These include Australia, Belgium, Canada, China (Mainland), Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, the United States, Vietnam, and others. The executive office is currently housed at Waseda University, Japan.

ALSA aims to foster scholarship on law and society in Asia and to engage the broader global research community. It stands at an opportune moment to help develop Asian law and society research into a vibrant and cohesive research field. Its annual meetings provide a platform to define the field, advance theory, and cultivate empirical work and new scholarship.

Please click here for more details about ALSA.

The list of ALSA people is available here.

Julian Nowag and Anna Tzanaki on The Institutional Framework of the Digital Markets Act: a novel but thoughtful experiment in regulatory design? (Journal of European Competition Law & Practice)

"The institutional framework of the Digital Markets Act: a novel but thoughtful experiment in regulatory design?"
Anna Tzanaki, Julian Nowag
Journal of European Competition Law & Practice
Published online: March 2026

Key Points: 

• By comparison to the enforcement-based model of antitrust that relies on punishment, this article sheds light on the new more complex and hybrid institutional structure of the Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’) that is focused on ‘cooperative’ compliance based on dialogue between regulator and regulated firms and third parties at first instance and leaves the ‘punitive’ model of enforcement as an option of last resort.
• The Commission as the key institutional actor has discretion to escalate or deescalate the process of the DMA’s implementation along this compliance–enforcement continuum through different instruments.
• The central role of the Commission is supported and counterbalanced by a wide array of decentralized institutional actors and procedures, which render the DMA’s institutional architecture less hierarchical and more participatory and flexible.
• The openness in the DMA’s procedural and institutional design effectively complements the closed nature of its substantive obligations imposed on digital gatekeepers.