Beyond Legal Pluralism: Chinese Customs and Customary Laws in Colonial Hong Kong (1841–1997)

Abstract

This article challenges the label of legal pluralism used in overseas Chinese studies. While legal pluralism has been the long-standing academic tradition of characterizing the law in overseas Chinese societies, the case of colonial Hong Kong, with its experience in rejecting, distorting, and manipulating Chinese customs and customary laws, illustrates that legal pluralism is an untenable position regarding the “plurality” of laws under a colonial regime and the “plurality” of social fields or legal orders with a “plurality” of sources of law. It is further argued that “legal pluralism” as academic jargon, a theory, and a framework, is intertwined with colonialism and therefore not useful as a descriptive category or as a normative ideal. We must go beyond legal pluralism to understand law in overseas Chinese studies.