The Law Event Calendar

Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong
East Asian International Economic Law & Policy Programme
Asian Institute of International Financial Law
and
LL.M. in Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

Public Lecture

Developing an International Arbitration Practice

Dr. Robert Gaitskell, QC
International Arbitrator and Mediator
Practising in Keating Chambers, London

Friday, 3 May 2013, 6:45 - 7:45 pm
Academic Conference Room, 11/F Cheng Yu Tung Tower
Centennial Campus, The University of Hong Kong

Chair: Professor C.L. Lim

International arbitration is reputedly experiencing its ‘golden age’. Most appointing bodies worldwide are experiencing an upturn in case-load. Disputing parties are sceptical about trusting their high value conflicts to the courts of one side or the other. The preferred course is to resort to arbitration, where the parties remain in control, choosing the tribunal, the venue and the legal system to suit their particular problem.

All good so far, but the complaint is made that the pool of arbitrators for the major international disputes is difficult to break into for an aspiring arbitrator. How do you go about it? This lecture will explain the nuts and bolts of establishing a practice as the tribunal: writing articles, joining useful bodies and getting known internationally. What is your Unique Selling Point? Why should a party appoint you?

Dr. Gaitskell is a full time international arbitrator, regularly appointed throughout the world by the leading bodies, including the ICC, LCIA, DIAC, DIFC and Swiss Chambers of Commerce. He has conducted over 100 international arbitrations and over 100 mediations. Besides being a Queen’s Counsel in one of the leading construction/engineering sets of chambers, he is also a professional engineer and a former Vice President of the IEE/IET, Europe’s biggest professional engineering body. He has lectured at King’s College and Queen Mary College, London University, on international infrastructure dispute resolution. He is the Editor of The Construction Dispute Resolution Handbook (2nd ed.), May 2011. He is a member of the Singapore National Electricity Market Dispute Resolution & Compensation Panel. He sat for over 10 years as a part-time judge in the civil and criminal courts.

Please register on-line via www.AIIFL.com or
email Flora Leung at fkleung@hku.hk to reserve a place.

Centre for Comparative and Public Law
Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

SEMINAR

Taking China Seriously: An Appraisal of the Symbiotic Relationship between
China's Exercise of Sovereignty and the International Legal Order

Phil C. W. Chan
PhD Candidate, National University of Singapore
Visiting Fellow, Centre for Comparative and Public Law, HKU

Monday, 6 May 2013
12:30 pm - 1:30 pm
Room A724 & A725, 7/F Cheng Yu Tung Tower
The University of Hong Kong

China’s exercise of sovereignty is often maligned as anathema to the progressive development of international law and the stability of the international system. Such a view stems from Western-centric approaches to international law. It fails to understand China’s historical experience with international law and its evolving approach to the current international legal order. In this seminar, Phil will explain that China has in fact engaged with international law, on matters of human rights, democracy, self-determination, and international peace and security, in ways that are positive for the development and legitimacy of international law and the maintenance of the current international order as one underlain and governed by the international rule of law. The symbiotic relationship between China’s exercise of sovereignty and the international legal order in turn informs our understanding of international law and the current international legal order, including the locus in which State sovereignty resides and its continuing significance and implications.

Phil Chan graduated from HKU with the Rowdget W. Young Medal in Law in 2002 and from Durham with an LLM in 2004. He served as Researcher in the Hong Kong office of Baker Botts in 2005 and in visiting research positions in law, international relations, and Asian studies at Cambridge, Keele, St Andrews, ANU, Toronto, Ottawa, Freiburg and Vanderbilt during 2006-2008, and as Visiting Research Fellow at Otago and Lecturer in Law at Waikato during 2010-2011. He has authored over 25 articles in Chinese Journal of International Law, Criminal Law Forum, European Business Law Review, Human Rights Law Review, International Journal of Human Rights, International Journal of Punishment and Sentencing, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, King’s College Law Journal, Leiden Journal of International Law, Nottingham Law Journal, Sexuality & Culture, and Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, and has presented over 60 refereed conference papers and invited lectures and seminars at research institutes worldwide. He was Guest Editor of two International Journal of Human Rights special double issues (Equality in Asia-Pacific: Reality or a Contradiction in Terms? and Protection of Sexual Minorities since Stonewall: Progress and Stalemate in Developed and Developing Countries), both with Forewords by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and published additionally as Routledge books.

