Kung Hey Fat Choy 2026

HKU Legal Scholarship Blog wishes everyone a Happy Chinese New Year 2026.

Thank you to Richard Cullen for drawing and sharing his traditional annual cartoon to mark

The Year of the Horse.

Eric Ip and Trevor Wan et al on Harnessing the power of constitutional rights and legal frameworks to scale up public mental health implementation (The Lancet Psychiatry)

"Harnessing the power of constitutional rights and legal frameworks to scale up public mental health implementation"
Michael Ni, Candi Leung, Trevor Wan, Jonathan Campion, Neeraj Gill, Sandro Galea, Eric Ip
The Lancet Psychiatry
Published online: February 2026

Summary: Despite the existence of effective public mental health interventions, global coverage remains low. Only a minority of people with mental disorders receive treatment, far fewer receive interventions to address or prevent the associated impacts of mental disorders, and there is negligible coverage of interventions to prevent mental disorders or promote mental wellbeing and resilience. This implementation failure breaches the right to health and statutory legislation in some countries and results in population-scale preventable suffering, broad societal and individual impacts, and associated economic costs. Various reasons account for public mental health implementation failure, including insufficient policy and implementation according to population needs, and insufficient knowledge, resource, political will, and legal protection regarding the right to mental health. This Health Policy highlights a further reason for implementation failure is that only 12% of constitutions covering 3·5% of the world's population explicitly recognise a constitutional right to mental health, compared with 70% of constitutions recognising a constitutional right to health or physical health. A legal framework that includes explicit constitutional protection for mental health would mean the right to mental health would supersede all other laws. This would thereby provide a basis for legislation and support legal opportunities to challenge, advocate, and improve effective public mental health implementation by different sectors. This framework and associated opportunities would support the scale-up of implementation of cross-sector policy based on the public mental health needs of a population. Such a holistic, coordinated legal approach would support scaled-up coverage of public mental health interventions to treat and prevent mental disorders and promote mental wellbeing and resilience, as well as action to address inequities and protect the rights of those with mental disorders. Improved implementation would result in broad impacts across different sectors and associated economic benefits.

Stefano Osella and Graziella Romeo on Something’s Wrong with Traditionalism: LGBTQI+ Rights in Comparative Perspective (AsJCL)

"Something’s Wrong with Traditionalism: LGBTQI+ Rights in Comparative Perspective"
Stefano Osella and Graziella Romeo
Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Published online: January 2026

Abstract: This article problematises traditionalist thinking in constitutional adjudication in relation to the rights of same-sex couples, especially those rights that are connected to family life. It identifies two approaches, represented respectively by the case law of the Italian Constitutional Court (ItCC) and the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) of the Hong Kong SAR of the People’s Republic of China. The ItCC has expressly stated that preserving traditional family forms is a reasonable objective per se for the legislature to pursue. The CFA, on the other hand, has challenged this approach to traditionalist thinking in relation to same-sex unions. Despite some contradictory signals within its case law, the CFA has stated that justifying differential treatment based on sexual orientation with reference to tradition is circular reasoning. Drawing on historical, anthropological, and philosophical sources, this article argues that invoking the preservation of tradition, despite its rhetorical force, is empirically and conceptually criticisable and, ultimately, unpersuasive.

LITE Lab@HKU and Brian Tang's work on LawTech and education in 2025

LITE Lab@HKU’s Brian Tang impacting AI’s role in legaltech development and education in 2025

Brian Tang, the Founding executive director of Law, Innovation, Technology & Entrepreneurship Lab at HKU’s Faculty of Law (LITE Lab@HKU), has had an impactful year in 2025 as the third year since ChatGPT’s launch passes.

Appointment by Hong Kong Department of Justice to develop lawtech in Hong Kong

At the beginning of 2025, Brian was appointed and joined the inaugural meeting of Hong Kong Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Consultation Group on Lawtech Development for the term of January 13, 2025 to January 12, 2028. At the first of a series of the DOJ’s LexGoTech Roundtables (June), Brian was the keynote speaker and then also served as a facilitator for the roundtable comprising legal professionals from the Law Society of Hong Kong and the Small and Medium Law Firms Association of Hong Kong. Brian was later also invited to present at Hong Kong Legal Week 2025 Lawtech Week’s  Insight Stage (November), at which the LexGoTech Roundtables Report was also released.

