Hong Kong cannot allow its system of foreign judges to wither and die
And then there were five. The pool of eminent foreign judges sitting on Hong Kong's top court, once of Olympic proportions, continues to evaporate. It is now little more than a puddle.
Advertisement
The latest judge to depart is Robert French, the former chief justice of Australia's High Court. His resignation is a blow to the judiciary, casting further doubts on a system that has served the city well.
French, appointed as a part-time judge of the Court of Final Appeal in 2017, had previously stated he intended to stay. His withdrawal comes more than a year before the end of his contract.
The judge's comments on his departure should prompt reflection in Hong Kong. The government has been quick to highlight French's continued confidence in the independence and integrity of the top court's remaining judges.
He also rejected the idea that the foreign justices are 'somehow complicit in the application by the executive of national security laws or somehow confer on them a spurious legitimacy'. That view is often cited by critics of the judges overseas.
Advertisement
But French did not stop there. He also said the role of the part-time judges 'has become increasingly anachronistic and arguably cosmetic'. That is an observation that should be taken seriously.
The dwindling of the number of foreign judges tells its own story. When Beijing passed a national security law for the city in 2020, there were 15 of them. The maximum allowed by law is 30. That gives an idea of the size of the talent pool envisaged. Five departed last year and now only five remain. Two of them were hired in 2023 and 2024. But the system is becoming difficult to sustain.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
a day ago
- Asia Times
Forging a European third pole in the Indo-Pacific
At the 2025 Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, European leaders signaled an ambitious new intent to play a bigger role in Indo-Pacific affairs. French President Emmanuel Macron called for a 'strategic balance' in Asia, while European Commission Vice President Kaja Kallas described Europe as a 'partner, not a power.' Officials from Germany, Sweden, and Finland echoed these views. The proposition is that Europe could serve as a stabilizing third pole, positioned between China's assertiveness and the United States' fluctuating and uncertain commitments. This framing has intuitive appeal. Europe is viewed as technologically capable, geopolitically distant and less hegemonic than either the US or China. Yet the Indo-Pacific remains a maritime-first theater, where strategic relevance is defined not by sentiment but by presence and sustained investment. The Indo-Pacific region accounts for over 60% of global maritime trade and encompasses some of the world's most contested flashpoints, including the South China Sea, the East China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. China now fields the world's largest navy, with 355 ships in 2025 and a projected 440 by 2030. The US retains dominance in tonnage and strike capability but is capable of building only 1.5 ships annually, compared to China's at least eight. By contrast, European capabilities remain insufficient for sustained operations in the Indo-Pacific. Only France, the United Kingdom and Italy operate aircraft carriers. The UK has two Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, but only one is deployable at a time due to maintenance cycles. As of 2025, the UK's Royal Navy fields just 16 operational F-35Bs, well short of the 24 typically required for a full carrier air wing. France's sole carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, when docked, removes its carrier-based airpower from the theater. Italy's Cavour and Trieste remains reliant on AV-8B Harriers, with fewer than 10 next-generation aircraft available as of 2024. All three navies face shortfalls in escorts and support vessels. While a US carrier strike group typically includes four to six escorts and one to two support ships, European deployments often manage only two to three escorts. It is therefore unsurprising that less than 5% of Europe's naval assets are deployed to the Indo-Pacific. Europe's current naval presence may be limited but three avenues offer Europe the opportunity to make meaningful, near-term contributions to Indo-Pacific security. First, Europe could pursue full membership in the ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), the region's foremost multilateral security forum. Established in 2010, ADMM-Plus comprises ASEAN and eight dialogue partners: The United States, China, Japan, India, Australia, Russia, New Zealand, and South Korea. The forum has conducted more than 20 joint exercises and supports expert working groups in areas such as maritime security, counterterrorism and cyber defense. However, bloc cleavages are deepening. Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea are much more dependent on US defense systems, while Russia, in the aftermath of its war in Ukraine, is increasingly dependent on China. ADMM-Plus may be due for a strategic evolution, one in which Europe could act as a stabilizing third pillar of Indo-Pacific security. Europe's full membership as dialogue partners would enable it to contribute meaningfully to regional capacity-building, particularly in maritime domain awareness, counter-piracy and cybersecurity, areas where it possesses deep technical expertise. Second, Europe can increase its strategic relevance in the region by linking defense exports to local industrial development. Southeast Asian states increasingly expect arms deals to include technology transfers, job creation and long-term economic value. This was reflected in ASEAN chairman Anwar Ibrahim's SLD25 statement that 'trade is part of our strategic architecture.' Recent European defense deals have embraced this logic. Sweden's Gripen sale to Thailand included training and maintenance infrastructure. France's 7.5 billion euro (US$8.6 billion) Rafale agreement with Indonesia and Germany's 1.2 billion euro submarine contract with Singapore similarly offered industrial participation. To move beyond fragmented, bilateral arrangements, however, the EU should use instruments such as the European Peace Facility (EPF) and Security Action for Europe (SAFE), a 150 billion euro defense investment fund approved in May 2025. These mechanisms can support coproduction, joint ventures and localized assembly aligned with both European supply chain interests and Southeast Asia's development needs. Finally, programs like SAFE are designed to strengthen Europe's defense industrial base by financing large-scale joint procurement and infrastructure. But scaling this capacity cost-effectively may require trusted partnerships beyond Europe's borders. ASEAN offers that potential, particularly if it is more closely integrated into European defense supply chains. If structured to meet SAFE's eligibility criteria – such as majority EU ownership or controlled IP – these arrangements could support the program's objectives of efficiency, resilience and industrial depth while enabling Southeast Asian states to modernize affordably under transparent, rules-based frameworks. All in all, Europe's growing Indo-Pacific aspirations are diplomatically significant but strategically incomplete. To play a central role, Europe needs to embed itself in regional institutions such as ADMM-Plus, align defense engagement with economic development and integrate trusted regional partners into its defense industrial supply chains. These moves won't match American force projection or offset Chinese naval expansion, but they could anchor Europe as a durable, strategic partner in a region looking for options beyond the familiar two superpower poles. Marcus Loh is chairman of the Public Affairs Group at the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA) Asia Pacific. He also serves on the executive committee of SGTech's Digital Transformation Chapter, contributing to national conversations on AI, data infrastructure, and digital policy. A former president of the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore, Loh has played a longstanding role in shaping the relevance of strategic communication and public affairs in an evolving policy, technology and geoeconomic landscape.
HKFP
7 days ago
- HKFP
Same-sex couples should have ‘right to found family,' lawyer tells Hong Kong court in reciprocal IVF case
Same-sex couples should have 'the right to found a family,' a lawyer has told a Hong Kong court after lesbian parents who had a child via reciprocal in vitro fertilisation (RIVF) were barred from including both their names on their son's birth certificate. Hong Kong's High Court heard arguments in a judicial review related to the legal parental rights of same-sex couples with children born via RIVF on Wednesday and Thursday. The case relates to a lesbian couple, R and B, who underwent RIVF – a procedure allowing two women to take part in pregnancy – in South Africa in 2020. The egg was extracted from R, and B carried and gave birth to the baby, K, in Hong Kong in 2021. Hong Kong, which does not recognise same-sex marriage, views only a child's birth mother and her husband as legal parents. In R and B's case, only the birth mother, B, is the legal parent of their son. The couple went to court in 2023 to seek a declaration under the Parent and Child Ordinance that R is also a legal parent. The judge declined but, in her ruling, stated that R was a 'parent at common law' – a first in the common law world. Representing K, barrister Nigel Kat said on Wednesday that the 'parent at common law' status is not recognised in the Parent and Child Ordinance, and the child does not have a birth certificate showing that R is a legal parent. 'Therefore, R can walk around and tell everybody, 'I'm a parent,' [but] she can't prove it,' he said, adding that gay people 'are not excluded from the right to found a family.' Kat argued that the birth certificates of children born via RIVF should reflect both parents' names, and that references to parents in the Parent and Child Ordinance should be amended to include 'parents at common law' where their children were born via RIVF. 