File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1017/lsi.2020.20
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85100918869
- WOS: WOS:000618242500006
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Approaching the Legitimacy Paradox in Hong Kong: Lessons for Hybrid Regime Courts
Title | Approaching the Legitimacy Paradox in Hong Kong: Lessons for Hybrid Regime Courts |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2021 |
Citation | Law and Social Inquiry, 2021, v. 46, n. 1, p. 153-191 How to Cite? |
Abstract | A hybrid regime court faces a legitimacy paradox: an activist court risks attracting backlash from the incumbent, whereas a deferential court may undermine public trust. The Hong Kong courts, at least in the twenty or so years following handover, provide an example of courts successfully navigating the legitimacy paradox despite the conflicting expectations from political actors. This article draws on the experiences of the Hong Kong courts to better understand the legitimacy paradox. It identifies three tools that Hong Kong courts have used to maneuver through the paradox, namely (1) the differential treatment of cases according to political stakes; (2) the use of comparative jurisprudence; and (3) the commitment to procedural justice. Studying these techniques may provide relevant insights to courts in similarly constrained political environments as to how judicial legitimacy can be earned. The article also reflects on the institutional future of Hong Kong courts in light of the increasing polarization of Hong Kong society as a result of the anti-extradition bill protests and signs of greater interference from Mainland China. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/309280 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.4 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.534 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Yam, Julius | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-12-15T03:59:53Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-12-15T03:59:53Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Law and Social Inquiry, 2021, v. 46, n. 1, p. 153-191 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0897-6546 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/309280 | - |
dc.description.abstract | A hybrid regime court faces a legitimacy paradox: an activist court risks attracting backlash from the incumbent, whereas a deferential court may undermine public trust. The Hong Kong courts, at least in the twenty or so years following handover, provide an example of courts successfully navigating the legitimacy paradox despite the conflicting expectations from political actors. This article draws on the experiences of the Hong Kong courts to better understand the legitimacy paradox. It identifies three tools that Hong Kong courts have used to maneuver through the paradox, namely (1) the differential treatment of cases according to political stakes; (2) the use of comparative jurisprudence; and (3) the commitment to procedural justice. Studying these techniques may provide relevant insights to courts in similarly constrained political environments as to how judicial legitimacy can be earned. The article also reflects on the institutional future of Hong Kong courts in light of the increasing polarization of Hong Kong society as a result of the anti-extradition bill protests and signs of greater interference from Mainland China. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Law and Social Inquiry | - |
dc.title | Approaching the Legitimacy Paradox in Hong Kong: Lessons for Hybrid Regime Courts | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1017/lsi.2020.20 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85100918869 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 46 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 153 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 191 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1747-4469 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000618242500006 | - |