Stefan Lo on The Stillborn Statutory Corporate Rescue Procedure in Hong Kong: Lost Opportunities and Future Possibilities (JICL)

"The Stillborn Statutory Corporate Rescue Procedure in Hong Kong: Lost Opportunities and Future Possibilities"
Stefan Lo
Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol 12 Issue 2, pp. 263-298
Published online: December 2025

Abstract: The process for reform of corporate restructuring laws in Hong Kong to facilitate the rehabilitation of companies in financial distress has been a difficult and protracted one. Since the late 1990s, the Hong Kong government has attempted, unsuccessfully, on a number of occasions to enact a statutory corporate rescue procedure to address gaps and problems in the existing law. The most recent attempt had led to a draft Companies (Corporate Rescue) Bill that was close to finalisation in 2020–2021, but the Bill was in the end not introduced into the legislature due to opposition from some stakeholders (such as the labour sector and small businesses) on aspects of the proposed procedure. The reform process is now stalled. It is argued in this article that the perceived difficulties were to a large extent already addressed by the draft Bill and that it is imperative for the Hong Kong government to re-start the reform process to enact reforms which are long overdue and which are vital for development and maintenance of Hong Kong’s status as an international centre of commerce and finance.

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.

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.

Trevor Wan on Globetrotting Advocates: Foreign Barristers in Hong Kong Courts (AJCL)

"Globetrotting Advocates: Foreign Barristers in Hong Kong Courts"
Trevor Wan
The American Journal of Comparative Law
Published Online: November 2025

Abstract: Foreign barristers, typically King’s Counsel from the United Kingdom, can apply for admission on an ad hoc basis to argue cases before the Hong Kong courts. This Article presents a comprehensive account of this regime of ad hoc admissions, which has not yet been systematically examined by scholars. Building upon, and simultaneously challenging, the theory of market control in the sociology of the legal profession, this Article conceptualizes the system as initially an equilibrium between market demand for high-caliber legal services and market control by the local Bar. The transfer of sovereignty in 1997 prompted a shift in the underlying logic of the regime away from market control to politics. Under the new Chinese Special Administrative Region, the regime became integral to preserving Hong Kong’s global standing. A bundle of political factors, tied to the notion of “foreignness,” began to dictate its trajectory. Furthermore, this Article offers an empirical panorama of ad hoc admissions, documenting the trends and patterns over time, profiles of the foreign barristers, types of cases for which they were engaged, clients involved, and reasons for opposing individual admission applications by the Hong Kong Bar Association, Secretary for Justice, and the Court of First Instance. Last but not least, this Article assesses the ongoing criticisms, politicization, and securitization of the regime, while probing its future in light of changes in the underlying political incentive structure.

Weilin Xiao awarded the Hessel Yntema Prize 2025

Congratulations to Weilin Xiao, whose article “Expansion and Restriction: Divergent Paths Towards Modernizing Family Law in China and Japan, 1868-1930” was awarded the Hessel Yntema Prize 2025 by the American Society of Comparative Law. This article forms the first part of Weilin's doctoral dissertation, which he is currently developing into a book manuscript

Background on the prize: Established in 1991 to honor the first editor in chief of the American Journal of Comparative Law, the Hessel Yntema prize of $1,500 recognizes the “most outstanding” article by a younger scholar under 40 years of age published in a recent volume of the Journal. Please click here for more details regarding the prize.

Lusina Ho and Felix Chang on Intestacy and Inequality Under China’s Revised Succession Law (AJCL)

"Intestacy and Inequality Under China’s Revised Succession Law"
Felix Chang, Lusina Ho
The American Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 72, Issue 3, Fall 2024, pp. 487–527
Published online: June 2025

Abstract: This Article assesses how Chinese intestacy laws augment and redress wealth inequality. In 2021, China’s first civil code took effect, reforming, among other things, the decades-old Succession Law. Focusing on the Intestacy Rules within the Revised Succession Law, we show how the prioritization of testamentary freedom and intrafamilial wealth preservation undercuts the Chinese Communist Party’s goal of curbing inequality, especially as espoused under common prosperity.