Thought leadership on AI in the legal profession

Brian has continued to speak at numerous industry and academic this past year: HKU Law’s Regulating AI in the Public Interest (February), vlex AI Legal Focus Group – Hong Kong (February), HKU Law’s Hong Kong Lawtech Startup Ecosystem (March), ALB Hong Kong Regulatory and Anti-Corruption Compliance Summit (March), LexisNexis’ Legal Minds, Digital Tools: Partnering with AI for Better Outcomes (April), ALITA x LITE Lab@HKU Evolutions in legal practice: how AI is transforming law firm and legal department operating models (May), 6th Lawtech Summit Asia 2025 in Singapore (May), Future Law 2025 in Tallinn (May), ALITA-ELTA Asia-Pacific – European Legal Innovation & Tech Dialogue and Curated Pitches in London (June), LegalTechTalk 2025 in London (June), Legal Innovation Festival x ALITA Roundtable (September), SMU Law’s Computational Legal Studies Workshop 2025 in Singapore (September), TechLawFest 2025 in Singapore (September), Hong Kong In-House Community Congress 2025 (October), and Hong Kong Law Society Practice Management Committee “Legal AI: Ethics, Opportunities & Risks” Seminar” (November).  

In addition, Brian has been invited to be a judge for FT Innovative Lawyers APAC and was quoted in “Law firm training highlights business relationships and tech skills” (May). And in augmenting  his leadership role as  Asia-Pacific Legal Innovation & Technology Association (ALITA) co-chair, Brian served as chief editor for ALITA State of Legal Innovation in Asia-Pacific 2025 (which publication was covered in industry publications such as Artificial Lawyer, Law.com and Law Gazette), and led ALITA’s response to Singapore Ministry of Law’s Public Consultation on Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector (September).

Thought leadership on AI in broader society

Brian has also been appointed a founding member of Fintech Association of Hong Kong AI Strategic Council and hosted the inaugural panel on AI Regulation and Opportunities in Financial Services (January), and has spoken at Asia Financial Forum 2025 on Regtech Revolution (January), Cyberport AI in Finance Solution Day (March) and Hong Kong Data Summit 2025 (June). He was one of the few invitees from Asia-Pacific to attend International Association for Safe and Ethical Artificial Intelligence (IASEAI)  Conference 2025 in Paris (February).

Thought leadership on AI in Education and specifically at Law Schools

Brian continues to support HKU’s initiatives on incorporating AI ethically in teaching and learning. He spoke at HKU TALIC AI Ethics in Teaching and Learning Symposium (April) and was invited to present a TALIC video on Examples of How Colleagues at HKU Integrate AI and Manage Associated Risks (July), as well as at Inter-University Generative AI Hackathon for SDGs 2025 Workshop (September), at which a LITE Lab team won with a chatbot to assist Hong Kong migrant workers with their legal rights (November).

Specifically, Brian has been invited to present on his LITE Lab@HKU interdisciplinary and experiential pedagogy, including at PolyU’s Transformation of Higher Education in the AI Era: Innovation, Best Practices, and Impact together with a LITE Lab@HKU student (May), at International Future of Law Association Conference 2025 in collaboration with the Association of Law Teachers on Generative AI and the Future of Legal Education & Research at London South Bank University and Kings College (July), and at Global Alliance of Impact Lawyers (GAIL) Annual Summit 2025 hosting a JusticeTech Student AI Workshop with up to 60 students in Mexico (October).

Thought leadership on fintech and digital assets

In addition to AI, Brian continues to be invited by industry to share insights on fintech and digital assets, He joined the HKMA and SFC to present at ADB Digital Bond Forum as part of 42nd ASEAN+3 Bond Market Forum (February); presented at Australia Chamber of Commerce Finance, Legal & Tax Committee (August); at ICMA Innovation in Capital Markets during Hong Kong Fintech Week 2025 (Oct); at Citi x Bloomberg GBA Fintech Initiative (November). and was quoted by SCMP on PBOC’s announcement on digital assets (December).