Please email Flora Leung at fkleung@hku.hk to reserve a place.

Centre for Comparative and Public Law
Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

SEMINAR

Problems of Wrongful Convictions

David Hamer
Associate Professor
Faculty of Law, Sydney University

Monday, 13 May 2013
12:30 pm - 1:30 pm
Room 723, 7/F Cheng Yu Tung Tower
The University of Hong Kong
(Please note: the venue has been changed.)

It is universally recognised that a wrongful conviction is a terrible injustice. However, there is far less agreement about what the State should do about wrongful convictions. Where they do emerge, obviously, they should be corrected. And where recurrent causes of wrongful convictions can be identified, whether at the investigation or the trial stage, these should be addressed. But to what extent should the State allow and facilitate the challenging of convictions? Underlying this question are several difficult conceptual and political problems. First, what is a ‘wrongful conviction’? Is it the conviction of someone who is factually innocent, or is it a conviction flowing from a flawed process? While the two definitions overlap, they are not identical. Convictions that may be factually wrong despite a proper investigation, trial and appeal are in many ways most problematic. Second, there is the difficulty of determining the frequency of wrongful convictions. Appeal statistics may provide some measure of convictions resulting from an undue process. However, measuring the rate of factually incorrect convictions is far more difficult. The yardstick – the true facts – is generally inaccessible. Are the relatively few factually erroneous convictions that emerge, for example through advances in DNA profiling, merely the tip of the iceberg? Third, assuming that a lurking mass of factually incorrect convictions may exist, how can the imperative to address them be squared with other values and considerations? Perhaps the most important competing consideration is the need for finality in litigation – at some point convictions must be considered unassailable. Other questions also arise. If some degree of error is inevitable, what error rate is acceptable? If wrongful convictions call for new mechanisms and institutions how should these be designed so as to balance the various competing interests, and address the problem cost-effectively? These questions will be considered against the background of the Australian criminal justice system, which has done little yet to address them, and that of the UK, where Criminal Case Review Commissions have now been running for more than a decade.

David Hamer's primary research interest is in the law of evidence. He takes an interdisciplinary approach, interrogating the law - and the proof process more broadly - using tools drawn from probability theory, narrative theory and psychology. His interest in evidence law often flows over into areas of substantive law and broader issues, in particular criminal justice, the causes of and solutions to wrongful convictions, and the law's continuing struggle with the notion of causation.

Please email Flora Leung at fkleung@hku.hk to reserve a place.

Centre for Medical Ethics and Law
Joint Centre between Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Law, HKU

CMEL Distinguished Lecture Series 2013
Lecture 1: Ethical Concerns in Organ Transplantation

Professor Sir Roy Calne, FRS
Emeritus Professor of Surgery, University of Cambridge
Recipient of Lasker~DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award 2012

Date: Tuesday, 14 May, 2013
Time: 6:00pm – 7:00pm
Venue: Cheung Kung Hai Lecture Theatre 2, G/F, William M.W. Mong Block, Faculty of Medicine Building, 21 Sasson Road, Pokfulam, Hong Kong

Abstract:
Organ transplantation has led to an unprecedented break with traditional medical ethics, in that under certain carefully defined conditions a normal healthy individual may be harmed. In addition, the shortage of organ donors has put enormous pressure on health resources by patients and doctors. Even though the gift of an organ is really a ‘gift of life’, to obtain an organ when a donor is not available puts stress on moral values. Even if these ethical matters cannot all be overcome, defining and discussing the moral dilemmas that may arise in organ transplantation is a move toward improving the ethical background in which transplants are performed. Moreover, fostering the culture of charity and compassion in organ donation is probably the most important approach to improving the number of organ transplants.