Because China does not assess an estate tax, the Revised Succession Law stands as the body of law that most directly governs the intergenerational transmission of wealth. Further, because estate planning is still new in China, intestacy remains prevalent, so the Intestacy Rules have an outsized effect on wealth distribution. Yet only a small subset of the Rules effectuates redistribution; even then, wealth is primarily moved around within a household or kinship unit. Against this backdrop, we advance three modest proposals to enlist the Intestacy Rules in the effort to curtail the intergenerational stickiness of inequality, while recognizing that without an estate tax and other affirmative steps by the government, the prospect of impactful redistribution is slim.

New book by Shiling Xiao on Judicial Review in Greater China (Routledge)

Judicial Review in Greater China: Activism and Deference of Four Apex Courts
Shiling Xiao (PhD Graduate)
Routledge
Published in June 2025
260 pp.

Description: This book examines the judicial review systems in the four areas of Greater China – China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau – and uncovers judicial review activities of the apex courts of each region. It provides a comparative assessment of judicial activism and deference. The development of modern judicial review is one of the key elements of the twentieth century’s legal heritage. By enforcing the principles of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and human rights protection, many courts have been vested with unprecedented powers and have played an essential role in supervising the exercise of government power through constitutional and administrative review. This work investigates the most up-to-date aspects of judicial review in Greater China and reflects on the modern theory regarding the judicialization of politics in different political regimes: democratic, authoritarian, and hybrid. The volume collects all substantive judicial review decisions delivered in the past twenty years by the four apex courts: the China’s Supreme People’s Court, the Taiwan Constitutional Court, the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong, and the Court of Final Appeal of Macau. This comprehensive dataset includes some 800 judicial review decisions, presenting a comprehensive resource of fundamental baseline data for evaluating judicial review in Greater China. The book will be an invaluable companion for scholars and researchers working in the areas of Comparative Public Law, Comparative Constitutional Law, Constitutional Politics, and Asian Studies.

Xin He on The Judicial System of China (Oxford University Press)

The Judicial System of China
Xin He
Oxford University Press
Published in November 2024

Abstract: Grounded in both English- and Chinese-language sources, The Judicial System of China is a systematic study of Chinese courts after Xi Jinping took power and thoroughly reformed China’s judiciary. How have Chinese courts come to the shape they are in today? How are decisions made on the major categories of cases—civil, criminal, and administrative? What drives and explains the behavior of the judges? How do the common people view the law and courts? How are the legal professions developed, and what are their roles in court? How do the judges interact with other actors—their political bosses, the prosecutors, and the lawyers? Different from the judicial independence perspective and the rights-protection approach, this book presents a governance model for understanding the operation of the Chinese court system, under which the courts have two overarching characteristics—policy implementation and legitimacy enhancement. The various policies that the courts are tasked with implementing, and the approaches the courts use for enhancing the judiciary’s legitimacy— and, by extension, that of the state, have played key roles in the courts’ evolution. This book is as much an account of Chinese courts in action as a social ethnography of China in the midst of momentous social change.

Po Jen Yap on Dialogic Judicial Review and First World Autocracies (new book chapter)

"Dialogic Judicial Review and First World Autocracies"
Po Jen Yap
in Madhav Khosla (ed),Vicki C Jackson (ed),Redefining Comparative Constitutional Law: Essays for Mark Tushnet (Oxford University Press),Chapter 19,pp.274 - 292
Published online: November 2024

Abstract: Dialogic or weak-form review is the only viable and effective path for courts operating in First World autocracies. The judicial use of strong-form review to address problems posed by sedition laws and restrictions on the franchise—as Mark Tushnet suggests—would be counterproductive as this would only be to the detriment of the courts. At the same time, I argue that dialogic review is not judicial abdication. I will also show how weak-form review has enhanced rights protection in Singapore and Hong Kong, and has imposed soft but meaningful controls on state power in these autocracies. Precisely because these autocracies want to remain First World, the perceived independence of the courts must be preserved for their governments to retain talent and continued investments in the economy. Governments in First World autocracies are sensitive to global businesses’ perception of the regime’s commitment to the rule of law as that directly impacts the entity’s economic future. This is unlike military dictatorships and banana republics, where the rent-seeking behavior of autocrats is driven primarily by the self-interest of its cabal. Therefore, in First World autocracies, so long as the courts respect the regime’s plenary agenda-setting powers, the government will in turn acquiesce to the judiciary’s calibrated show of force to preserve rights.