Benjamin Chen on Do Linguistic Canons Matter? (Connecticut Law Review)

"Do Linguistic Canons Matter?"
Benjamin Chen
Connecticut Law Review
Published online: December 2025

Abstract: For a long time, linguistic canons have been dismissed as dissonant and deficient. But there are ambitions to make linguistic canons guide again. Maxim majoritarianism promises to dissolve opposing canons through the elimination of unsupported pretenders. By empirically identifying the canons that register dominant habits of speech, contemporary jurists hope to bring order to the practice of statutory interpretation.

This Article submits that maxim majoritarianism is futile. It argues that arbitrating between rival canons poses conceptual difficulties that are virtually impossible to resolve. At the same time, it maintains that the co-existence of canon and counter-canon is not necessarily embarrassing. Like practical proverbs, linguistic canons can—and can only—matter if they change beliefs, judgments, and actions—that is, if they are efficacious.

So, do linguistic canons matter? An original experiment tests the efficacy of four classic canons on over 1,500 everyday speakers of English. The last antecedent rule, noscitur a sociis, did not seem to influence how participants construed ambiguous text whereas expressio unius did. These results might be interpreted as further proof of the hollowness of linguistic canons. Yet they also leave open the possibility that linguistic canons can, by signaling avenues of further inquiry, cast fresh light on the ordinary meaning of the law.

Anfield Tam, Hilary So, Trevor Wan, and Eric Ip on From Ashes to Accountability: The Hong Kong Basic Law’s Blueprint for the Common Good and the Rule of Law in the Wake of the Tai Po Fire (I-CONnect)

"From Ashes to Accountability: The Hong Kong Basic Law’s Blueprint for the Common Good and the Rule of Law in the Wake of the Tai Po Fire"
Anfield Tam (BSS (GL) & LLB graduate), Hilary So (JD graduate), Trevor Wan and Eric Ip
I-CONnect: Blog of the International Society of Public Law
Published online: January 2026

Introduction:

On November 26, 2025, a catastrophic fire tore through Wang Fuk Court, a 42-year old public housing estate in Tai Po District, Hong Kong. Ignited amid major renovations, the blaze, fueled by flammable scaffolding nets and polystyrene panels, spread swiftly across seven towers, raging for over 43 hours. It claimed 168 lives (including one firefighter), injured 79 others, and displaced thousands, making it the third-deadliest blaze in the 180-year span of modern Hong Kong history and more than twice as fatal as London’s 2017 Grenfell Tower fire.

Public grief mingled with solidarity: volunteers rallied with aid, memorials bloomed with tributes, yet fury grew over ignored warnings, substandard building materials, and oversight failures in the HK$330 million (US$42.4 million) renovation project. Occurring within Hong Kong’s evolving “one country, two systems” constitutional structure, shaped by new national security laws, electoral reforms for “governance by patriots”, and subdued politics post-2019 protests and COVID-19, the disaster has deepened distrust and probed the rule of law’s endurance. Drawing on Lord Bingham’s classic definition, the rule of law demands accessible, predictable laws that protect rights, restrain power, and ensure fair adjudication. These principles underpin the common good: shared conditions for safe, flourishing lives, enshrined in the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Bill of Rights, incorporating the ICCPR (Article 39). Yet, we argue in this post that translating these into vigilant governance remains elusive in Hong Kong.

The Tai Po fire emerges as a profound litmus test: Can Hong Kong’s public law truly shield vulnerable communities through consistent enforcement and impartial accountability? By linking Lord Bingham’s contemporary formulation of the rule of law to ancient Aristotelian notions of the common good, this analysis that follows bridges Anglo-American and continental jurisprudential traditions. For comparative public law scholars, it offers a compelling window into the resilience of common law amid tightening political pressures. Our analysis explores housing safety, inquiry and inquest mechanisms, Owners’ Corporations, and advocates steadfast adherence to Basic Law values to reclaim justice and the common good.