Biography of speaker:
Sir Roy Calne FRS is a world-renowned surgeon and pioneer in organ transplantation. Formerly Professor of Surgery at the University of Cambridge, he is an Honorary Fellow of Trinity Hall. The recipient of numerous distinguished awards, including the Lister Medal, he received the Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award in 2012 which honours “visionaries whose insight and perseverance have led to dramatic advances that will prevent disease and prolong life.” He is also an artist.

Centre for Comparative and Public Law
Faculty of Law
The University of Hong Kong

RIGHTS TALK

Legal Representation for Asylum Seekers:
Ensuring “High Standards of Fairness” and
Respect for the Rule of Law in Hong Kong

Wednesday, 15 May 2013
12:30 – 1:30 pm
Academic Conference Room, 11/F Cheng Yu Tung Tower
The University of Hong Kong

The Court of Final Appeal’s recent decisions in C & Ors v Director of Immigration and Ubamaka Edward Wilson v Secretary for Security and Director of Immigration pave the way for the creation of a unified screening mechanism to protect refugees and others who fear serious human rights violations if returned to their countries. Incorrect determinations of these claims could lead to dire consequences – even death or torture - for the claimants and the courts have held that such a system must therefore meet high standards of procedural fairness. One critical element of fairness in this context is the provision of quality legal representation.

In this seminar, Kelley Loper will report the results of a Public Policy Research Project (funded by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council) that examined models of legal representation and legal aid for asylum seekers in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Researchers collected and compared data from all five jurisdictions and have identified several issues and recommendations based on these results. It is hoped that the study’s findings will contribute to informed discussions about developments in Hong Kong going forward.

Kelley Loper is an Assistant Professor and serves as Director of the LLM in Human Rights Programme, Deputy Director of the Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL), Co-convener of Diversity Studies, and Co-Editor in Chief of the Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law at the University of Hong Kong. She is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Hong Kong Refugee Advice Centre, an organization that provides legal services to asylum seekers.

Please email Flora Leung at fkleung@hku.hk to reserve a place.

Centre for Comparative and Public Law
Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

SEMINAR

The Legality of Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect in Classical China: How Is It Possible and Why Does It Matter?

Walter Lee
PhD Candidate, The University of Auckland

Thursday, 23 May 2013
12:30 pm - 1:30 pm
Room A724 & A725, 7/F Cheng Yu Tung Tower
The University of Hong Kong

This seminar attempts to construct a dialogue between the Western and Chinese standard of civilization for the humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (R2P) discourse. From The Hague Conventions, Kellogg-Briand Pact to Article 5:2 of The Rome Statute of International Criminal Court and the ICC Resolution RC/Res.6 on crimes of aggression, the legality of the use of force—as well as international human rights law—is by nature a Western construct. The question now is with the diffusion of power in a pluralistic world, the democratization of global rule of law could emerge as a cultural/civilizational issue rather than just ‘the retreat of the state.’ With the rise of China as a global superpower, its increasingly frequent application of veto votes at the UN Security Council and its chronic distrust of and reluctance to engage with the international legal system, the conceptual divergence between China and actors supportive to post-Westphalian values has led to diplomatic deadlocks in responding to humanitarian crises and gross violations of human rights. One exit, I argue, is to revisit the Pre-Qin era (770-221 B.C.) of China, where historians recorded and philosophers discussed vividly about military intervention and humanistic values. The findings from The Chronicle of Zuo and some other writings shed light on the legality problematique, in the sense that close parallels and overlaps between indigenous Chinese conceptions and modern Western norms are found. These are potentially useful materials which appear more acceptable than what the PRC regime regarded as ‘Western-imposed standards’ but still compatible with Western norms. The seminar will address the problem of comparative jurisprudence by critically discussing the gongfa Zhongyuan (origins of public international law in ancient China) phenomenon that existed from 1884 till the early 20th century.