Congratulations to Xin He, Mok Sau-King Professorship in Law

Congratulations to Professor Xin He who has been appointed to the Mok Sau-King Professorship in Law at the University of Hong Kong.

Professor He is a leading authority and an eminent scholar on comparative Chinese law. He writes principally on the role of courts and the judicial process in Chinese society. He is an award-winning author and undoubtedly one of the most prolific and widely-published Chinese law scholar in the English world. His record of publication is exceptional, in terms of both volume, as measured by annual output, and quality, as judged by the ranking of journals and the reputation of publishers.

Trevor Wan on Unshackling from Shadows of the Anisminic Orthodoxy: Reconceptualising Approaches to Ouster Clauses in Hong Kong (AsJCL)

"Unshackling from Shadows of the Anisminic Orthodoxy: Reconceptualising Approaches to Ouster Clauses in Hong Kong"
Trevor Wan
Asian Journal of Comparative Law, First View, pp. 1 - 27
Published online: October 2024

Abstract: Ouster clauses have perennially borne the mantle of a ‘litigation minefield’, where clashes between legislative and judicial powers unfold in open fora. Recent jurisprudential advancements in the United Kingdom and Singapore demonstrate how judicial approaches to ouster clauses can evolve in the face of constitutional developments. Hong Kong has, however, remained muted while these jurisprudential advancements bear fruit in other parts of the common law world, notwithstanding the fact that its constitutional framework, umpired by the Basic Law, has been in existence for over twenty-five years. This article argues for the need to reconceptualise approaches to ouster clauses in Hong Kong, grounded firmly in its post-1997 constitutional framework. Drawing on comparative jurisprudence, it presents a spectrum of approaches, animated by the dynamic interplay between various ‘macrocontextual’ and ‘microcontextual’ factors, ranging from a localised version of Anisminic, remedial interpretation, and invalidation of ouster clauses on the grounds that they impermissibly affront the constitutional right of access to courts, allocation of judicial power, and constitutional supremacy.

Weilin Xiao on Expansion and Restriction: Divergent Paths Towards Modernizing Family Laws in Japan and China, 1868–1930 (The American Journal of Comparative Law)

"Expansion and Restriction: Divergent Paths Towards Modernizing Family Laws in Japan and China, 1868–1930"
Weilin Xiao
The American Journal of Comparative Law
Published online: August 2024

Abstract: Before their encounters with Western powers in the nineteenth century, Chinese and Japanese societies were deeply embedded in traditional family systems that formed the backbone of their social structures. However, with the onset of legal modernization, these nations adopted nearly diametrically opposed strategies for reforming their customary family laws. Primarily, Japanese legal reformers under the Meiji regime bolstered the family’s authority and emphasized its political role. In stark contrast, the Chinese legal reformers during the late Qing and Republican periods curtailed family authority and diminished its significance. While the modernization of family laws in Japan and China has been the subject of scholarly research respectively, the differences between the two countries and the reasons behind their distinct approaches have not been adequately explored. This Article seeks to fill this gap.

Through a comparative analysis of the legislative histories of both countries, this Article argues that their divergent paths stemmed from differences in the historical functions of family systems and the modern political contexts encountered by legal reformers during the period of legal modernization. In Japan, the family system was historically politically connected with the state, and the Meiji regime solidified its control over this system through modern codification efforts. Consequently, Meiji political elites saw the integration of the populace into the new absolutist imperial regime as advantageous, leveraging the political loyalty of families to achieve this. In contrast, the Chinese family system had become politically disconnected from the state by the late imperial era. In the aftermath of the Republican Revolution, the Guomindang regime navigated a landscape of rival political forces that significantly challenged its authority. Political elites aimed to dismantle customary family laws to weaken the traditional family system, which they viewed as a threat to governmental centralization and societal unity. They also sought to project a modern, liberal image to garner wider political support.