(Please click here to view full text on I-CONnect: Blog of the International Society of Public Law)

New Book: Archbold Hong Kong 2026 (Sweet & Maxwell)

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

Preface by the General Editor

In the 2010 volume of this text, the then General Editor, Mr Clive Grossman SC, referred to the high convictions rates in Hong Kong and likened them to approaching those in North Korea.  Those comments sparked controversy and debate in the community.  A panel of the Legislative Council (LegCo) discussed the issue in October 2009 and later when the panel discussed reforms to criminal legal aid and whether trial by jury should be incorporated in District Court criminal trials.  One positive outcome of the debate was clearer reporting of conviction rates from the Department of Justice (DOJ), by disaggregating the rate in cases of pleas of not guilty from the overall rate, which included guilty plea cases.

Fifteen years on, what trends do we see in the conviction rates in the three levels of criminal courts? The graphs below show the conviction rates after trial compared to the overall conviction rates in the Magistrates’ Court, District Court, Court of First Instance, and all courts combined, from 2010 to 2024. The data is taken from the DOJ Prosecutions Division’s yearly review reports.

The data is based on conviction rates per defendant, meaning a defendant convicted of any offence will be counted, but will not be counted if acquitted outright. As the Law Society of Hong Kong noted in its 2010 submission to LegCo, such an approach can result in higher rates than one based on counting convictions per offence(s) charged.

From the above graphs, conviction rates after trial appear to have slightly risen over the years in the Magistrates’ Court and District Court, though there has been some fluctuation in the latter.  The rate in the Court of First Instance has fallen over the years, hitting a low point in 2021 (51%), but gradually rising since then. Note that the rise in 2024 reflects the 14 convicted in the “Hong Kong 47” case, tried not by a jury.  The average conviction rates after trial in the three respective courts are 53%, 73%, and 63%. When combined, the average conviction rate after trial is 55%.

The overall conviction rates in the District Court (94%) and Court of First Instance (91%) are still high on average, little changed from those noted by Mr Grossman in 2009.  The average overall rate in the Magistrates’ Court, on the other hand, is 71%, which raises the question whether some defendants should not have been charged at all or dealt with by alternative measures. But there has been a significant drop in the number of persons prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Court. In 2010, 9295 were convicted and 3299 acquitted, compared to the 2742 convicted and 1236 acquitted in 2024. Since 2017, there is a consistent trend of more convicted persons choosing trial over pleading guilty in magistracy cases.

No single factor can explain the differences in the post-trial conviction rates in the three courts. The types of cases normally tried at each tier would be an important factor. For example, conviction rates for sexual offences may be known anecdotally to be lower than those in cases of other offences, such as money laundering. Practices in making and reconsidering decisions to prosecute, the quality of legal advice given, if any, to defendants, the obstinance of defendants to opt for trial despite legal advice to the contrary, the effectiveness of defence and prosecuting trial counsel, the effect of delay on trial outcomes, and biases (whether conscious or unconscious) in decision-makers are other potential factors.  More research would need to be conducted to understand the reasons for the different rates of conviction.

In 2010, the Law Society did not believe the conviction rate data supported the case for having juries in the District Court because at the time the rate of conviction in the Court of First Instance was higher than that in the District Court.  As that position has now clearly changed, one might want to revisit the issue of juries in the District Court or at least the right of a defendant in certain cases to elect trial by jury.

Mr Justice Michael Stuart-Moore passed away on 29 December 2024.  As a member of the Judiciary for 26 years, his imprint on the criminal law was enormous.  A Westlaw search of his name in the Judge field returns 2306 results, including many of his rulings and judgments given as a Deputy High Court Judge after his retirement from the Court of Appeal in 2009.  He made ample references to Archbold Hong Kong in his judgments, which in turn provided substantial material for incorporation in this text.  In recognition of his contribution to the criminal law of Hong Kong, mention is made here of some of his important judgments, though there are many others.  Two of his classic judgments are still taught in my evidence course: The Queen v Tsang Wai-ki [1996] 3 HKC 111, on mere propensity evidence, and HKSAR v Mo Shiu-shing [1999] 2 HKLRD 155, on post-offence conduct.  The latter was cited with approval in HKSAR v Yuen Kwai Choi (2003) 6 HKCFAR 113.  His judgments on drug trafficking sentencing have been quite influential, particularly HKSAR v Wong Suet-hau, Ice [2002] 1 HKLRD 69 (on social trafficking and self-consumption) and Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 (guidelines for ecstasy and ketamine trafficking), though the Court of Appeal has recently indicated a willingness to reconsider the guidelines set down in Hii Siew Cheng (see HKSAR v Choi Tsz Fung [2025] HKCA 733).

