Who should decide whether and how same-sex partnerships should be legally recognized: the courts or the legislature?

A strand of constitutional law scholarship concerns the idea of “constitutional dialogue” between various branches of government, wherein the branches collaborate and respond to each other’s viewpoints. Proponents of this dialogic approach argues that it allows for effective protection of rights and democracy. In this panel discussion, experts will bring in comparative perspectives and use the theory of constitutional dialogue to assess recent developments in Hong Kong—including the Court of Final Appeal’s mandate for the government to determine how same-sex partnerships are to be recognized and the Legislative Council’s subsequent rejection of the Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill—and explore possible ways out of the stalemate.