Search

A general right to equality is a common feature of written constitutions around the world. Interesting questions arise when one seeks to apply such rights to discrete executive acts. The subject of such acts has necessarily been singled out from a multitude of possibilities for the purposes of the act. To determine whether a differentiation has occurred such that like cases have not been treated alike, to what or whom should this subject be compared? The question of how one selects the proper comparator becomes especially significant when one notes that whether the equal protection guarantee is triggered at all depends on the answer to this question. This paper will study how courts in Hong Kong and Singapore have addressed these difficulties. It argues that three categories of approaches can be discerned in these jurisdictions: class-focused, policy-focused, and justification-focused approaches. It critically evaluates each approach, argues in favour of a justification-focused approach to constitutional equal protection in the context of discrete executive acts, and explores the implications of such an approach for the proper relationship between constitutional equality and administrative law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The law on standing for public interest litigation in Hong Kong appears to be in disarray, as the courts have been vacillating between three different positions. In response to this unsatisfactory state of law, this paper argues that, in deciding whether a public-spirited claimant has locus standi to bring a judicial review claim against the government over the sufferance of a non-private injury, the following test should be employed by the courts. At the threshold stage when seeking leave, as well as proving that he or she has a reasonably arguable case, the applicant must show that he or she is the appropriate candidate to bring this judicial review action. Where the injury is a generalized grievance, this means that the claimant must raise a serious issue of public importance concerning a governmental breach of duty or illegality, and that he or she is a reasonable and effective party to bring this issue before the court. Where the injury is not a generalized grievance but the applicant is essentially asserting a third-party claim on behalf of another, the claimant must prove that he or she shares a close and common interest with the actual aggrieved in the subject matter of the litigation and he or she is a more effective litigant than the latter in bringing suit. These same principles in deciding the appropriateness of the claimant's candidature should also govern the rules of standing when the case goes to trial such that a claimant may still be denied standing at trial after the court has the opportunity to examine the full record at the hearing inter partes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hong Kong's colonial institutions — including its judicial system — have had a profound influence upon the development of the territory during the past 150 years. A factor that has been attributed to Hong Kong's success as a center of both finance and commerce is its well-established common law system, where the Judiciary provides an institutional basis for safeguarding basic rights. Specifically, this included a failure by Great Britain to extend the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights to the territory. It is also evidenced by a similar unwillingness to enact local legislation that would prohibit racial discrimination, which it is obligated to do under the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, which has been in effect since 1969. The paper argues that since the return to Chinese rule in July 1997, the actions of Hong Kong authorities have evidenced a disregard for their obligations under international covenants, as well as for judicial independence.

China imposed a new National Security Law on its Special Administrative Region (SAR) of Hong Kong in mid-2020. The deployment of this legal weapon, combined with other actions of local authorities that have grown noticeably more irritable and vindictive, means that Hong Kong media no longer enjoy the freedom from government restrictions that they had been accustomed to. Hong Kong has thus joined the ranks of the many societies with media environments that are semifree and semi-closed. These societies' experiences indicate that arrests and bans, while attracting the most attention, are not what inflict the most damage in the long run. As alarming as the on-going legal actions are, citizens' access to information and ideas is more likely to be restricted by less spectacular and coercive means, including economic carrots and sticks that encourage a culture of self-censorship. Such an environment requires new mindsets and skillsets among journalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hong Kong's system of administrative law has drawn strength and durability from its English counterpart, on which it was heavily modelled. Too often, however, there is a slavish acceptance of the pre-eminence of English law and a tendency to conservativism and a lack of innovation. This article argues that Hong Kong courts and legislators must dare to diverge from English law where an alternative path would prove more credible or appropriate. Three prisms are deployed through which to argue that a misplaced emulation of English law can result in a poor legal framework. First, it is shown that a failure to properly conceptualize error of law as a ground of judicial review has resulted in a ground that, locally, is in a state of incoherence and disarray and that the admission or non-admission of a distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors urgently requires clarification from the Court of Final Appeal. Second, it is proposed that the English-inspired incorporation of a specific time limit in the rules for applying for judicial review should be abolished in the interests of access to justice and legal certainty, drawing on the experience of jurisdictions such as New Zealand, Canada, and Scotland. Finally, it is explained why the antiquated system of administrative tribunals in Hong Kong, redolent of the unreformed English tribunal system of decades past, needs comprehensive structural and procedural redesign. Courts and legislators must dare to diverge in these areas, with Hong Kong's administrative law standing on its own two feet, where minds are focused on a genuine, locally crafted improvement of standards prevailing in administrative law and public administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the administrative efficiency of the Hong Kong public administration and analyzes its influence over the efficiency and legality of the government decision-making. It analyzes the role of the Hong Kong Legislative Council in regulating the economic structure of the Hong Kong under its administrative law. It mentions that the sovereignty is transferred from the Great Britain to the People's Republic of China expansion of the administrative state.

The article evaluates recent developments of fairness of judicial review by the court of Hong Kong. It examines the latest decisions of the courts involving the development and integration into administrative law. Its key innovations include review of systemic problems with decision-making processes, extension of fairness of such processes and introduction of review with stronger scrutiny of decision-making processes.

The article focuses on the political and religious conditions in Hong Kong after coming under the administration of China in the year 1997. The Basic Law of China guarantees Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy, but also emphasizes the primacy of one state. The article focuses on the political dilemma in Hong Kong which is reflected in the implementation of the law on national security stated in the Basic Law. It has been argued in the article that political tension in Hong Kong generated by one country, two systems should be welcomed rather than avoided, because it paves the way for the emergence of civil society.