Justice Stuart-Moore also wrote two important judgments on diminished responsibility as a partial defence to murder: HKSAR v Tsui Chu Tin, John [2005] 1 HKC 518 and HKSAR v Liu Chun Yip [2006] 4 HKLRD 595.  He demonstrated a strong sense of fairness in cases like HKSAR v Luo Xian Ping [2007] 3 HKLRD 203, where a jury direction on reckless rape was given without notice to the parties, and HKSAR v Chan Sung Wing [2008] 1 HKLRD 126, where he was severely critical of the prosecution practice of charging manufacturing a dangerous drug in cases meriting only a charge of simple possession.  Some judgments simply stood out, for the effort taken to commend the police officers involved who courageously apprehended a gang of armed robbers (HKSAR v Chan Wan-cheung [2007] 4 HKLRD 606), for expressing moral disapprobation of a crime involving an attempt to chop off the right hand of a 7-year-old boy (HKSAR v Tsang Ho Wai [2008] 4 HKC 1), and for outlining new specimen directions on juror communication with the trial judge where something improper is thought to have occurred (HKSAR v Mohammed Saleem [2009] 1 HKLRD 369).  I will always remember his kindness to me when I served as a judge’s marshal.

After eight volumes at the helm of editing this important text, I have decided to pass the torch to a new General Editor.  Over the years, I have come to appreciate the importance of the timely contributions made by our large team of contributing editors.  We have tried to retain and recruit contributors who are not only passionate about the criminal law but can also keep their respective chapter(s) updated, sometimes with new ideas and improvements.  I am most grateful to all the past and current contributing editors for their dedication and service.  I am also grateful to the Editor-in-Chief and Sentencing Editor who have provided us with constant support and encouragement.  I wish to thank my many student editors who have helped me over the years, particularly Liam Lai and Jonathan Ho for this current volume; it is heartening to see some of them go to become criminal law practitioners.  Finally, I am fortunate to have the support of the publishing team at Sweet & Maxwell.  They keep us on track and have great patience when we fall behind.  I particularly acknowledge Wing Yan Ng for her kindness and helpful assistance.  I wish the new General Editor all the very best in taking this publication forward.

Professor Simon NM Young

Ian Davies Professor in Ethics

Parkside Chambers

29 August 2025

New issue of Hong Kong Law Journal (Vol. 55, Part 3 of 2025)

HONG KONG LAW JOURNAL

Vol. 55, Part 3 of 2025

Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Eric C Ip

Deputy Editor-in-Chief: Prof. Trevor Wan

Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Articles

The Seventh Wave of Constitution-Making in Retrospect

Cheryl Saunders ...405

The Rule-of-Law Ideal: Architecture, Core and Commitments

Gerald J Postema...425

Breach of Fiduciary Duties and Constructive Trusts

The Hon William Gummow AC...435

Interdisciplinary Training and Research Impact in the Legal Academy

Abeer Sharma, Shuting Zhang and Ryan Whalen...441

Two Conceptions of Consideration: Reflections from England and Hong Kong

Alexander Georgiou...460

Directors’ Duty on Climate Change under English Law? Lessons from Sequana and ClientEarth

Min Yan...483

Improving Foreign Bank Branch Regulations to Pursue a Global Financial Hub: A Comparative Analysis of South Korea and the Global Regulations

Dong Won Ko and Ji Woong Seok...499

The Reconsideration of Territorial Link Requirement of Invisible Investment in ISDS: A Novel Analysis from Sociological Aspect

