Canaries or Colonials? The Reduced Prominence of the ‘Overseas Judges’ on Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal

Typically one member of a sitting panel of Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal is a senior jurist drawn from another common law jurisdiction. In the Court's early years, these ‘overseas judges’ were responsible for writing approximately one quarter of the lead opinions across a vast range of cases. This article demonstrates, however, that this practice has changed. The overseas judges now write a smaller share of lead opinions and no longer write lead opinions related to issues of fundamental human rights or the relationship between Hong Kong and the rest of China. This article suggests this change has been made for good reason. Though valid questions about the legitimacy of the role of the overseas judges can be made, they also continue to perform a valuable communicative role regarding the status of Hong Kong's judicial independence under the ‘one country, two systems’ framework. A recent rise in attacks on overseas and other ‘foreign’ judges in Hong Kong can be understood as part of a broader project that seeks to constrain the role of the independent judiciary. By continuing to invite overseas judges to sit on the Court of Final Appeal but reducing their public prominence, the Court has sought not only to reduce avenues for attacks on the legitimacy of particular decisions, but to protect the autonomy and independence of the judiciary more broadly.

"Patriots Governing Hong Kong" and the Innovation of Practice Path to Cultivate the Chinese National Community Consciousness

The basic meaning of "patriots ruling Hong Kong" is that Hong Kong people who love China and love Hong Kong govern Hong Kong society to ensure the smooth implementation of the "One Country, Two Systems" system and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Hong Kong and maintain the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong society.

An Analysis of the Impact of Dual Crises on Hong Kong’s Financial Development

According to the GFCI ranking from 2018-2020, Hong Kong fell from third to sixth, surpassing cities in other Asian countries and some inland cities in China. Hong Kong’s marginalization has intensified because of the impact of the new crown epidemic and anti-repair incidents. However, Hong Kong’s marginalization is indeed somewhat inappropriate. As far as the situation is concerned, Hong Kong still has a strong competitiveness, although it is lagging behind, but Hong Kong should think deeply about the strategy and system of “one country, two systems”, believe in the country’s strategic intention and adjust its state in time to re-exclude the public’s understanding of its marginalization.

One country, two systems: evidence on retirement patterns in China

This paper documents the patterns and correlates of retirement in China using a nationally representative survey, the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. After documenting stark differences in retirement ages between urban and rural residents, the paper shows that China's urban residents retire earlier than workers in many Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and that rural residents continue to work until advanced ages. Differences in access to generous pensions and economic resources explain much of the urban–rural difference in retirement rates. The paper suggests that reducing disincentives created by China's Urban Employee Pension system, improving health status, providing childcare and elder care support may all facilitate longer working lives. Given spouse preferences for joint retirement, creating incentives for women to retire later may facilitate longer working lives for both men and women.

Carrots, not Sticks: A Historical Analysis of Beijing's Economic Statecraft Towards Hong Kong

This analysis offers a historical assessment of “economic statecraft” in Beijing's approach to Hong Kong from 1997 to 2020. It discusses how the concept of “economic statecraft” can be applied to Beijing–Hong Kong relations given the nature of the “one country, two systems” framework, and looks at some differing perceptions about economic statecraft in Hong Kong. It argues that, during this period, economic tools were in general used by Beijing relatively sparingly, and in the form of inducements rather than coercion. In conclusion, the analysis suggests that the contested interpretations of Beijing–Hong Kong economic relations demonstrate that “economic statecraft” is to a certain extent in the eye of the beholder.

Arbitration and Protest in Hong Kong

Following the promulgation of the judicial interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) on 26 September 2019, Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Arrangement”) signed by Mainland China and Hong Kong on 2 April 2019 came into effect in Mainland China from 1 October 2019. This Arrangement provides mutual recognition and enforcement of interim measures between Hong Kong and Mainland China. It has generated broad coverage. This post tries to add to the discussion by providing the first case decided under the Arrangement on 8 October 2019, and more broadly, the reflections on the continuing protests in Hong Kong and arbitration under “One Country, Two Systems’.

Budget oversight in territorial autonomies: A comparative analysis of Hong Kong and Macao

Traditionally, comparative budgeting scholars have focused on analysing budget oversight at the sovereign state level. Budget oversight at the territorial autonomy level remains largely under-investigated. Drawing on the Open Budget Survey methodology, this study is a pioneering attempt to compare the budget oversight institutions and practices in Hong Kong and Macao under the ‘one country, two systems’ model. This study finds that the varying practices of budget oversight of Hong Kong and Macao are the consequence of their different bases of opposition politics, including democratic opposition, the media and civil society. This study extends the research focus of existing comparative budgeting literature from sovereign states to territorial autonomies. Thus, it has important implications for budget oversight analysis and policy worldwide. Points for practitioners This article uses comparative studies of Hong Kong and Macao to illustrate how different bases of opposition politics have led to varying practices of budget oversight. For policymakers, the lesson from the comparative studies is that the rise of democratic opposition, the media and civil society will bring about pressures for budget oversight. More policy learning is necessary for policymakers across democracies and semi-democracies to share the experiences of handling the politics of budget oversight.