Bulletin Number Two 1986

long way to go ， especially in implementation, he demonstrated a keen understanding o f the Chinese position and injected a certain optimism during the symposium. Dr. Philip Baker analysed the concept o f legislation interpretation in China. Noting that the current system gives supremacy to the Standing Committee o f the National People's Congress and a narrowly restricted role to the judiciary, Baker none theless opined that China is presently standing at the beginning o f a process towards greater acceptance of a positive role for judges in law-making. Baker's com parison o f the different ways o f legislation interpre tation in China, the Soviet Union and Continental Europe in the past centuries was instructive. The papers by Professors Zentaro Kitagawa, Guy Carcassonne, Lee Carroll Bollinger and D.M.E. Evans all introduced an important area in the legal systems of their respective countries. Professor Kitagawa pointed out that the use of 'confer-in-good faith clauses' in contract is not unique in Japan as it is prevalent in China today. He discussed the Japanese assimilation of German and French legal codes and theories in the past and advanced a model system of contract law which is based on Japanese experience but consists of internationally recognizable legal elements. Drawing on noted cases and authorities, Professor Bollinger argued the case for a reflective, rational approach to the concept of rights whereby individual interests are to be respected but only as a means of shaping the character of the larger commu nity. Professor Carcassonne gave a brief introduction o f the French system wherein the protection of liberties is entrusted to the Constitutional Court and the administrative courts, both extraneous to the Judiciary. On his part, Professor Evans presented what appeared at first to be technical, but in fact, very rich and interesting discussion o f mutual adapta tion between Chinese customary law and the English common law relating to testaments and succession. These authors' comparative approach and their sensi tiv ity to the Hong Kong context at the time o f the symposium made their discussions most relevant and interesting. Through these papers one learns in greater depth o f both the differences and the meeting points o f legal concepts. There were enlightening discussions at the sessions among knowledgeable scholars and practitioners o f law. During the symposium, the authors and a few o f the foreign scholars who came to Hong Kong from Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan, and Guangdong especially for the symposium were invited to tour the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Yang. In a brief discussion there, the authors agreed to revise their papers for publication in a volume. In the evening o f the final day, a farewell ban quet was held at the Regent Hotel. Mr. Michael Thomas ， the Attorney-General o f Hong Kong, gave the closing address. Mr. Thomas lauded the sympo sium as a ‘bold and timely' event for Hong Kong. He made pointed remarks about the principle o f the rule o f law in the common law system and reminded his audience that the Joint Declaration was well received by the people o f Hong Kong because, among other things, ‘it promised for fifty years beyond 1997 a continuation o f the essential features o f the legal system, the judicial system including the independence o f the Judiciary, the accountability o f the executive power to the courts and to the law, and the rights and freedoms o f individuals.' Antic ipating the imple mentation o f the ‘one country, two systems' concept, Mr. Thomas detailed four areas o f specific tasks that Hong Kong must accomplish in the transition period. 'These are necessary, not so much to bring about a reconciliation o f differences in ideology and legal concepts between the system o f law in China and the system o f law in Hong Kong, but rather to accord w ith the Joint Declaration as a whole and to pave the way for a smooth transition,' he said. The banquet was attended by 260 persons, including the Vice-Chancellor Dr. Ma Lin and Mrs. Ma, the German Consul General Dr. Alfred Kuehn and Mrs. Kuehn, Mr. Justice T .L . Yang and Mrs. Yang, and other diplomats, academics, business leaders and leading lawyers, as well as interested laymen and students. Before and during the symposium there was a good deal o f coverage in both the English and Chinese press, which showed that public interest was aroused and the two objectives o f the symposium largely achieved. In several ways this symposium was a rewarding experience. It was the first attempt to bring together leading scholars representing more than the many jurisdictions o f the Commonwealth legal system in a comparative conference in Hong Kong. A ll who attended the conference, including the invited scholars themselves, indicated that they had learned useful information and gained a better understanding o f different legal systems. The Hong Kong community, which is deeply engrossed in the Basic Law debates, has been given an opportunity to approach the ques tion o f law from a wider perspective. An ever-present concern for Hong Kong's future permeated the entire proceedings. Even though there were expressions o f uneasiness in the audience over the imposition o f the notion o f socialist law in Hong Kong, the symposium ended w ith a sense o f guarded optimism based on mutual respect and better assurances for the future. - Byron SJ. Weng 6 NEWS