Fang Gu...535

Gleaning Pearls of DMA for Anti-monopoly Enforcement on Digital Platforms: A Chinese Perspective

Yujie Tong, Peicheng Wu and Charlie Xiao-chuan Weng...562

Revisiting the Proof of Foreign Law

Michael Chung...587

Foreign Government Inaction in US Trade Remedy Laws: When the Emperor is Frustrated by His Empire

Phuong Ngoc Tran and Jaemin Lee...608

Let’s Trade Data Like Stocks: China’s Data Exchange Regulation

Dinghao Zheng and Lerong Lu...634

Ryan Whalen et al on Interdisciplinary Training and Research Impact in the Legal Academy (HKLJ)

"Interdisciplinary Training and Research Impact in the Legal Academy"
Abeer Sharma (PhD candidate), Shuting Zhang and Ryan Whalen
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 55, Part 3 of 2025, pp.441 - 459

Abstract: This study examines the relationship between interdisciplinary educational backgrounds and academic impact among legal scholars. Analyzing data from faculty members at 50 of the world’s leading law schools, we explore whether scholars with degrees in fields outside of law achieve higher scholarly influence than their peers who hold only law degrees. Our findings reveal that legal academics with interdisciplinary training tend to have significantly greater academic impact, suggesting that integrating perspectives from other disciplines enriches legal scholarship. These results underscore the value of interdisciplinary education in the legal academy and support the incorporation of interdisciplinary approaches in hiring practices, curricula and research initiatives to foster innovation and address complex societal challenges.

Sida Liu on Professions and Capitalism (New Book Chapter)

"Professions and capitalism"
Sida Liu
in Tracey L. Adams (ed), Research Handbook on the Sociology of the Professions (Edward Elgar Publishing, December 2025), Chapter 3, pp. 35 - 47
Published online: December 2025

Abstract: This chapter investigates the historical and contemporary interplay between the evolution of professions and the transformation of capitalism. Although not all professions originate from capitalism, the social structures and cultural practices of modern professions have been significantly influenced by capitalist imperatives. Historically autonomous professions, such as law and medicine, have evolved to support corporate organizations and industrial systems. As capitalism advances, professions have taken on increasingly important roles, fulfilling three pivotal functions. First, they provide the expertise essential for the functioning of capitalist institutions. Second, they legitimize capitalism by generating and disseminating academic knowledge and specialized practices throughout society. Third, professions nurture seeds of resistance to capitalism by fostering practitioners who advocate for alternative ideologies and institutions. Consequently, the relationship between professions and capitalism is symbiotic and mutually constitutive: capitalism underpins the institutions and ethics of professions, which in turn facilitate the operation and perpetuation of capitalist economies.

Ying Xia on Strategic anthropocentrism: framing animal protection in China’s public interest litigation (JEL)

"Strategic anthropocentrism: framing animal protection in China’s public interest litigation"
Ying Xia
Journal of Environmental Law
Published online: December 2025

Abstract: This article investigates how Chinese non-governmental organisations (NGOs) strategically mobilize environmental public interest litigation (EPIL) to advance animal protection in a legal system that is deeply anthropocentric and lacks dedicated animal welfare legislation. Drawing on a series of landmark cases, this study identifies key advocacy strategies that frame animal protection in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services; public health and biosecurity; and wildlife-related intermediary obligations. These frames allow NGOs to translate animal welfare claims into legally justifiable and administratively actionable harms, by aligning with state priorities such as ecological civilization, sustainable development, and public health. The study finds that finding that EPIL, when coupled with strategic framing, can operate as both a legal remedy, as well as expressive governance that helps to gradually expand the legal and moral imagination for nonhuman interests. Meanwhile, however, these framings also risk reinforcing the marginalization of animals whose protection cannot be fully justified through human-centred rationales.