HKU Law Welcomes Prof. Trevor Wan

Welcome to Prof. Trevor Wan, who joins the Faculty of Law as an Assistant Professor.

Trevor T. W. Wan is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong (HKU), where he serves as Deputy Director of the Bachelor of Social Sciences (Government and Laws) and Bachelor of Laws dual degree programme.

His research harnesses interdisciplinary approaches drawn mainly from political science, among other fields, to study comparative constitutional and administrative law, coronial law and forensic jurisprudence. His work has appeared, or is forthcoming, in leading peer-reviewed periodicals including the International Journal of Constitutional Law, Public Law, German Law Journal, Judicial Review, Asian Journal of Comparative Law, Statute Law Review, and Journal of Criminal Law.

Born and raised in Hong Kong, Trevor holds an LL.M. from Harvard Law School where he was the Hong Kong Jockey Club Fellow, and an LL.B. and a B.Soc.Sc. in Government and Laws from HKU, both with First Class Honours. He is a member of the International Society of Public Law and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. He currently serves as an Associate Editor of the Hong Kong Law Journal, the flagship faculty journal of HKU Law.

Trevor's Research areas include:

• Comparative Constitutional Law
• Comparative Administrative Law
• Coronial Law

HKU Law Welcomes Prof. Weilin Xiao

Welcome to Prof. Weilin Xiao, who joins the Faculty of Law as an Assistant Professor.

Weilin Xiao’s academic interests include family law, comparative law, and legal history, with a focus on the East Asian region. In 2021, Weilin’s paper, “Expansion and Restriction: A Comparative Study of Modernization of Family Laws in Japan and China,” was awarded the Colin B. Picker Graduate Prize by the American Society of Comparative Law.

His J.S.D. dissertation, currently undergoing revision for publication as a monograph, concerns the divergent approaches toward modernizing family laws in Japan and China. Through a comparative perspective, Weilin seeks to answer why Japan and China coordinated legal transplantation and their own customary family laws differently, and how such choices shaped the modernization of those countries in the twentieth century.

Weilin obtained his J.S.D. degree from Yale Law School in 2024, following his LL.M. degree earned in 2019. Weilin was a Yale Legal History Forum Fellow in 2023. During the 2022–2023 academic year, Weilin was a Yale Fox International Fellow at the School of Law, Waseda University. He spent the 2019–2020 academic year as a Visiting Researcher at the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, the University of Tokyo, under the International Dissertation Research Fellowship awarded by the Yale MacMillan Center. Prior to Yale, Weilin completed his LL.B. and first LL.M. degree at Peking University.

Hui Jing on Third-Party and Bankruptcy Effects under Chinese Trust Law: Comparisons with English Trust Law (Asian Journal of Comparative Law)

"Third-Party and Bankruptcy Effects under Chinese Trust Law: Comparisons with English Trust Law"
Hui Jing
Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Published online: April 2024

Abstract: In English law, the trust's third-party and bankruptcy effects contribute significantly to its wide use in commercial transactions. In view of the trust's attractiveness in conducting commercial dealings, China has also introduced the trust model into its domestic legal system to enhance its financial infrastructure. However, given the extent to which Chinese law has been influenced by the Roman-Germanic tradition, China's replication of the trust's third-party and bankruptcy effects has encountered doctrinal obstacles. Drawing upon the experience of its Northeast Asian forerunners, China has established two mechanisms to achieve the third-party and bankruptcy effects: the regime of trust fund independence and the granting of the right of rescission to beneficiaries. These two mechanisms represent the adjustments made by Chinese legislators in the process of transplanting the trust model into the Chinese legal context. Adopting a comparative law perspective, this article examines these mechanisms in the Chinese law setting for two reasons: first, to explore the mechanisms’ constituent elements and their operation, as well as the roles of both mechanisms in the Chinese trust law system; and second, to furnish comparative law scholarship with broader insights into rule transplantation and reconciliation.

