Showing posts with label Shitong Qiao. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shitong Qiao. Show all posts

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.

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:

Friday, April 16, 2021

Qiao & Hills on "Here’s How Transferable Development Rights Outweigh Lantau Reclamation Plan in Ending Hong Kong Housing Crisis" (SCMP Opinion)

    Concrete Analysis by Qiao Shitong and Roderick Hills Jr.
    31 March 2021

    Housing in Hong Kong is among the least affordable in the world. And the problem is not lack of land, but lack of development. Three quarters of Hong Kong’s land is vacant, and much of this is reasonably buildable territory.
         In particular, Hong Kong contains 1,414 hectares (3,494 acres) of brownfield sites and another 1,200 hectares of country development land reserved for indigenous villagers of the New Territories that is all suitable for high-density residential construction. Click here to read the full text. 

    Sunday, March 14, 2021

    Shitong Qiao & Wenzheng Mao on Legal Doctrine and Judicial Review of Eminent Domain in China (Law & Social Inquiry)

    Wenzheng Mao and Shitong Qiao
    Law & Social Inquiry
    Published online: 22 February 2021
    Abstract: Which of the three legal doctrines of public use, just compensation, and due process is the most effective in constraining abuses of eminent domain power? This paper addresses this question for the first time and presents the first-ever systematic investigation of the judicial review of eminent domain in China. Our empirical study reveals that Chinese courts focus on eminent domain procedures while rarely supporting claims based on public interest or just compensation. Procedural rules are determinate and therefore easier to enforce than substantial standards of public interest and just compensation. Chinese courts also choose to focus on eminent domain procedures to confine their own judicial review power for the purpose of self-preservation in an authoritarian state that empowers the courts to monitor and control local governments but does not want them to become too powerful. The study calls for a “due process revolution” in eminent domain law and introduces the “judicial politics of legal doctrine” approach to the study of Chinese law, an approach that takes both political institutions and legal doctrines seriously.  Click here to download from SSRN.

    Friday, February 19, 2021

    Shitong Qiao & Roderick Hills Jr on Killing Two Birds with One Stone: How to End Rural Land Expropriation and Secure Tenure for Urban Property Owners (USALI Perspectives)

    Shitong Qiao & Roderick M Hills Jr
    USALI Perspectives
    21 January 2021
    Consider two apparently distinct problems that currently vex Chinese land policy. First, what is going to happen when the seventy-year term of land use rights (LURs) for homeowners in Chinese cities expires? LURs are similar to ground leases in common law jurisdictions, except that the owner and lessor of all urban land is the government. Although shorter-lived LURs in some cities have already reached term and been renewed, and Premier Li Keqiang assured homeowners in 2017 that there was no need for worry, the continued absence of formal legal guidance is striking. The drafting of China’s new Civil Code, which replaces the Property Law among others, offered a good opportunity to solve the LUR puzzle, but the final draft approved in May 2020 failed to do so. As more and more LURs come to the end of their terms in coming decades, the question about whether and how such leases can be renewed has become increasingly pressing. To frame the issue in more radical terms, as Professor Robert Ellickson did in 2012: “[I]f current policies continue, the health of every private industrial, commercial, and residential enterprise in China will fade as its fixed-term land contract winds down.”... Click here to read the full text. 

    Shitong Qiao on A New Age for the WHO? Comments on "The WHO in the Age of the Coronavirus: (USALI Perspectives)


    Shitong Qiao
    USALI Perspectives
    4 January 2021
    In a paper recently published by the American Journal of International Law, USALI Faculty Director José E. Alvarez offered five reasons the World Health Organization is in crisis as well as suggestions for reform. Professor Alvarez also discussed his analysis in this USALI Perspectives essay, and in this October 28 talk. Professor Shitong Qiao of Hong Kong University served as commentator in the October 28 program. This essay summarizes his observations. 
         There is much to agree with in Professor José E. Alvarez’s argument that COVID-19 may ultimately drive organizational change at the World Health Organization (WHO). Indeed, nation states are currently discussing how to reform the WHO, with even China supporting a comprehensive review of the WHO regime. From the starting point of a shared vision of the WHO as defined in the WHO Constitution, I would like to provide a realistic assessment of how China might respond to Professor Alvarez’s proposals for WHO reform... Click here to read the full text.

