Hong Kong’s Role in the BRI Dispute Resolution: Limits of Law and Power of Politics

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW Chinese Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.1093/cjcl/cxaa007
Linag Feng
{"title":"Hong Kong’s Role in the BRI Dispute Resolution: Limits of Law and Power of Politics","authors":"Linag Feng","doi":"10.1093/cjcl/cxaa007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The Hong Kong government has aimed to make Hong Kong an international dispute resolution hub for decades. After China’s launch of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Hong Kong has striven to make itself such a hub under the BRI. This article chooses arbitration as an example to examine Hong Kong’s role in the dispute resolution under the BRI from three perspectives, that is, its legal infrastructure, central and local governmental policy support, and challenges faced by Hong Kong. Detailed review reveals that Hong Kong’s legal infrastructure is well suited to resolve any disputes arising under the BRI and that there is also strong policy support from both the Chinese central government and the Hong Kong government. After examining challenges from Mainland Chinese arbitration institutions and self-contradiction within national policy documents, international and foreign arbitration institutions, and Hong Kong’s political instability and conflicts with the Mainland, the article suggests that the primary reason why Hong Kong has not been successful in getting its share of dispute resolution business under the BRI is its political instability and bad relationship with Mainland China. It argues that Hong Kong’s political skills in convincing both the Chinese central government and State-owned enterprises to choose Hong Kong as the forum for resolving disputes under the BRI are more important and will determine whether Hong Kong can get a fair share of the dispute resolution business under the BRI. In addition, the Hong Kong government and the relevant stakeholders in Hong Kong should also change their mentality from thinking only about Hong Kong’s interests to putting themselves in the shoes of the Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macau (GHM) Greater Bay Area and come up with a collaborative strategy to develop dispute resolution mechanisms in the GHM Greater Bay Area together. Only in so doing will Hong Kong be able to get its share of dispute resolution business from projects under the BRI.","PeriodicalId":42366,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/cjcl/cxaa007","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxaa007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Hong Kong government has aimed to make Hong Kong an international dispute resolution hub for decades. After China’s launch of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Hong Kong has striven to make itself such a hub under the BRI. This article chooses arbitration as an example to examine Hong Kong’s role in the dispute resolution under the BRI from three perspectives, that is, its legal infrastructure, central and local governmental policy support, and challenges faced by Hong Kong. Detailed review reveals that Hong Kong’s legal infrastructure is well suited to resolve any disputes arising under the BRI and that there is also strong policy support from both the Chinese central government and the Hong Kong government. After examining challenges from Mainland Chinese arbitration institutions and self-contradiction within national policy documents, international and foreign arbitration institutions, and Hong Kong’s political instability and conflicts with the Mainland, the article suggests that the primary reason why Hong Kong has not been successful in getting its share of dispute resolution business under the BRI is its political instability and bad relationship with Mainland China. It argues that Hong Kong’s political skills in convincing both the Chinese central government and State-owned enterprises to choose Hong Kong as the forum for resolving disputes under the BRI are more important and will determine whether Hong Kong can get a fair share of the dispute resolution business under the BRI. In addition, the Hong Kong government and the relevant stakeholders in Hong Kong should also change their mentality from thinking only about Hong Kong’s interests to putting themselves in the shoes of the Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macau (GHM) Greater Bay Area and come up with a collaborative strategy to develop dispute resolution mechanisms in the GHM Greater Bay Area together. Only in so doing will Hong Kong be able to get its share of dispute resolution business from projects under the BRI.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
香港在“一带一路”倡议争端解决中的作用:法律的局限与政治的力量
几十年来,香港政府一直致力于使香港成为国际争端解决中心。自中国提出“一带一路”倡议以来,香港一直在努力成为“一带一路”的中心。本文以仲裁为例,从法律基础设施、中央和地方政府的政策支持以及香港面临的挑战三个方面考察香港在“一带一路”下的争议解决中的作用。详细审查表明,香港的法律基础设施非常适合解决“一带一路”引发的任何争议,而且中国中央政府和香港政府也有强有力的政策支持。在分析了中国内地仲裁机构的挑战和国家政策文件、国际和外国仲裁机构的自相矛盾,以及香港的政治不稳定和与内地的冲突后,本文认为香港未能在“一带一路”下成功获得争议解决业务的主要原因是其政治不稳定和与中国内地的不良关系。报告认为,香港在说服中国中央政府和国有企业选择香港作为解决“一带一路”下争议的论坛方面的政治技巧更为重要,并将决定香港是否能在“一带一路”下获得公平的争议解决业务份额。此外,香港政府和香港的利益相关方也应改变只考虑香港利益的思维方式,站在粤港澳大湾区的角度考虑问题,共同制定粤港澳大湾区争端解决机制的合作战略。只有这样,香港才能从“一带一路”项目的争议解决业务中分得一杯羹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law (CJCL) is an independent, peer-reviewed, general comparative law journal published under the auspices of the International Academy of Comparative Law (IACL) and in association with the Silk Road Institute for International and Comparative Law (SRIICL) at Xi’an Jiaotong University, PR China. CJCL aims to provide a leading international forum for comparative studies on all disciplines of law, including cross-disciplinary legal studies. It gives preference to articles addressing issues of fundamental and lasting importance in the field of comparative law.
期刊最新文献
Navigating Judicial Conflict amidst Jurisdictional Expansion: Common Law Commercial Courts in Arab Civil Law Countries Report on Sino–Indian Border Disputes: International Law and International Relations Perspectives Loss of a Loved One: An Empirical Study of Pain and Suffering Awards in Wrongful Death Cases in China Workplace Sexual Harassment in China: A Comparative Inquiry into the Personality-Based Paradigm China’s Family Education Promotion Law: Family Governance, the Responsible Parent and the Moral Child
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1