'Demeaning' discrimination During the hearing on Wednesday, barrister Isabel Tam – who is representing the birth mother, B, as an interested party in the case – said her client faced discrimination because of her sexual orientation. If B and R were a heterosexual couple who had undergone IVF, they would 'not be in this position,' Tam said. 'This has quite a disproportionate impact on the development of her family life as well as how she presents herself to the outside world.' The discrimination was 'particularly demeaning' because it was based on personal characteristics that could not be changed, the barrister said. 'B and R cannot change their… sexual orientation,' Tam said. 'K cannot change the manner of his birth.' Stewart Wong, representing the Department of Justice, said on Thursday that while he accepted that the easiest way to prove parental status was a birth certificate, the suggestion that K's family would encounter embarrassing situations was 'exaggerated.' One would not have to prove to the school that you are the parent every day, Wong said, adding that it would only need to be done when applying. For 'regular check-ups' at the hospital, the nurse would just require proof at registration, he said. It is 'not as if you need to prove or bring… [the child's] birth certificate every day of your life when the child is a minor,' Wong said. Guardianship order There is already an existing framework – a guardianship order from the court – if one is seeking parental rights and status, he said. 'The guardianship order offers clear and absolute proof on occasions that legal rights and obligations… [are] necessary,' Wong said. In response, Judge Russell Coleman said having to apply for a guardianship order may make the parents feel 'like less of a parent or a second-class parent.' Barrister Azan Marwah, representing K, raised other issues that may not be addressed by guardianship orders. In the event of a separation, B would not be able to demand maintenance payments from R, who can 'simply get away,' he said on Thursday. K would also have the 'lifelong disability' of not being able to inherit from R under the city's intestate ordinance, Marwah said, referring to the set of laws that regulate inheritance arrangements when one dies without a will. On Thursday, Coleman challenged Wong's view that those seeking parental rights could simply apply for a court guardianship order. The judge said 'what bristles with people' was the assumption that 'people like R and B… can't be perfectly good parents,' and questioned why a 'licence' was required. Wong said such same-sex relationships could be 'too variable' as the parties may not be stable. Coleman replied that the same could be said for heterosexual relationships. The judge said he would hand down a decision by August 22. The hearing comes ahead of the government's October deadline to provide a framework for recognising same-sex partnerships, per a top court ruling in 2023. No public consultations, however, are known to have taken place yet.
HKFP
05-06-2025
- HKFP
Hong Kong lawmakers endorse New Zealand judge for top court
A New Zealand judge has been appointed as a justice of Hong Kong's top court, after a years-long exodus of overseas jurists following Beijing's imposition of a sweeping security law on the finance hub. Hong Kong's lawmakers on Wednesday approved the appointment of William Young, 73, to join five other overseas non-permanent justices from the UK and Australia. Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction separate from mainland China and invites overseas judges to hear cases at its Court of Final Appeal. Their presence has been seen as a bellwether for the rule of law since the former British colony was handed back to China in 1997. Beijing passed a national security law on Hong Kong in 2020, following huge and often violent pro-democracy protests in the Chinese city the year before. Since then, several overseas judges have quit the Court of Final Appeal without finishing their terms, while others have not renewed their appointments. The lineup of overseas judges has gone from 15 at its peak down to five, not including Young. The newly appointed justice, who retired from his role as a New Zealand Supreme Court judge in April 2022, is expected to start in Hong Kong this month. Hong Kong leader John Lee accepted a recommendation to appoint Young in May and praised him as 'a judge of eminent standing and reputation'. Cases at the top court in Hong Kong are typically heard by a panel of four local judges and a fifth ad hoc member, who may be a foreign judge. In January, Hong Kong's chief justice said recruiting suitable overseas judges 'may be less straightforward than it once was', given geopolitical headwinds. The government has defended the security law as necessary to restore order after the 2019 protests and said the city remains a well-respected legal hub.
