Showing posts with label Benjamin Chen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benjamin Chen. Show all posts

Friday, August 14, 2026

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.

Friday, July 31, 2026

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.

Tuesday, July 28, 2026

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

Monday, February 2, 2026

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.

Friday, December 26, 2025

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.

Wednesday, December 17, 2025

HKU–ALSA Young Scholars Conference Successfully Held at the University of Hong Kong

The HKU–ALSA Young Scholars Conference was successfully held at the University of Hong Kong from December 5 to 6, 2025. The two-day conference brought together early-career scholars and senior academics from diverse jurisdictions to engage in in-depth discussions on emerging frontiers in legal research. As the second installment of the ALSA Young Scholars Conference series, following its inaugural meeting at Singapore Management University in 2024, the conference reaffirmed the series’ longstanding commitment to supporting and advancing early-career scholarship.


At the core of the conference were presentations by twelve early-career scholars, whose papers were rigorously selected by the organizing committee from more than 130 submissions spanning five continents. The participating scholars represented leading institutions, including Tsinghua University, the University of Hong Kong, the University of Macau, the National University of Singapore, the University of Cambridge, and the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná in Brazil. Their research addressed a wide range of jurisdictions, including China, the United States, Europe, Southeast Asia, and South America. The organizing committee comprised Dr. Zhicheng Huang, Global Academic Fellow at the Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong; Professor Akshaya Kamalnath of the Australian National University; and Professor Amnart Tangkiriphimarn of Thammasat University.

The conference opened with welcoming remarks by Professor Fu Hualing, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong, and Professor Tan Cheng Han, President of the Asian Law Schools Association and Professor at the National University of Singapore. This was followed by a leadership roundtable on Asian Legal Education, which brought together four law school deans, including Dean Fu Hualing; Professor Tan Cheng Han, former Dean of the law schools at the National University of Singapore and City University of Hong Kong; and Professor Sida Liu, Associate Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong. The roundtable explored how Asian law schools can balance localization and internationalization, and how legal education should respond proactively to the challenges posed by artificial intelligence to both the legal profession and curriculum design.


Over the course of the conference, four thematic sessions focused on Empirical Legal Studies, AI and Law, Commercial Law, and Data and Information. Each session provided a supportive and intellectually rigorous setting for sustained exchange between early-career scholars and senior academics. The twelve presenters engaged in close and dynamic dialogue with their discussants, benefiting from detailed and constructive feedback on their research.

In the Commercial Law session, Dr. Guo Shuai, Associate Professor at China University of Political Science and Law, introduced his original comparative law concept of Interadaptationism and, building on this framework, examined the role of the Global South in reshaping the future of bankruptcy law. He noted that the conference was thoughtfully designed and particularly effective in fostering a scholarly community that encouraged deep engagement among early-career researchers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds.


Professor Cheng Jin-Hua of Shanghai Jiao Tong University served as a discussant in the Data and Information session, where he commended the overall quality of the selected papers and expressed his hope for closer collaboration between universities in mainland China and Hong Kong in the training of young scholars. Professor Wang Jiangyu of City University of Hong Kong acted as a discussant in the AI and Law session, emphasizing that mentoring early-career scholars is a core responsibility of senior academics and highlighting the unique value of young scholars conferences as platforms for sustained academic support.

In addition to the thematic sessions, three keynote addresses collectively outlined a clear pathway for scholarly development. Professor Benjamin Chen of the University of Hong Kong spoke on interdisciplinary research, illustrating how law and economics and empirical methods can be mobilized to address complex legal problems. Professor Wang Jiangyu, drawing on his experience as editor-in-chief of two leading academic journals, offered guidance from an editor’s perspective and underscored the importance of clearly articulating a paper’s original scholarly contribution. Professor Douglas Arner of the University of Hong Kong focused on impactful legal research, arguing that impact should be understood not merely as an ex post assessment, but as an ex ante research orientation that guides scholars in framing research questions and selecting materials.


In the closing remarks, the organizing team expressed its sincere appreciation to all speakers, discussants, and administrative colleagues for their dedication to academic mentorship and careful engagement with the presented work. The team also expressed its hope that future editions of the Young Scholars Conference will continue to provide sustained and meaningful support for the academic development of early-career scholars.

