Legal systems develop, sometimes through the borrowing of foreign laws and institutions, sometimes through developing unique solutions. Even when foreign laws and institutions are borrowed and transplanted, there is invariably adaptation and transformation. The online conference on 13 January 2023 brought together scholars who investigate the phenomena of legal transplants, the development of legal innovations, their interactions, and how they affect development of legal systems.

Panel A began with a paper by Prof. Virginia Ho (Professor, City University of Hong Kong School of Law) entitled “Beyond Transplants: Transnational ESG Governance in East Asia.” Prof. Ho observed how transnational actors, such as the G20 Financial Stability Board, are developing norms for climate risk managements, and these norms are now stimulating legal reform is East Asia. These reforms often contain unique accents and contain novel elements. Interestingly, even as external norms stimulate the legal transplantations and innovations, the developments in East Asia in turn reinforce the innovations in other regions. In “Legal Transplants in Chinese Company law: A Complex Reality,” Dr Wenjing Chen (East China University of Political Science and Law) spoke on how Chinese Company Law transplanted legal concepts such as the derivate action and the directors’ duty of care. Noting divergence in how the transplanted rules operate in China and how they operate in the host jurisdictions, Dr Chen argued that close attention should be paid to how the rules are interpreted and applied by the judges, and that it is insufficient merely to borrow legal rules and norms. Mr Wanqiang Wu (Shanghai Jiao Tong University, KoGuan School of Law) gave a presentation on “Something Borrowed and Something Created: The Transplantation of Criminal Corporate Compliance in China.” Direct borrowing from major Western criminal corporate compliance models does not work for China.  The same goes for criminal law and criminal procedural law. Mr Wu explored why considering the ideas, values and existing institutions of the transplant jurisdictions are necessary to create unique and suitable legal solutions. In “Adapting Traditional Chinese Legal Culture to Westernised Property Law: A Comparative Study of Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan,” Dr Alvin Hoi-Chun Hung (Australian National University, ANU College of Law) found that although these three jurisdictions share the same traditional culture, their legal systems are rooted in different legal traditions. He explored how this accounts for the differences and how the three jurisdictions deal with the conflict between traditional customary and transplanted western legal concepts.

Panel B started with a presentation by Dr Elizabeth Brandon (University of Stirling, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Law and Philosophy) on “The use and adaptation of foreign laws for World Heritage sites in selected Asian countries.” Dr Brandon compared the transplanted legislation on World Heritage Sites in India, Sri Lank and Malaysia and analysed the tension between local needs and foreign law, and how the international guidelines in World Heritage protection legislation were tailored to accommodate local needs.  In “Weak-form Judicial Review in An Implicit Way: Chinese Courts’ Strategic Responses to Fintech Regulation,” Dr Pan Su (Shanghai University of Finance and Economic, Law School) found that rather than reviewing the legality of P2P Regulation, Chinese judges review the applicability of the P2P Regulation. By such implicit review, Chinese courts balance the administrative power and the private autonomy protection. Finally, Ms Marianne von Blomberg (University of Cologne, Institute of East Asian Studies – Chinese Studies, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Chinese Legal Culture) spoke on “Innovating Administrative Law for the Data Era or Undermining Legal Principle? The Social Credit System Through the Lens of Chinese Legal Literature.”  Ms Blomberg provided an insightful analysis of the Social Credit System, an innovative data-driven regulatory system, and the potential conflicts with existing legal framework and principles.