Shilun Zhou on Whether chatbot-generated opinion can be trusted (International Journal of Evidence and Proof)

"Whether chatbot-generated opinion can be trusted: Application of the hearsay rule of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and inspiration for China's evidence law reform"
Shilun Zhou (PhD Candidate)
International Journal of Evidence and Proof
Published online: December 2025

Abstract: As part of its criminal justice reform, the UK Ministry of Justice issued a policy paper on the use of software-generated evidence in criminal proceedings. In response, this article consistently uses the term “chatbot-generated opinion,” while employing “chatbot testimony” metaphorically to compare chatbot responses in court to human testimony given in answer to a judge's questions. The article explores whether chatbot-generated opinion evidence can be trusted, focusing on the hearsay rule under the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003 and its implications for reforming China's evidence law. Contrary to prevailing views that exclude such evidence due to the lack of cross-examination, the article argues that chatbot opinions should not be directly accepted as testimony. It further explains that virtue jurisprudence offers an appropriate framework for identifying indicators of justified belief. Since a chatbot is incapable of having a moral motivation, this prevents judges from justifiably believing a chatbot's statement qua testimony. Introducing such an evidence analysis approach in China is significant. China's Confucian ethics and virtue jurisprudence highlight moral responsibility and motivation, providing a valuable foundation for the ongoing reform of China's evidence law and overcoming the limitations of its predominant objectivist approach to proof.

Shilun Zhou on Deconstructing ‘Responsible AI’: An Examination of Legal and Ethical Accountability Through Virtue Jurisprudence (Int J Semiot Law)

"Deconstructing ‘Responsible AI’: An Examination of Legal and Ethical Accountability Through Virtue Jurisprudence"
Shilun Zhou (PhD Candidate)
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law
Published online: November 2025

Abstract: This article deconstructs the legal semiotic of “Responsible AI” through the lens of virtue jurisprudence, addressing ethical dilemmas in technology-driven knowledge creation within the humanities. It critiques the misleading anthropomorphisation of AI, arguing that “Responsible AI” should be understood as “responsible in name only” and “accountable in reality”. By distinguishing between moral agency and legal accountability, it highlights AI’s dual legal attributes, including its anthropomorphic intelligent dimension and its distinct artificial nature. While the terms of reliability and AI could be semantically related at first glance, the virtue jurisprudence approach could distinguish the semiotic implications of “responsible AI” and “accountable AI”, by highlighting humans’ unique moral assessment capacity, which AI lacks, making AI accountable but not responsible. Emphasising such moral capacity not only justifies human’s refusal to be treated like machines but also provides a theoretical basis for a human-centred AI framework and guides the development of accountability AI in current legal practice. By examining the interplay between human virtue and technological systems, it calls for a renewed focus on human-centric ethical principles in the age of AI-driven knowledge production.

Douglas Arner et al on Datafying sustainable finance: Efficiency and impact by design (European Law Journal)

"Datafying sustainable finance: Efficiency and impact by design"
Dirk A. Zetzsche, Marian Unterstell, Ross P. Buckley, Douglas W. Arner
European Law Journal, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp. 203-226
Published online: November 2025

Abstract: The ongoing implementation of the EU's Sustainable Finance Strategy has led to a significant development of EU law to finance and facilitate the transition of the real economy towards sustainability. We argue first that this strategy, at its core, is a data strategy, requiring the datafication of the entire European financial, production and services sectors. The ongoing process of datafication will extend to data concerning externalities previously not incorporated into quantitative financial models and analysis. Second, we look at other datafication processes in finance to identify regulatory lessons for the EU's Sustainable Finance Framework in light of the European Commission's Simplification and Burden Reduction agenda in finance. We recommend the implementation of digital reporting standards developed in tandem by industry and regulators; the utilisation of Green RegTech and SupTech, centralised and enabled via digital reporting infrastructure; and the facilitation of the use of official estimates to both ensure proportionality and reduce the regulatory burden of reporting entities, with a focus on small and medium enterprises.