Monday, August 26, 2024

Hong Kong Law Journal (Vol. 53, Part 3 of 2023)

HONG KONG LAW JOURNAL
Editor-in-Chief: Professor Rick Glofcheski
Associate Editor: Professor Albert Chen
Publisher: Sweet & Maxwell


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Analysis

Foreign Law in Common Law Courts of Appeal: From Hong Kong to Jersey and Cayman Islands 
The Hon William Gummow AC...907

Articles

The Legal Response to Drugs and Social Supply: The Case of Hong Kong
Karen A Joe-Laidler, Kate Lowe, Simon NM Young and Tin H Cheung...913

A Tribute to the Late Sir Tl Yang (1929–2023)

Trailblazing the Colonial Judiciary: A Tribute to Hong Kong’s First Chinese Chief Justice
Chen Li...941

China Law

An Examination of the Power of the Central People’s Government to Issue Directives to the Chief Executive under the Hong Kong Basic Law
Fan Xiang...967

At the Crossroads? Assessing SEP Injunctive Relief under Patent Law and Competition Law in China
Bo Yuan and Peicheng Wu...995

OECD/G20 Pillar Two and Tax Laws of China: How to Harmonise? 
Xiaojing Cui and Yuan Liu...1027

Empirical Study of the Role of the Chinese Guiding Case System in Chinese Law 
Dong Yan and Jeffery E Thomas...1057

Focus: The Empirical Turn in Chinese Legal Studies

Introduction

Empirical Legal Studies Made in China: An Empirical Study on Legal Doctoral Dissertations
Jinhua Cheng...1085

Quantitative Legal Research Based on China’s Adjudication Documents: The End of the Golden Era?
Ke Li and Yang Feng...1119

Problems and Misunderstandings in Chinese Empirical Legal Research: The Example of Papers Involving Judgment Documents 
Yu Zeyang and Yu Mengyao...1141

Monopoly and Fragmentation: Data Collection in Chinese Empirical Legal Study
Qin Ma...1171

The Application and Limitations of Survey Methods in the Quantitative Assessment of Justice in China
Hongqi Wu and Lin Haibin...1195

Trade-off Between “Big Data” and “Small Data”: a Simulation Study on The Application of Random Sampling in Chinese Empirical Legal Studies
Yiwei Xia...1215

Data Still Needs Theory: Collider Bias in Empirical Legal Research

How to Do Empirical Legal Studies without Numbers? 
Sida Liu and Sitao Li...1259

Book Review

Haochen Sun, Technology and the Public Interest
Tap Huang...1275


Benjamin Chen and Xiaohan Yin on Data Still Needs Theory: Collider Bias in Empirical Legal Research (HKLJ)

"Data Still Needs Theory: Collider Bias in Empirical Legal Research"
Benjamin Chen and Xiaohan Yin (PhD candidate)
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 53, Part 3 of 2023, pp.1241 - 1258
Abstract: Big data is characterised not only by the amount but also the kinds of information that can be created, stored, and processed. This explosion of data, accompanied by the capacity to analyse them, has catalyzed large n, quantitative approaches to the study of law and legal institutions. But neither size nor quality guarantees the validity of causal inferences drawn from observational data. For example, although the inclusion of control variables can help isolate causal effects, not all variables are good controls. Bad controls are not harmless and can create the impression of a causal relationship where none exists. This spurious association is called collider bias. We introduce the concept of collider bias and give motivated examples of how it can arise in empirical legal research. The selection of good controls requires knowledge and assumptions about causal structures. Theory and domain knowledge are essential for quantitative analysis, even in the era of big data.

Please click here to view the full article on SSRN.

Thursday, November 2, 2023

Benjamin Chen et al on The Silent Influence of Guiding Cases: A Text Reuse Approach (The ECLR Hub)

Benjamin Minhao Chen, Zhiyu Li, David Cai and Elliott Ash
The ECLR Hub
Published online: September 2023

Guiding Cases no. 19 and no. 24 both concern traffic accident liability disputes and are among those most often referred to.

What are Guiding Cases?