Walter Lee is visiting fellow at Centre for Comparative and Public Law (CCPL). He is currently doctoral candidate of Department of Political Studies, The University of Auckland in New Zealand. Mr. Lee received his M.A. in International Relations from The University of Warwick, where he specialized in international politics but also researched international human rights law. He subsequently worked as an intern at General Assembly Affairs Branch, Department of General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM), the United Nations Secretariat New York headquarters and research assistant for Researcher Fostering Laboratory, China in Comparative Perspective Network (CCPN), London School of Economics and Political Science. Mr. Lee’s broader scope of interest is international ethics in the background of the rise of China as a great power, which features China’s soft power issue and the country’s interactions with international organizations and global rule of law. His doctoral thesis ‘The PRC’s Doctrine of Non-interventionism Assessed in Comparison with Classical Chinese Conceptions of Jus ad Bellum’ demonstrates a continued concern found in the M.A. dissertation ‘Nationalism as an Obstacle to China’s Participation in International Society: A Critical Analysis of the People’s Republic of China—International Criminal Court Relations.’

Please email Flora Leung at fkleung@hku.hk to reserve a place.

Centre for Chinese Law
中國法研究中心
Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

China, Soft Power and International Law

Professor Jerome A. Cohen
New York University School of Law

Date: May 23, 2013 (Thursday)
Time: 6:00 – 7:00pm
Venue: 11/F, Academic Conference Room,
Cheng Yu Tung Tower, Centennial Campus, HKU

Abstract:
This talk will discuss why it would be in the interest of the Chinese Government to favorably consider submission of its current territorial and maritime disputes with other countries in the South and East China Seas to international arbitration and adjudication.
About the Speaker：
Professor Jerome A. Cohen, a professor at NYU School of Law since 1990 and co-director of its U.S.-Asia Law Institute, is a leading American expert on Chinese law. A pioneer in the field, Professor Cohen began studying China’s legal system in the early 1960s and from 1964 to 1979 introduced the teaching of Asian law into the curriculum of Harvard Law School, where he served as Jeremiah Smith Professor, Associate Dean and Director of East Asian Legal Studies. In addition to his responsibilities as an academic, Professor Cohen served as Director of Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he currently is an Adjunct Senior Fellow. He is also a retired partner of the international law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.
ALL ARE WELCOME

Online Registration - http://www.hku.hk/law (Seminars & Conferences)
Enquiries: Tina Xie at tinaxie@hku.hk

Centre for Medical Ethics and Law
Joint Centre between Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Law, HKU

Talk on

Governing Biobanks: Challenges and Perspectives

Dr. Chih-hsing Ho
Centre for Medical Ethics and Law
The University of Hong Kong

Date: Thursday, 30 May 2013
Time: 12:30pm – 1:30pm
Venue: Room A825, 8/F, Cheng Yu Tung Tower, Centennial Campus, The University of Hong Kong

Abstract:
Biobanks collect biological samples and associated data for medical research and diagnostic purposes. As contemporary medicine is moving from reactive approaches to predictive, preventive, personalised and participatory medicine (P4 Medicine), biobanks have become powerful tools with the potential to drive this transition in drug innovation and health care delivery. However, the practice of biobanking also raises considerable challenges for existing legal principles and regulatory frameworks. This talk explores these challenges and possible solutions to achieve appropriate governance structures for biobanking in the future.

Biography of speaker:
Dr. Chih-hsing Ho is Research Officer at the Centre for Medical Ethics and Law at the University of Hong Kong. She holds a PhD in law from the London School of Economics (LSE) where she was an Olive Stone Scholar. She studied law and philosophy in Taiwan and later received a LLM from Columbia Law School and a JSM from Stanford University. Her research focuses on the emergence of genomics and its accommodation within existing legal frameworks, with particular attention to biobanks and their related ethical and legal issues. Her areas of interests include law and medical ethics, anthropology of law, socio-legal studies and political economy.

