Julius Yam and Cora Chan on Oratorical leadership of chief justices in post-handover Hong Kong (ICON)

"Oratorical leadership of chief justices in post-handover Hong Kong"
Julius Yam, Cora Chan
International Journal of Constitutional Law
Published online: May 2025

Abstract: This article examines how Hong Kong’s three post-handover chief justices—Andrew Li, Geoffrey Ma, and Andrew Cheung—have responded to constitutional and political challenges through their public speeches, statements, and interviews. It observes that Li adopted a bold and proactive approach that connected Hong Kong’s legal system with the wider common law world, while Ma sought greater engagement with the general public on rule-of-law issues. Cheung’s approach, in contrast, has thus far been more conciliatory and circumspect than that of his predecessors. Despite the differing leadership styles adopted by the three chief justices and the distinct nature of the challenges they have faced, the task for all three has been to find an equilibrium between liberal and authoritarian ideologies that sustains Hong Kong’s common law legal system without compromising Chinese sovereignty, and an element of pragmatism underlies all three leaders’ oratory approaches.

Julius Yam on Judging Under Authoritarianism (Modern Law Review)

"Judging Under Authoritarianism"
Julius Yam
Modern Law Review
Published online: December 2023

Abstract: Authoritarianism has significant implications for how judges should discharge their duties. How should judges committed to constitutionalism conduct themselves when under authoritarian pressure? To answer this question, the article proposes a two-step adjudicative framework, documents a variety of judicial strategies, and proposes how principles and strategies can and should be incorporated into the framework in different scenarios. The first step of the adjudicative framework involves judges identifying the ‘formal legal position’ while blindfolding themselves to extra-legal factors (such as potential authoritarian backlash). In the second step, depending on the level of risk incurred by maintaining the formal legal position, judges should lift the blindfold to check whether, and if so how, the formal legal position should be supplemented with or adjusted by judicial strategies. Through this analysis, the article offers a guide to judicial reasoning under authoritarianism.

RGC Awards $4.8 Million in Research Funding to HKU Law 2023/24

Congratulations to our eight colleagues who were successful in the 2023-2024 round of research grant funding by Hong Kong's Research Grants Council (RGC). Six General Research Fund (GRF) projects were funded to study the abuse of dominance in the digital age; to examine the reformation of administrative law for the coming age of algorithmic government in Hong Kong; to evaluate the process of transnational law-making and its boundaries in trust and succession planning in Hong Kong and Singapore; to conduct field experiments of using cameras in Chinese trials; to study the implications for enhanced intellectual property protection in China through the Chinese music streaming market; to explore possible changes and impacts on the Hong Kong tax system after the social unrest, COVID-19 and PRC factor. Two Early Career Scheme (ECS) project were funded to study political crowdfunding in authoritarian regimes and to conduct a comparative study (Hong Kong, Australia, and England) of trustees’ discretionary powers in express private trusts and their possible control. The details of the new funded projects are as follows:

GRF:

Professor Thomas Cheng

Abuse of Dominance in the Digital Age, HK$664,340

Professor Eric C. Ip

Judging the Automated State: The Reformation of Administrative Law for the Coming Age of Algorithmic Government in Hong Kong under Chinese Sovereignty, HK$457,140

Ms. Rebecca Lee

Trust and succession planning in Hong Kong and Singapore: a critical evaluation of the process of transnational law-making and its boundaries, HK$405,800

Dr John Zhuang Liu

Cameras in the Courtroom: Field Experiments in Real Trials, HK$848,000

Professor Haochen Sun

The Rise of the Chinese Music Streaming Market: Implications for Enhanced Intellectual Property Protection in China, HK$608,400

Mr. Wilson Chow

Hong Kong tax system: New Era! New Wine in New Bottle?, HK$850,000

ECS:
Dr Julius Yam
Political Crowdfunding in Authoritarian Regimes, HK$570,000

Dr Hui Jing

Controlling Trustees’ Discretionary Powers in Express Private Trusts: A Comparative Study of Hong Kong, Australia, and England, HK$473,000

Julius Yam's CCPL Working Paper: Response Paper to the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau’s Public Consultation on Regulation of Crowdfunding Activities

Response Paper to the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau’s Public Consultation on Regulation of Crowdfunding Activities

Julius Yam
February 2023

Executive Summary: The adoption of new technologies like crowdfunding in commerce and for social and political purposes has created new opportunities as well as risks. Crowdfunding fosters innovation, but can also be used for unlawful or illegitimate purposes.

