Hong Kong’s common law as neocolonial tool: How legal systems entrench power amid linguistic duality
Original framing: “The evolution of Hong Kong’s independent common law” — South China Morning Post
Hong Kong’s common law system is a direct legacy of British colonialism, designed to facilitate trade and suppress dissent rather than deliver justice, as seen in the 1967 leftist riots' suppression under colonial legal frameworks. The 'independence' of the judiciary was never absolute; it was contingent on serving British imperial interests, a pattern repeated in other common law jurisdictions like India and Nigeria. The 1997 handover did not dismantle these structures but repurposed them, with the judiciary now serving as a legitimizing force for the postcolonial state.
Hong Kong’s common law system is a microcosm of the contradictions inherent in postcolonial legal frameworks: it is both a relic of British imperialism and a tool of the postcolonial state, simultaneously bridging East and West while reproducing the hierarchies of the past.
The linguistic duality in its courts is not a neutral feature but a mechanism of exclusion, one that privileges elite legal professionals while marginalizing the majority. The judiciary’s claim to independence is a trickster’s illusion, masking its role as a legitimizing force for state power, as seen in its rulings against pro-democracy activists. Indigenous legal traditions, such as restorative justice, offer a path forward, but their integration requires dismantling the monopoly of Western-trained elites on legal discourse. The solution lies not in rejecting the common law outright but in repurposing it through decolonizing reforms that center marginalized voices and challenge the structural inequities embedded in its DNA. This would require auditing judicial independence, expanding linguistic justice, and institutionalizing legal pluralism—all while confronting the colonial legacies that continue to shape Hong Kong’s legal landscape.