New Book edited by Po Jen Yap and Mathias Siems: The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Law (Cambridge University Press)

The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Law
Edited by Mathias Siems, Po Jen Yap
Cambridge University Press
Published in February 2024
780 pp.

Book Description: Comparative law is a common subject-matter of research and teaching in many universities around the world, and the twenty-first century has aptly been termed 'the era of comparative law'. This Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Law presents a truly global perspective of comparative law today. The contributors are drawn from all parts of the world to provide different perspectives on how we understand the 'law' and how it operates in practice. In substance, the Handbook contains 36 chapters covering a broad range of topics, divided under the following headings: 'Methods of Comparative Law' (Part I), 'Legal Families and Geographical Comparisons' (Part II), 'Central Themes in Comparative Law' (Part III); and 'Comparative Law beyond the State' (Part IV).

Abstract of book review by Fernanda Pirie on 16 November 2024:

The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Law, edited by Matthias Siems and Po Jen Yap, continues recent calls to expand the field of comparative law. By including authors drawn from all parts of the world, it presents ‘new perspectives’ on the field. This wide geographic remit proves successful as a way of moving beyond traditional ‘families’ and doctrinal topics. The contributors raise new themes for comparison, many related to public law and processes of change. But this, in turn, raises questions about the purposes of expanding the field. The volume largely concerns the laws and legal issues of modern states, and the authors do not venture far into history. Nor do they consider the alternatives offered by religious and traditional legal systems or forms of non-state ordering. I suggest that these subjects could productively expand the field even further, raising more theoretical questions about what law is and does.

(Please click here to view the full text of book review.)

Taorui Guan on Intellectual Property Legislation Holism in China (University of Pennsylvania Asian Law Review)

"Intellectual Property Legislation Holism in China"
Taorui Guan
University of Pennsylvania Asian Law Review, (vol. 18, (2023), pp. 81-140)

Published online: December 2023

Introduction: Over the past forty years, Western policy makers, commentators, and scholars have followed the development of China’s intellectual property system with interest. Many Western countries have exported intellectual products to China, and the protection that China’s intellectual property system provides affects these countries’ gains.  Some of them, particularly the United States, complain that China does not provide sufficient protection of intellectual property rights. When scholars study China’s intellectual property system, they tend to focus on whether the Chinese government has granted intellectual property rights to some particular kinds of intellectual products and whether it has effectively enforced these rights. Over the years, there have been studies claiming that the level of protection of intellectual property rights in China is inadequate, but more recent research has suggested that the opposite might be the case....read full article here.

Simon Young on Hong Kong's Comparative Law (New Book Chapter)

"Hong Kong"
Simon Young
in Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law 
Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.193–199
Published online: December 2023

I. Introduction

Hong Kong became a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of → China on 1 July 1997. Before then, it was a British colony for more than 150 years. The law of England had full force in the colony of Hong Kong except where it was inapplicable due to the local circumstances of Hong Kong or its inhabitants (Wesley-Smith [1994b] 90). In 1966, the position narrowed, in that the → common law and the rules of → equity of England were in force in Hong Kong provided they were suited to local circumstances and only Acts of Parliament specified in a schedule were applicable to Hong Kong (Wesley-Smith [1994b] 91). Thus, a modified form of English law suited to local circumstances applied in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council, made laws for the peace, order and good government of the colony (Wesley-Smith [1994a] 187). But colonial laws repugnant to an Act of Parliament applying to Hong Kong would be absolutely void and inoperative (A Solicitor v The Law Society of Hong Kong [2003]; Wesley-Smith [1994a] 195). The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was Hong Kong’s final appellate court and its decisions in appeals from Hong Kong were binding on all Hong Kong courts according to the doctrine of precedent (A Solicitor v The Law Society of Hong Kong [2008]). However, judicial decisions of the House of Lords (→ United Kingdom Supreme Court) and the Privy Council in non-Hong Kong appeals were technically not binding though in practice highly persuasive. English legal traditions took root in the colonial era and endured after 1997. For example, barristers still wear gowns and wigs in proceedings in the higher courts (Ip [2019] 313).

In a bilateral agreement signed on 19 December 1984, generally known as the Sino-British Joint Declaration...