    Wednesday, August 5, 2020

    Congratulations to HKU Law Scholars Awarded Tenure in 2020

    Congratulations to Kelvin Kwok, Dr Peter Chau and Dr Shitong Qiao on being awarded tenure and the title of Associate Professor at HKU's Faculty of Law.
         The Faculty of Law is the longest established law school in Hong Kong. It adopts a rigorous process of external review for all tenure and promotion applications. The award of tenure is a recognition of the all-round excellence in research, teaching, service and knowledge exchange demonstrated by these individuals in their years as tenure-track assistant professors.
         Kelvin Kwok researches in the areas of competition law and consumer protection. He has been the principal investigator of two General Research Fund (GRF) grants awarded by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council. He was awarded the Faculty Research Output Prize 2015 and the King’s/HKU Fellowship Award 2018-19. He has served as an editor of the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, Hong Kong Law Journal, and China Antitrust Law Journal
         Dr Peter Chau researches in the area of legal theory, initially on the topic of criminal punishment and now increasingly on private law areas such as tort law. He  received two GRF grants. From 2015 to 2017, his funded project was on “Proportionality in Criminal Punishment”. In 2018, he obtained a grant on “Examining Non-Instrumental Justifications for Tort Compensation”.
          Dr Shitong Qiao is well-known for doing research in  Chinese property law and theory.  He was the Ken Young-Gak Yun & Jinah Park Yun Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Duke University in Spring 2019 and the inaugural Jerome A. Cohen Visiting Professor of Law at NYU in Spring 2020. His monograph, Chinese Small Property: The Co-Evolution of Law and Social Norms, was published in 2017 by Cambridge University Press and won the inaugural Masahiko Aoki Award for Economic Paper from Tsinghua University. In dissertation form, it won the Judge Ralph K. Winter Prize (awarded annually to the best student paper written in law and economics at Yale Law School).  All the very best to our three colleagues as they move on to the next phase of their academic careers.

    Monday, December 16, 2019

    HKU Law's SSRN Legal Studies Research Paper Series (May - Dec 2019)


    Vol. 9, No. 7: December 10, 2019

    Table of Contents

    Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
    Douglas W. Arner, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
    Robin Veidt, University of Luxembourg - Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance
    Dirk A. Zetzsche, Universite du Luxembourg - Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf - Center for Business & Corporate Law (CBC)

    Ilias Bantekas, Brunel University London - Brunel Law School
    Pietro Ortolani, Radboud University
    Shahla F. Ali, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
    Manuel A. Gomez, Florida International University College of Law
    Michael Polkinghorne, White & Case LLP

    Johannes M M Chan, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Alex Schwartz, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Angela Huyue Zhang, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Eric C. Ip, The University of Hong Kong

    Shahla F. Ali, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Albert H. Y. Chen, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law


    Vol. 9, No. 6: Oct 31, 2019


    Table of Contents

    Shitong Qiao, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Alex Green, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong
    Jennifer Hendry, School of Law, University of Leeds

    Successful Secession and theValue of International Recognition
    Alex Green, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong

    Remedial Discretion and Dilemmasin Asia
    Po Jen Yap, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law


    Vol. 9, No. 5: Oct 17, 2019


    Table of Contents

    Anna Dziedzic, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne - Melbourne Law School
    Cheryl Saunders, University of Melbourne - Law School

    Jingyi Wang, Peking University - Peking University School of Transnational Law
    Wilson Chow, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Johannes M M Chan, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Po Jen Yap, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law


    Vol. 9, No. 4: September 19, 2019

    SIMON N. M. YOUNG, EDITOR

    Table of Contents

    Syren Johnstone, Department of Law, University of Hong Kong, Asian Institute of International Financial Law

    Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
    Douglas W. Arner, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
    Dirk A. Zetzsche, Universite du Luxembourg - Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf - Center for Business & Corporate Law (CBC)

    Federico Panisi, University of Brescia
    Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
    Douglas W. Arner, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Douglas W. Arner, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
    Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
    Anton Didenko, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
    Cyn-Young Park, Asian Development Bank
    Emilija Pashoska, Universite du Luxembourg - Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance
    Dirk A. Zetzsche, Universite du Luxembourg - Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf - Center for Business & Corporate Law (CBC)
    Bo Zhao, University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Business and Economics, Asian Development Bank - Economic Research and Regional Cooperation Department (ERCD)

    Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
    Emilios Avgouleas, University of Edinburgh - School of Law
    Douglas W. Arner, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Dirk A. Zetzsche, Universite du Luxembourg - Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf - Center for Business & Corporate Law (CBC)
    Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
    Douglas W. Arner, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law


    Vol. 9, No. 3: June 11, 2019


    Table of Contents

    Han Zhu, Centre for Chinese Law, The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law

    Kelvin Hiu Fai Kwok, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
    Ernest Lim, National University of Singapore (NUS) - Faculty of Law

    Han Zhu, Centre for Chinese Law, The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law 
    Albert H. Y. Chen, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Kelvin Hiu Fai Kwok, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Douglas W. Arner, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
    Dirk A. Zetzsche, Universite du Luxembourg - Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf - Center for Business & Corporate Law (CBC)
    Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
    Janos Nathan Barberis, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law


    Vol. 9, No. 2: May 10, 2019


    Table of Contents

    The Future of Data-Driven Finance and RegTech: Lessons from EU Big Bang IIDirk A. Zetzsche, Universite du Luxembourg - Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, Heinrich Heine University Dusseldorf - Center for Business & Corporate Law (CBC)
    Douglas W. Arner, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
    Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
    Rolf H. Weber, University of Zurich - Faculty of Law

    A Network Theory of PatentabilityLaura G. Pedraza-Farina, Northwestern University School of Law
    Ryan Whalen, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    The Age of Remix and Copyright Law Reform
    Yahong Li, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Re-Conceptualizing ‘Object’ Analysis Under Article 101 TFEU: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives
    Kelvin Hiu Fai Kwok, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    What are Law Courses for? Striking a Balance between Professional and Liberal Education GoalsDanny Gittings, University of Hong Kong, College of Humanities and Law, School of Professional and Continuing Education, The University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law

    From Global to Anthropocenic Assemblages: Re-Thinking Territory, Authority and Rights in the New Climatic RegimeDaniel Matthews, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

    Thursday, August 29, 2019

    HKU Excellence Awards 2018 (Faculty of Law Awardees)

    Congratulations to all Faculty of Law colleagues who were recognised in the HKU Excellence Awards 2018.
    OUTSTANDING YOUNG RESEARCHER AWARD
    Miss Cora CHAN Sau Wai, Department of Law
    Dr GU Weixia, Department of Law

    KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE EXCELLENCE AWARD
    'Introducing the Special Needs Trust to Hong Kong'

    FACULTY TEACHING AWARDS
    Dr Peter CHAU Siu Chun, Department of Law
    Ms Daisy CHEUNG Tin Muk, Department of Law
    Dr Eric IP Chi Yeung, Department of Law

    RESEARCH OUTPUT PRIZE
    Chinese Small Property: The Co-Evolution of Law and Social Norms
    By Dr QIAO Shitong, published by CUP 2017, 230 pp

    FACULTY KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE AWARD
    'Introducing the Special Needs Trust to Hong Kong'

    More details of the 2018 HKU awards can be found here.  To view the video clips of the ceremony, Outstanding Young Researcher Awards and Knowledge Exchange Excellence Award, click here.