Please register online at
http://hkuems1.hku.hk/hkuems/ec_regform.aspx?ueid=22574
or email Ms. Polly Yiu at cmel@hku.hk to reserve a place.

Should you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact Ms.
Polly Yiu by email at cmel@hku.hk or by phone at 3917 1845

Asian Institute of International Financial Law
Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

Remuneration and Riots: Rethinking Corporate Governance
Reform in the Age of Entitlement

Professor Alan Dignam
Professor of Corporate Law at Queen Mary, University of London

Friday, 31 May 2013, 12:30 – 1:30 pm
Academic Conference Room, 11/F Cheng Yu Tung Tower
The University of Hong Kong

Corporate governance reforms of the past 30 years have made our elite remuneration problems worse. Corporate governance initiatives during this period have created a regulatory edifice that has neutered executives and distanced shareholders from important internal governance matters, such as remuneration, while treating the disclosure of elite salaries as a legitimizing tool. In the public sector, the mimicking of private sector agency cost-reducing norms and transparency initiatives has had a similar accelerating effect on the salaries of the elite. The result in all sectors has been high elite pay, as neutered executives and public servants have sought remuneration as a proxy for power, prestige, and service. In turn, there has been a steady increase in public awareness of, and unhappiness about, elite remuneration. This article argues that the answer to remuneration problems lie in returning discretionary managerial power to executives and public servants, by removing agency cost-reducing initiatives. Real solutions are likely to be found by: ending quarterly financial disclosure; exempting public sector salaries from Freedom of Information requests; ceasing to use performance-related targets; reducing the influence of Non-Executive Directors; increasing the cost of exit for shareholders; allowing boards to use their powers to defend takeovers; utilizing average pay ratios and employee say-on-pay rights; and removing remuneration disclosure requirements.

Alan Dignam is Professor of Corporate Law at Queen Mary, University of London. He joined Queen Mary in 1998 having been a lecturer in law at Dublin City University and Sussex University. He has written widely in domestic and international law journals on company and commercial law matters as well as public/private law crossover with regard to human rights. He is the co-author with Professor John Lowry (UCL) of Company Law (Oxford University Press, 2012), with David Allen QC (7 Kings Bench Walk) of Company Law and the Human Rights Act (Butterworths, 2000) and with Michael Galanis (Leeds) of The Globalization of Corporate Governance, (Ashgate, 2009). He is also the author of Hicks and Goo’s Cases and Materials on Company Law, (Oxford University Press, 2011). In November 1999 he was awarded the Fredrick I Medal for contributions to Academia by the Department of Political Science, University of Naples. He has been an adviser to Amnesty International’s Business Group since 2001. For the Academic year 2002-2003 he held a visiting fellowship at the Law School, University of Melbourne and was a Parsons Scholar at the Law School, University of Sydney. He was appointed in 2004 to the International Advisory Committee to the South African Department of Trade and Industry Company Law Review and is an adviser to a number of other governments on company law and development reform. He is a former convenor of the Company Law Subject Section of the Society of Legal Scholars. In 2003 he was appointed by Lord Millet to the Editorial Board of Gore Brown on Companies. In 2004 he was made a Fellow of the Centre for International Legal Studies (Salzburg). He has been the European Editor of the Company and Securities Law Journal since 2005. In July 2009 he was appointed by the Irish Universities Quality Board as international reviewer for the Institutional Review of Irish Universities. In 2010 he gave one of the three ‘Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) Centenary Lecture’s’ on ‘The Future of European Legal Scholarship’. He currently holds visiting Professor positions at the University of Verona, the Faculté Jean Monnet, Université Paris Sud and Queen’s University Belfast. Since 2007 he has been working in partnership with Vanderbilt Law School in the US on a comparative corporate governance project funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation into the role of corporations with global operations in spreading culture, values, business and legal norms/practices, and technology throughout the world.

Please register online via www.AIIFL.com or email Flora Leung at fkleung@hku.hk.