Albert Chen on China's Comparative Law (New Book Chapter)

"China"
Albert Chen
in Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law 
Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.229–235
Published online: December 2023

I. Introductions

Chinese civilization reached a high level of development at the same time as that of ancient Greece and Rome. A legal tradition evolved in China that shaped the traditional legal systems in → Korea, → Japan and → Vietnam. A sophisticated philosophy of law known as Legalism emerged in the fourth century BCE which viewed law and criminal punishment as the primary means of social control and of State-building. An opposing school of thought at the time was Confucianism, which advocated instead governance by rulers practising moral virtues and by moral education of subjects. During the Warring States period (475-221 BCE), the Qin State adopted and practised Legalism, and eventually succeeded to unify China by conquering the other States. However, the Qin dynasty was short-lived; it was followed by the Han Dynasty (202 BCE-220 CE) which adopted Confucianism as the official ideology. The Chinese legal system in subsequent dynasties embodied a synthesis of Legalism and Confucianism. As stated in the comprehensive law code of the Tang Dynasty (618-907 CE), ‘virtue and morals are the foundation of government and education, while laws and punishments are the operative agencies of government and education. The former and the latter are necessary complements to each other’. At the time of the Song Dynasty (960-1276 CE), China operated one of the most advanced legal systems in the world. The last major code of the traditional Chinese legal system was that of the Qing Dynasty (1644- 1911 CE). Traditional Chinese codes contained elaborate provisions on → criminal law and the law of public administration. The principal source of civil and commercial law was customary law. Traditional China promoted mediation as a major means of dispute settlement; civil litigation (→ Civil Procedure) in the courts was considered a matter of last resort. There was no respectable profession of lawyers like that in ancient Rome. Lawmaking was the prerogative of the emperor; there were no Parliamentary institutions like those in mediaeval Europe. The challenge of the West since China’s defeat in the Opium War in 1842 prompted the Chinese elite to seek modernization for China. Efforts at legal modernization were made in the first decade of the twentieth century. Codes of law based on Western models were drafted, including codes of criminal law, civil law, commercial law, criminal procedure and civil procedure, and a new organic law of courts. Steps were taken towards constitutional reform for the purpose of establishing a constitutional monarchy like that in Meiji Japan. An ‘Imperial Constitutional Outline’ was promulgated in 1908, and thereafter provincial assemblies and a national assembly were elected. However, the Qing Empire was soon overthrown by the 1911 Revolution...

Ryan Whalen on Quantitative Methods in Comparative Law (New Book Chapter)

"Quantitative Methods in Comparative Law"
Ryan Whalen
in Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law 
Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.277–283
Published online: December 2023

I. Overview and background

Quantitative comparative law includes any research that entails the collection and analysis of quantitative data with the aim of comparing legal systems or jurisdictions. As such it is a large, and growing, body of work that intersects not only with traditional comparative law research, but also that in many cognate disciplines such as economics or sociology. Although quantitative methods represent a relatively fast-growing area of comparative law, the adoption of quantitative methods to answer questions of comparative law has been somewhat slower than in other related areas of study (Adams and others [2017]; Spamann [2009]). 

     In some ways, the late arrival of quantitative methods to comparative law is surprising. After all, the interdisciplinary nature of comparative law exposes its scholars to areas of inquiry that other disciplines have long approached with quantitative methods. Comparative legal scholars overlap in many ways with criminologists, sociologists, economists, political scientists and others who often turn to quantitative methods as one set of tools within their disciplinary toolbox. Furthermore, quantifying things is one of the clearest ways to generate comparisons. Indeed, as children learn about the fundamentals of comparison they often do so in a quantitative fashion (e.g. One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish by Dr Seuss [1960]). This might lead one to think that comparativists should be especially prone to quantitative approaches to their research. However, for a variety of reasons – including the nature of graduate legal education and the fact that law is largely a professional discipline with texts at its foundations – adoption of quantitative methods in comparative law has been slower than in other related areas of study. Although it may have been somewhat slower to adopt quantitative methods than related fields of research, comparative legal scholarship has grown steadily more receptive of these approaches...