    Monday, September 24, 2018

    Wendell Pritchett & Shitong Qiao on Exclusionary Megacities (Southern California L Rev)

    "Exclusionary Megacities"
    Wendell Pritchett & Shitong Qiao
    Southern California Law Review
    March 2018, Vol. 91, Issue 3, pp. 467-522
    Abstract: Human beings should live in places where they are most productive, and megacities, where information, innovation, and opportunities congregate, would be the optimal choice. Yet megacities in both China and the United States are excluding people by limiting the housing supply. Why, despite their many differences, is the same type of exclusion happening in both Chinese and U.S. megacities? Urban law and policy scholars argue that Not-In-My-Back-Yard (“NIMBY”) homeowners are taking over megacities in the U.S. and hindering housing development. They pin their hopes on an efficient growth machine that makes sure “above all, nothing gets in the way of building.” Yet the growth-dominated megacities of China demonstrate that relying on business and political elites to provide affordable housing is a false hope. Our comparative study of the homeowner-dominated megacities of the U.S. and growth-dominated megacities of China demonstrates that the origin of exclusionary megacities is not a choice between growth elites and homeowners, but the exclusionary nature of property rights. Our study reveals that megacities in the two countries share a property-centered approach, which prioritizes the maximization of existing property interests and neglects the interests of the ultimate consumersof housing, resulting in housing that is unaffordable. Giving housing consumers a voice in land use control and urban governance becomes the last resort to counteract this result. This comparative study shows that the conventional triangular framework of land use—comprising government, developers, and homeowners—is incomplete, and argues for a citizenship-based approach to urban governance.  Click here to read the full article.

    Saturday, July 14, 2018

    Friday, July 13, 2018

    RGC Awards $6 Million in Research Grant Funding to HKU Faculty of Law

    Congratulations to our 11 colleagues who were successful in the 2018-2019 round of research grant funding by Hong Kong's Research Grants Council (RGC).  The success rate for General Research Fund (GRF) projects was 73%, a little better than last year.  The projects cover a range of legal topics of importance to Hong Kong, China and beyond.  This year the largest grant was awarded to Dr Richard Wu for his ongoing and expansive study of law student values.  This is the fifth RGC grant Dr Wu has received in support of his comparative study of law students in 14 jurisdictions.  The details of the new 11 GRF projects are as follows:

    Thursday, July 12, 2018

    Special Symposium Issue on "Decentralization and Development" in Minnesota Law Review Co-Edited by Qiao & Epstein


    The current issue of the Minnesota Law Review, issue 4 of volume 102, publishes papers from a special symposium on decentralisation and development held at the Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong on 14-15 March 2017. It is co-edited by Shitong Qiao (HKU Law) and Richard Epstein (NYU Law).  A group of Asian and American scholars working in the areas of law, economics, and political science debated and discussed questions including what does decentralisation mean, how do we best measure decentralisation, is interjurisdictional competition a race to the bottom or a race to the top, is decentralization desirable in the context of China and other jurisdictions and so on.  The symposium was co-sponsored by New York University's Classical Liberal Institute and HKU's Centre for Chinese Law.  In addition to co-authoring the introduction with Professor Epstein, Dr Qiao also authored "Rights-Weakening Federalism" and co-authored "Binding Leviathan: Credible Commitment in an Authoritarian Regime" in this special issue.  All articles are freely accessible here.  

    Shitong Qiao on "Rights-Weakening Federalism" (Minnesota L Rev)

