German Law Journal· 2026Q1
The Use and Misuse of the Lex Specialis Principle in Hong Kong’s Fundamental Rights Adjudication
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Hong Kong courts increasingly misuse the 'lex specialis' principle (special law overrides general law) to justify limiting fundamental rights, particularly in cases involving equality and marriage, according to a comparative jurisprudential analysis.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- The 'lex specialis' principle, where special law overrides general law, is being increasingly used in Hong Kong's fundamental rights cases.
- Analysis of landmark cases like Kwok Cheuk Kin, Sham Tsz Kit, and The Hong Kong Housing Authority v. Infinger shows inconsistent and sometimes problematic application of the principle.
- The principle was deemed sound in resolving indigenous rights vs. equality, but problematic in balancing marriage freedom against equality.
- The article advocates for upholding higher human rights protections derived from constitutional instruments over 'lex specialis' when conflicts arise, unless legislative intent dictates otherwise.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Abstract Lex specialis derogat legi generali , the principle that special law prevails over general law, is a well-established doctrine for resolving conflicts between legal norms. Yet its application in fundamental rights adjudication remains underexplored. This Article contributes to this global discourse by examining the increasing invocation of this principle in Hong Kong courts. It scrutinizes the deployment of the principle in landmark cases: resolving the tension between indigenous inhabitants’ rights and the right to equality in Kwok Cheuk Kin v. Director of Lands ; balancing freedom of marriage against equality in Sham Tsz Kit v. Secretary for Justice ; and, as advanced by the Government, justifying the exclusion of married same-sex couples from public housing and inheritance entitlements in The Hong Kong Housing Authority v. Infinger, Nick and Secretary for Justice v. Li Yik Ho . Through a comparative jurisprudential analysis, this Article argues that the application in Kwok Cheuk Kin was legally sound, whereas its use in Sham Tsz Kit was problematic. Furthermore, it contends that where different constitutional instruments provide varying levels of protection for human rights, absent a clear legislative intent to the contrary, courts should uphold the higher standard of rights protection rather than relying on the lex specialis principle.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. German Law Journal, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Law
LawSocial Sciences