      This paper responds to the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau’s (“FSTB”) public consultation on regulation of crowdfunding activities, and considers whether it is necessary to introduce a new regulatory regime for crowdfunding. It argues that existing laws are capable of addressing most ⎯ if not all ⎯ of the risks that crowdfunding activities pose. Even if the government decides that regulatory intervention is necessary, this paper suggests that its approach should be guided by principles of regulatory certainty, minimizing user inconvenience and administrative feasibility. This enables the benefits crowdfunding offers to be maintained.

     The paper identifies issues raised by the FSTB’s proposal for regulating crowdfunding (“the proposal”) that need to be addressed. It makes six broad recommendations which are summarized as

follows:

1. Identifying the specific risks posed by non-investment-based crowdfunding in Hong Kong and developing solutions that mitigate those risks [paras 14-16].

2. Narrowing the scope of the proposal, including, for example, by [paras 24-26]:

a. Covering only fundraisers that have Hong Kong bank accounts or are companies or other entities registered in Hong Kong.

b. Targeting campaigns that are expected to raise over a certain amount.

c. Broadly interpreting the exceptions proposed.

3. Clarifying the definition, the scope of responsibility and consequences of online crowdfunding platforms under the proposal [paras 31-33].

4. Streamlining the approval system’s procedures [para 44], for example, by:

a. Simplifying application processes.

b. Making assistance from regulators readily available.

c. Creating reasonable time frames for the application process.

5. Providing sector-specific agencies with regulatory powers instead of setting up a centralized approval system [paras 45-46].

6. Setting aside the issue of crowdfunding for litigation purposes [para 50].

We hope that this paper provides a constructive platform for all stakeholders involved to formulate an approach that best meets the interests of Hong Kong as an international financial center.

HKU Law Welcomes Julius Yam, Assistant Professor

Welcome to Mr Julius Yam, our new Assistant Professor in the Department of Law. Julius studies constitutional law and courts from an interdisciplinary perspective. He is a Research Associate at the Programme for the Foundations of Law and Constitutional Government, University of Oxford. Prior to joining HKU, he was a visiting scholar at the Max Planck Fellow Group in Comparative Constitutionalism and Alexander von Humboldt Chair of Comparative Constitutionalism, University of Göttingen. His research areas are constitutional law, courts, and administrative law.

Dziedzic and Yam on Amnesties in Hong Kong (CCPL)

HKU’s Centre for Comparative and Public Law has released Amnesties in Hong Kong: Preliminary Discussion Paper. Authors Anna Dziedzic and Julius Yam argue that amnesty – in the form of pardons and/or immunity from prosecution – provide a way to address the ongoing civil conflict in Hong Kong. Amnesties have been used throughout Chinese history, in Hong Kong and all over the world as a way to bring conflicting parties to the negotiating table, cease hostilities, and to promote reconciliation.

     The Discussion Paper outlines the purpose and justifications for amnesty as well as discussing some of the common objections made to amnesty in Hong Kong. It explains how amnesty is not contrary to the rule of law, but rather, properly designed and implemented, amnesty can be consistent with Hong Kong’s existing legal framework and work to support amnesties can support peace, good governance, justice and the rule of law. 

     Global comparative experience offers a range of choices for the design of amnesty. The Discussion Paper suggests some options for design, tailored to meet the current needs of Hong Kong, covering questions such as: Whom should an amnesty cover? What offences should be included (or excluded)? What time period should the amnesty cover? What conditions might be attached to an amnesty? What procedure might be adopted for assessing and granting amnesty? The Discussion Paper also emphasises the importance of the design process: if amnesty is to work to defuse conflict, it is also important that all sides take ownership of the amnesty and work to make it effective and sustainable. 

     By explaining what amnesty is, why it is used, how it fits within Hong Kong law and the kinds of issues to consider in its design, the Discussion Paper provides a basis for informed discussion of the use of amnesty in Hong Kong and its potential to contribute to rebuilding trust and reconciliation. Click here to download the full Discussion Paper (in English) and Chinese translation.