{"title":"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","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":"8 1","pages":"224-249"},"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":"{\"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\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"224-249\"},\"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}","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}
Hong Kong’s Role in the BRI Dispute Resolution: Limits of Law and Power of Politics
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.
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.