     As a matter of doctrine, cases are not a source of law in socialist legal systems. In the People’s Republic of China, judges are generally not required to adhere to or cite prior judicial decisions. These principles have, however, been qualified—some say violated—by the Supreme People’s Court’s designation of Guiding Cases to be followed by all courts when adjudicating similar disputes.
     The Guiding Case (指导性案例) system was introduced in 2011 “[i]n order to summarize adjudication experiences, unify the application of law, enhance adjudication quality, and safeguard judicial impartiality” (Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance, 2010, English here). Guiding Cases are based on judgements selected from courts nationwide and address a wide variety of legal topics ranging from breach of contract to homicide to unfair competition to liability for traffic accidents. A Guiding Case consists of seven key sections, namely “Title”, “Keywords”, “Main Points of the Adjudication”, “Related Legal Rules”, “Basic Facts of the Case”, “Results of the Adjudication”, and “Reasons for the Adjudication”. Beginning in 2015, the “Main Points of the Adjudication” of Guiding Cases – abstract rules distilled by the adjudication committee of the SPC from the original judgments – must be referred to (参照) by courts at all levels when adjudicating similar cases (Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the ‘Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance’, 2015, English here).
     Guiding Cases have therefore been characterized by some as “a new source of ‘judge-made law’ in China” (Liu 2021) and ‘the remarkable terminus a quo’ of the trend ‘toward embracing case law’ (Wang 2020). The true impact of Guiding Cases on judicial practice has however been called into question by many legal scholars and commentators. Previous studies almost uniformly find that citations to Guiding Cases are sparse, and many Guiding Cases are not cited at all (Daum 2017; Zhang 2018). The ‘extremely low’ incidence of citations is taken as symptomatic of ‘the dysfunction of the [G]uiding [C]ase system as a type of case law’ (Wang 2019) and as proof of the incongruity of case-based adjudication in China (Ahl 2014; Zuo & Chen 2015; Finder 2017; Jia 2016).

How to measure their influence?

     However, citations might not be an accurate measure of the influence of cases, especially in jurisdictions that do not recognize judicial decisions as a source of law...

Please click here for full article.

Saturday, June 24, 2023

Benjamin Chen et al on Detecting the Influence of the Chinese Guiding Cases (Artificial Intelligence and Law)

Benjamin M. Chen, Zhiyu Li, David Cai & Elliott Ash
Published: 06 May 2023
Abstract: Socialist courts are supposed to apply the law, not make it, and socialist legality denies judicial decisions any precedential status. In 2011, the Chinese Supreme People’s Court designated selected decisions as Guiding Cases to be referred to by all judges when adjudicating similar disputes. One decade on, the paucity of citations to Guiding Cases has been taken as demonstrating the incongruity of case-based adjudication and the socialist legal tradition. Citations are, however, an imperfect measure of influence. Reproduction of language uniquely traceable to Guiding Cases can also be evidence of their impact on judicial decision-making. We employ a local alignment tool to detect unattributed text reuse of Guiding Cases in local court decisions. Our findings suggest that Guiding Cases are more consequential than commonly assumed, thereby complicating prevailing narratives about the antagonism of socialist legality to case law.

Friday, June 2, 2023

Congratulations to Dr Benjamin Chen!

Congratulations to Dr Benjamin Chen on his promotion to Associate Professor!  Dr Chen is an interdisciplinary scholar whose research is situated at the intersection of law and social sciences. He is also a highly productive scholar and has published in both law reviews and peer-reviewed journals, including the Harvard International Law Journal, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, and Columbia Journal of Asian Law. Dr Chen is a valuable member of our faculty, and this promotion is a well-deserved recognition of his contributions. To read more about Dr Chen's research and publications, click here.

Thursday, June 1, 2023

"Courts Without Separation of Powers" by Benjamin Chen and Zhiyu Li (Harvard International Law Journal)

"Courts Without Separation of Powers"
Chen, Benjamin and Li, Zhiyu 
Vol 64(1), 2023
Abstract: Like courts everywhere else, socialist courts are tasked to settle disputes. Their decisions are backed by the force of law. But unlike courts everywhere else, socialist courts are also required to support official ideology and policies. They are subject to legislative supervision and party leadership in the performance of their duties. The repudiation of the notion of separation of powers and the instrumental conception of law are conventionally taken to be defining—and defective—aspects of socialist legality. But the political accountability of socialist courts could also be empowering. Because socialist courts answer, in theory, to the people, they have the warrant and duty to contribute to the orderly administration of society. Constitutional theory and doctrine do not prohibit socialist courts from venturing beyond the confines of adjudication to address issues not presented for resolution. We study how courts in the world’s largest socialist regime identify and tackle social problems ranging from public health to education to crime through the device of judicial suggestions. These suggestions transcend the legal questions raised by litigants and may be directed to private actors like companies and public entities including governmental agencies. Though not binding on their recipients, judicial suggestions are frequently acknowledged and sometimes adopted. Occasionally, they have even precipitated systematic reform. Our exploration of judicial suggestions in China illuminates a function that is available to socialist courts because of their political subordination to the party-state. More broadly, the approach exemplified here steps outside the rule of law and judicial independence paradigms to examine how dogma and doctrine shape the boundaries of institutions, thereby contributing to a more holistic evaluation of socialist courts and their place in the political legal order.  Click here to download the full article.