    "Rights-Weakening Federalism"
    Shitong Qiao
    Minnesota Law Review
    Apr 2018, Vol. 102 Issue 4, pp.1671-1702
    Abstract: This Article examines whether federalism protects land rights in China from two dimensions. I first compare national law with local institutions of eminent domain, revealing that local governments take much more land than the national government approves, frequently violating, tweaking, and challenging national law. I next examine the impact of interjurisdictional competition on the development of local land institutions, demonstrating that local governments are weakening individual land rights for the benefits of mobile capital. Overall, Chinese federalism weakens rather than strengthens individual land rights and should be called rights-weakening federalism. This China case also has general theoretical implications. Leading property law scholars in the United States have debated whether federalism protects land rights for decades but have achieved no consensus. The existing debate centers around the immobility of land, however, this Article argues that land immobility is not an essential factor. The structure and power of local governance, the balance between land and capital in particular, matters much more. Hence, the better question to ask with respect to interjurisdictional competition is who benefits from the competition. This Article also poses a more fundamental challenge to the literature on interjurisdictional competition by adopting agglomeration economics, which poses the question of whether such competition constitutes sorting or agglomeration. All the existing literature on property rights and federalism presumes a market of sorting--that investors are indifferent to location, and are thus attracted by local governments offering the best price or strongest protection. However, urbanization and industrialization in China are actually a process of agglomeration, which determines that a few cities with a natural, or at least initial, advantage are taking over, and the local governments of the remainder will therefore eventually lose in the competition. The implication is that interjurisdictional competition is a race to the bottom for most local governments rather than a win-win game as the sorting literature suggests.  Click here to download the full article.

    Roderick Hills and Shitong Qiao on "Binding Leviathan: Credible Commitment in an Authoritarian Regime" (Minnesota L Rev)

    Roderick M Hills Jr and Shitong Qiao
    Minnesota Law Review 
    Apr 2018, Vol. 102 Issue 4, pp. 1591-161
    Abstract: The problem of credible commitment dogs every government, whether democratic or authoritarian. Authoritarian bureaucracies face special credible commitment problems. Fear that local officials will build up a local power base has historically induced the leadership of China, Imperial and Communist alike, to frequently transfer local officials among subnational jurisdictions. Such frequent transfers undermine those officials' capacity to make the credible commitments that officials with more stable tenure can make with ease. Moreover, authoritarian regimes discourage the development of independent institutions--like investor-owned banks or locally elected legislatures--that are independent from local executive officials and that might otherwise act as monitors and enforcers of long-term commitments. We describe how these problems of credible commitment posed by China's cadre transfer policy and, more generally, the Chinese Communist Party's distrust of divided power lead to excessive municipal debt in China. We also propose three new institutional solutions for resolving the credible commitment problem of China's authoritarian regime. In the end, we conclude that there is no magical solution that can reassure stakeholders, such as lenders or home buyers, that an autocratic mayor will follow through on his or her promises. All of our proposed solutions, however, trade on the intuition that even modest institutional limits on power, compatible with China's one-party system of democratic centralism, can mitigate the problem of powerlessness ironically created by authoritarian power.  Click here to download the full article.

    Friday, June 15, 2018

    Johannes Chan's "A Storm of Unprecedented Ferocity" (ICON)

    Johannes Chan
    June 2018
    ICON, Volume 6, Issue 2
    Abstract:  As Hong Kong celebrated its twentieth anniversary of becoming a Special Administrative Region of China under the One Country, Two Systems model, the tension between the socialist/civil law system and the common law system on two sides of the border has become increasingly strenuous.  The tension is most obvious in relation to the independence of the judiciary, and is aggravated by the rising economic power of China and the emergence of the so-called “localism” in Hong Kong.  This article argues that the latest interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in the context of disqualifying a number of popularly elected legislators constituted the most blatant interference with judicial independence in Hong Kong.  At the same time, the judiciary in Hong Kong is facing mounting challenges from demonstrators who tried to test the boundary of public demonstrations in the pretext of civil disobedience.  The court has done well so far in defending the rule of law, but it has to secure its own institutional space within a shrinking public space, and is treading an ever-slippery path of maintaining the liberal values of the common law system amidst a rising and powerful authoritarian regime. 
        This special issue of ICON which is focused on Asia also has review essays by Hualing Fu (with Xiaobo Zhai) and Maria Adele Carrai (PhD 2016) and book reviews by Po Jen Yap (with Chintan Chandrachud), Albert Chen and Kelley Loper.  Recent books authored by Po Jen Yap (Courts and Democracies in Asia) and Shitong Qiao (Chinese Small Property: The Co-Evolution of Law and Social Norms) are also reviewed in this issue.