Xin He and Huina Xiao on Women and Divorce: Institutional Constraints and Outcomes, and Possible Ways Forward (New Book Chapter)

"Women and Divorce: Institutional Constraints and Outcomes, and Possible Ways Forward"
Xin He and Huina Xiao
in Gordana Malešević (ed), Challenges for Chinese Women in the Early Twenty-First Century (World Scientific, November 2025), Chapter 9, pp. 159-175
Published online: November 2025

Abstract: The following sections are included in this chapter: Introduction, Institutional Constraints of Judicial Decision-Making in Divorce Disputes, Gendered Judicial Practices in Divorce Disputes, Gendered Lawyering, Conclusion, References, Statutes Cited

Edward Lui on Why Consult? The Case of Public Consultation in Hong Kong Administrative Law (AsJCL)

"Why Consult? The Case of Public Consultation in Hong Kong Administrative Law"
Edward Lui
Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Published online: November 2025

Abstract: This article investigates the law of public consultation in Hong Kong administrative law. The Hong Kong cases in this area have consistently followed, without question, the corresponding English authorities, and seem to have simply assumed the appropriacy of this approach. But given that it seems open to academic argument whether the Hong Kong legal system shares the same liberal democratic political theory which the English legal system endorses – and given that the English law of public consultation is commonly regarded as, inter alia, pursuing a liberal democracy-based rationale – two questions arise: (i) what is, or what are, the underlying rationale(s) for the Hong Kong law of public consultation; and (ii) to what extent is it appropriate for the Hong Kong courts to adopt the English case law on public consultation? This article contends that even assuming the Hong Kong legal system is not underpinned by a liberal democratic political theory, (i) the Hong Kong law of public consultation is underpinned by the informational rationale and a specific strand of the respect rationale; and (ii) English case law on public consultation can be implemented into Hong Kong law, insofar as its reasoning can be completed without affirming a liberal democratic premise.

Congratulations to Puja Kapai honoured as one of “Women of Power” 2025

Congratulations to Professor Puja Kapai Paryani, who are honoured as one of “Women of Power” 2025. The Scheme is an initiative by Prestige magazine that identifies, celebrates, and builds a community of influential women in various fields across Asia, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia. It aims to inspire other women, particularly the next generation, through summits and annual lists, and foster a supportive network where members can collaborate and create positive social impact.

This is not the first time Puja is recognized; her commitment to pluralism and equity earned her the International Women of Courage Award in 2015 and the 2021 Global Pluralism Award. And we are proud that her pioneering work in human rights, inclusion, diversity and social justice, is well acknowledged and appreciated.

Congratulations to Benjamin Chen, Gallant Ho Outstanding Young Professorship

Congratulations to Professor Benjamin Chen who has been conferred the Gallant Ho Outstanding Young Professorship.

The “Outstanding Young Professorships Scheme” represents the University’s commitment to nurturing rising stars and young talents. An Outstanding Young Professorship will be awarded to an Assistant Professor or Associate Professor.

Professor Chen is an interdisciplinary scholar whose research is situated at the intersection of law and social sciences. He is a prolific scholar and a rising star in his field. 

Let us take this moment to congratulate Professor Chen on this well-deserved achievement.

Congratulations to Xin He, Chair Professor

Congratulations to Professor Xin He on his recent conferral of the title Chair Professor at The University of Hong Kong.  The title is a mark of distinction as the President wrote in his conferment letter to Professor He:

"At this University, a Chair Professor title is reserved for world-class scholars of distinction. It signifies due recognition of outstanding academic leadership and excellence. As a top-rated researcher and academic leader, you are held in high regard by your peers globally, and your significant contributions and accomplishments have received international acclaim."

Professor He is now only one of four Chair Professors in the Faculty of Law.  He was appointed to the Mok Sau-King Professorship in Law at the University of Hong Kong in 2024 and his latest monograph The Judicial System of China was published by Oxford University Press in November 2024.  For more information on Professor He's research outputs and impact, click here.

Congratulations to Professor Hui Jing!

Congratulations to Prof. Hui Jing on his promotion to Associate Professor! Prof. Jing is a prolific researcher with an excellent publication record. He is a rare scholar of comparative trust law who can effectively cover both the Chinese and common law jurisdictions. He is one of the few experts worldwide capable of engaging deeply with both legal traditions. Prof. Jing is a valuable member of our Faculty, and this promotion is a well-deserved recognition of his contributions. To read more about Prof. Jing's research and publications, click here.