Thursday, March 23, 2023

Benjamin Chen et al on HAVING YOUR DAY IN ROBOT COURT (Harvard Journal of Law & Technology)

 "HAVING YOUR DAY IN ROBOT COURT"
Benjamin Minhao Chen, Alexander Stremitzer & Kevin Tobia
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 
Volume 36, Number 1, pp. 127-169
Published in Fall 2022 
Abstract: Should machines be judges? Some say “no,” arguing that citizens would see robot-led legal proceedings as procedurally unfair because the idea of “having your day in court” is thought to refer to having another human adjudicate one’s claims. Prior research established that people obey the law in part because they see it as procedurally just. The introduction of “robot judges” powered by artificial intelligence (“AI”) could undermine sentiments of justice and legal compliance if citizens intuitively view machine-adjudicated proceedings as less fair than the human-adjudicated status quo. Two original experiments show that ordinary people share this intuition: There is a perceived “human-AI fairness gap.” However, it is also possible to reduce — and perhaps even eliminate — this fairness gap through “algorithmic offsetting.” Affording litigants a hearing before an AI judge and enhancing the interpretability of AI decisions reduce the human-AI fairness gap. Moreover, the perceived procedural justice advantage of human over AI adjudication appears to be driven more by beliefs about the accuracy of the outcome and thoroughness of consideration, rather than doubts about whether a party had adequate opportunity to voice their opinions or whether the judge understood the perspective of the litigant. The results of the experiments can support a common and fundamental objection to robot judges: There is a concerning human-AI fairness gap. Yet, at the same time, the results also indicate that the public may not believe that human judges possess irreducible procedural fairness advantages. In some circumstances, people see a day in a robot court as no less fair than a day in a human court.

Wednesday, March 22, 2023

Benjamin Chen et al on Would Humans Trust an A.I. Judge? More Easily Than You Think (Slate)

"Would Humans Trust an A.I. Judge? More Easily Than You Think"
Benjamin Chen, Alexander Stremitzer, and Kevin Tobia
Slate
Published on 28 February 2023
Introduction: Artificial intelligence judging has become a reality. Last month, a Colombian judge used ChatGPT to generate part of his judicial opinion. Colombia is not alone. Estonia has piloted a robot judge, and the United States. and Canada increasingly use A.I. tools in law.
      These recent events have sparked a debate about “unethical” uses of A.I. in the judiciary. As the technological hurdles to A.I.-judging recede, the remaining barriers are ones of law and ethics.
        Would it be fair to citizens for an A.I. judge—an algorithmic decision-maker—to resolve disputes? 

Wednesday, February 15, 2023

Benjamin Chen & Brian Libgober on Do Administrative Procedures Fix Cognitive Biases? (Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory)

"Do Administrative Procedures Fix Cognitive Biases?"
 Benjamin Minhao Chen & Brian Libgober 
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 
Published on 8 February 2023
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac054
Abstract: This article uses survey experiments to assess whether administrative procedures fix cognitive bias. We focus on two procedural requirements: qualitative reason-giving and quantitative cost-benefit analysis (“CBA”). Both requirements are now firmly entrenched in U.S. federal regulation-making. Multilateral organizations such as the World Bank, OECD, and EU have encouraged their broad diffusion across many national contexts. Yet CBA, in particular, remains controversial. Supporters of CBA claim it leads to more rational regulation, with Sunstein (2000) explicitly proposing that CBA can reduce cognitive biases. By contrast, we argue that procedures should be conceptualized as imperfect substitutes subject to diminishing marginal benefits. To test and illustrate this argument, we examine how each procedure individually and cumulatively modulates the effects of gain-loss framing, partisan motivated reasoning, and scope insensitivity in a nationally representative sample. We find that one or both procedures decrease each cognitive bias. CBA is most helpful against partisan reasoning, where reason-giving does little. Both procedures are comparably effective for combatting the other biases, although in each case only one procedure produces cognitive benefits distinguishable from zero. We only find substantial synergies between the two procedures with respect to gain-loss framing. Layering on the less-useful procedure does not significantly reduce the other two cognitive biases. We hypothesize that procedures will only fix cognitive biases if they disrupt bias-inducing mental processes, and we reconcile this proposition with our findings. We conclude by relating this work to debates about the design of administrative procedures and describe a research agenda based upon rationality-improving procedures.

Tuesday, October 4, 2022

Benjamin Chen on "Textualism as Fair Notice?" (Washington Law Review)

"Textualism as Fair Notice?"
Benjamin Chen
Washington Law Review, Volume 339, Issue 97
Published on June 1, 2022
Abstract: The opportunity to know the law is one of the bedrocks of legality. It is also a powerful and attractive reason for giving statutory language the meaning it has in everyday discourse. To do otherwise would be to hide the law from those it governs. Or so the argument goes. Despite its intuitive force, the fair notice argument for textualism is vulnerable to two challenges. The first challenge is to the notion that fair notice requires congruence between ordinary and legal meaning. There is no normative gauge for determining the time and expense people ought to spend learning their legal obligations or the amount of skill they should be expected to possess. And fair notice is not necessarily impaired by recourse to extratextual sources so long as the rules of interpretation tell officials and citizens which materials to consult and which approach to adopt when reading law. The second challenge arises from the relationship between law, morality, and notice. Social expectations and ethical norms may provide the requisite notice. Alternatively, they may render notice less essential. Fair notice is either superfluous or satisfied where the community regards the proscribed behavior as wrongful and the punishment fitting. Conversely, the demands of fair notice are heightened when the behavior reached by the statute is innocuous or when the sanctions for violation are disproportionate...

Friday, September 9, 2022

Benjamin Chen, Shitong Qiao and Zhiyu Li: "How Technology is Changing Justice in China" (Judicature International)

"How Technology is Changing Justice in China"
by Shitong Qiao, Zhiyu Li and Benjamin Chen
Judicature International
2022
In their article How Will Technology Change the Face of Chinese Justice? (Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 2020), Professor Zhiyu Li of Durham Law School and Professor Benjamin Chen of the University of Hong Kong examine China’s aggressive efforts to technologize court processes and how the Chinese public and litigants view those efforts. Based on an original survey of roughly 1,000 netizens and interviews of over 100 legal aid seekers, the authors find that internet and artificial intelligence technologies are helping Chinese courts address case backlogs and improve efficiency and giving litigants more cost-effective options for settling disputes. But, the authors note, technology also may be sidelining the lawyers and legal activists who can identify systemic problems and challenge the “ideological hegemony of the state,” leading to a new “Chinese brand of authoritarian legality.”
     The following is a Q&A with Li and Chen, led by Professor Shitong Qiao of Duke Law School, about the study’s findings and the idea that court technology is reshaping the face of justice in China.

Shitong Qiao: Firstly, congratulations on this wonderful paper. It’s an important topic. For the benefit of our readers, can you tell us in a nutshell about your basic argument — how will technology change the face of Chinese justice?

Benjamin Chen: China is one of the jurisdictions that has really been pushing the use of technology in courts. When we first became interested in this phenomenon, it had already been going on for some time, and many others had written on the subject. But we thought that the then-current contributions to the subject were still quite limited. Many of them tended to focus on a particular application of technology, such as the use of blockchain for storing evidence or the use of automated transcription systems. We wanted to look beyond specific applications and consider why technology is being introduced at such a pace in the Chinese legal system, and to what ends?
     So, when we think about how technology will change the face of Chinese justice, the question we first ask is what problems or needs are the technological innovations responding to? Once we have some idea of what they are responding to, we can try to broach the question of whether or not they are going to be successful. In the article, we lay out three tensions in the Chinese legal system which technology could help alleviate. First, Chinese courts are inundated by millions of cases, and a primary cause of that is the move towards legality. There’s a deliberate shift away from political dispute resolution mechanisms like 信访(letters and visits) toward the judicial process, and that has resulted in a sharp rise in court caseloads. But related to this move toward legality is the professionalization of the judiciary. In the past, anyone could be a judge. But not anymore. The quota judge reform drastically reduced the number of court officials who could serve as adjudicators. That means an explosion in the average number of cases that each judge has to handle. So an important reason why certain kinds of technologies are being introduced is to help judges decide cases more quickly and efficiently. This reason is familiar to everyone.
      Another tension we identify is the one between adherence to rule of law and social harmony. China descended into chaos during the Cultural Revolution. Traditional rules and institutions all came under attack. After the Cultural Revolution, the legal system had to be rebuilt. Deng Xiaoping called for the rule of law. Of course, rule of law as it’s espoused in China does not coincide with Western, liberal democratic conceptions of the rule of law — but the idea very broadly speaking is that there were going to be certain general rules of conduct governing private and public conduct, and this would restore stability and order to society... Click here to read the full text. 

Shitong Qiao is Professor of Law and the Ken Young-Gak Yun and Jinah Park Yun Research Scholar at Duke Law School.  Zhiyu Li is an Assistant Professor in Law and Policy at the Durham Law School. Benjamin Chen is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong.

Sunday, December 5, 2021

"The Appeal of Machine Justice" (Benjamin Chen Profiled in HKU Bulletin)

"The Appeal of Machine Justice"
Benjamin Chen
HKU Bulletin
Published in November 2021
Jurisdictions around the world are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to help mete out justice, nowhere more so than in Mainland China. Legal scholar Dr Benjamin Chen has been studying the drivers and implications of this trend.
     The Chinese judicial system has put millions of case judgements online and installed machines in courthouses that tell would-be litigants their chances of success. In one sense, this puts legal matters in the hands of ordinary citizens. But at the same time, AI-mediated justice also serves the needs of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), says Dr Benjamin Chen of the Faculty of Law.
     Dr Chen and his collaborator Dr Li Zhiyu of Durham University have explored the implications behind the fervent embrace of AI and information technology in the Chinese legal system. “We’re not saying that technology is being intentionally deployed to achieve the results we describe, only that technology has grown out to fill gaps and respond to tensions latent in the Chinese legal order,” he said.
     They have identified three such tensions where an AI solution has appeal. The first is quite simple: it addresses the heavy caseload that has arisen from government efforts to professionalise the courts by weeding out under-qualified judges. “In the past, just about anyone could be appointed a judge,” he said. “Judicial reforms have culled the ranks but that means there are fewer judges and they are increasingly overworked. Technology is supposed to alleviate this.”
     The second tension relates to strains between social harmony and the law. Law-based order was restored following the Cultural Revolution. But the insistence on legal rights and procedure sometimes worsened social conflicts rather than resolving them, so the government started promoting social harmony and encouraging mediation rather than adjudication. However, the judges were also given quotas, which incentivised them to badger and bully parties into settlement. …Click here to read the full text. 

Wednesday, July 7, 2021

RGC Awards $5.96 Million in Research Funding to HKU Law 2021/22


Congratulations to our 9 colleagues who were successful in the 2021-2022 round of research grant funding by Hong Kong's Research Grants Council (RGC). Eight General Research Fund (GRF) projects were funded to study the development of investor dispute prevention mechanisms in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative, the concept of “best interests” for the purpose of decision-making on behalf of individuals lacking mental capacity in Chinese jurisdictions, the role of peace movements in the 1899 creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the proliferation of International Commercial Courts across the globe, modern legal education reforms undertaken by three East Asian countries—Japan, Korea and China—meant to improve their legal professions by emphasizing postgraduate legal education, neighborhood governance in urban China, the emerging phenomenon of self-governance in the digital economy in China, and a medieval legal bestseller, the 'Statuta Vetera' Manuscript, c. 1280-1520.  An Early Career Scheme (ECS) project was funded to study the receptivity of socialist legal systems to the common law notion of precedent. 
    The details of the new funded projects are as follows:

GRF:







Dr Anya Adair (cross appointed with Faculty of Arts)

ECS:

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

Benjamin Chen, Alexander Stremitzer, and Kevin Tobia on Having Your Day in Robot Court (SSRN)

"Having Your Day in Robot Court"
Benjamin Chen, Alexander Stremitzer, and Kevin Tobia
SSRN & the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series​.
Featured on the Legal Theory Blog  ​
Published in May 2021
Abstract: Should machines be judges? Some balk at this possibility, holding that ordinary citizens would see a robot-led legal proceeding as procedurally unfair: To have your “day in court” is to have a human hear and adjudicate your claims. Two original experiments assess whether laypeople share this intuition. We discover that laypeople do, in fact, see human judges as fairer than artificially intelligent (“AI”) robot judges: All else equal, there is a perceived human-AI “fairness gap.” However, it is also possible to eliminate the fairness gap. The perceived advantage of human judges over AI judges is related to perceptions of accuracy and comprehensiveness of the decision, rather than “softer” and more distinctively human factors. Moreover, the study reveals that laypeople are amenable to “algorithm offsetting.” Adding an AI hearing and increasing the AI interpretability reduces the perceived human-AI fairness gap. Ultimately, the results support a common challenge to robot judges: there is a concerning human-AI fairness gap. Yet, the results also indicate that the strongest version of this challenge — human judges have inimitable procedural fairness advantages — is not reflected in the views of laypeople. In some circumstances, people see a day in robot court as no less fair than day in human court.