Shareholder activism has changed corporate governance around the world in the past decade. Conventional wisdom holds that shareholder activism is only effective in firms with dispersed ownership; there has been much less discussion on whether and how activism would work in firms with controlling shareholders. This article fills this gap by investigating whether and how legal mechanisms influence strategy planning and activism outcomes based on hand-collected data regarding activists’ initiatives against firms with concentrated ownership in Hong Kong from 2003 to 2017. This article finds that cases using formal legal mechanisms appear to have had a higher success rate. Among the legal tools available, minority veto rights are the most popular mechanism used by activists in Hong Kong, and are quite effective in leveraging their position in controlled firms. Furthermore, the availability of legal remedies and the ownership level of controlling shareholders are factors that influence activists’ strategies. Most activist initiatives against controlled firms involve corporate governance disputes where activists can rely on legal protection to enhance their bargaining position. On the other hand, activists tend not to make their demands public, and they also avoid exercising legal rights when controlling shareholders control the majority of the shares.

Our research proposes ‘mixed legal transplant’ as a new concept in theories of legal transplantation. While the concept of legal transplantation is real, the phenomenon is much more complicated than what is often depicted and discussed by the academic community. In modern times, legal transplantation is often an informed reception by independent sovereign nations or people of two or more sets of rules from different jurisdictions, rather than a simplistic and passive reception of rules from one country to another. Using Vietnam as a case study, this article analyzes the deliberate consideration of two different models of precedent in the civil and common law traditions by Vietnamese lawmakers, and their choice of a mixed legal transplant in the hope that it would be best suited to the needs of a socialist country in transition. Its methods and results, however, are still in doubt and have been criticized as possibly creating uncertainty due to their structural incoherence. This article therefore concludes by proposing recommendations based on legal tradition to correct the misuse of the mixed legal transplant in Vietnam, and we hope that these recommendations can serve as a model for other countries.

It is trite that the law on directors’ duties is an important part of corporate governance. It is therefore unsurprising that a large part of extant research in the area is focused on understanding what the law requires, and how it applies or should apply in any particular situation. Such research is however largely reactive. In our research, we set out to look at duties from the perspective of the directors, with a view to appreciating how Singapore directors understand the law as it applies to them. The impetus for this is three-fold: first, to assess the depth of awareness amongst directors of the law on directors’ duties; second, to ascertain if there is any divergence between the law’s conceptualization of what is in the company’s interests, and the director’s own view as to how he or she would act in fact; and third, and flowing from the preceding, to assess the need for providing or improving knowledge enhancement courses targeted specifically at company directors. To collect the necessary data, we reached out to registered company directors of both listed companies and private companies to complete a survey. We released the survey online, and also conducted face-to-face interviews. Our article presents and analyzes the results of the survey.

This article offers a typology of comparative law research and assesses the state of this body of research in one Asian country – the State of Israel. To identify the work that should be considered ‘comparative’, I classify studies into three groups. Following a short overview of Israel's political and legal system, I assess the ways comparative public law is addressed in the country. Relying on a first-of-its-kind quantitative study of Israeli legal scholarship in English in the field of public law that compares at least two systems, the article shows that the compared systems in Israeli comparative legal research are predominantly western, and that materials from the United States by far outweigh all other sources. The article then considers several possible reasons for the limited gaze eastwards and beyond the United States, granting special attention to the cultural ‘Americanization’ of Israel. Directions for future research are considered in the conclusion, including the expansion of the findings from public law to other fields of law; the comparison of these findings with those of similar systems in Asia and beyond; and the possible ways legal education may promote the development of eastern-bound comparative exercises.

This article explores how and why Afghan merchants choose to use courts or informal dispute resolution methods. It goes beyond the common corruption and inefficiency arguments, which maintain that Afghans do not use courts because they are corrupt and inefficient. It leverages rich, original data on variation of dispute resolution practices across provinces and types of disputes to gain insights into Afghan merchants’ dispute resolution decisions. In so doing, I reveal a more complex picture of commercial dispute resolution in Afghanistan. In this article, I demonstrate that Afghan merchants do choose courts when courts enforce the parties’ expectations and courts’ judgments are necessary and effective. Moreover, while Afghan merchants do prefer informal dispute resolution methods, they do so because informal methods hold important advantages over courts in the context of Afghanistan where the formal property rights system is a failure, and the business climate is highly volatile.

In recent years, several developing countries have adopted regulatory laws to remain relevant in an increasingly globalized world and to make a successful transition from protected to market economies. Whilst developing countries and multilateral organizations supporting them are aware that in order to succeed adopted laws must be compatible with the context for which they are intended, there is less clarity as to the processes through which compatibility is generated. This article draws upon comparative law and development economics literature to argue that the compatibility of a transplant is shaped by the interplay of institutions through which it is adopted. The article also argues that in addition to compatibility, a transplant must enjoy a degree of legitimacy to be effective in the adopting country and the institutions which generate compatibility may also enhance such legitimacy. In order to understand the compatibility and legitimacy-generating potential of the interplay of adopting institutions in developing countries, the article examines and compares the adoption of competition laws by India and Pakistan in 2002 and 2007 respectively. The article also examines the impact of legitimacy on the post-adoption interpretation of competition law transplants and its significance for their implementation in either country.

This article addresses three questions. First, what is the effect on the civil law in Asia of young (and old) academics adopting English, the language of the common law, as a second language – rather than a civil law language, either a Continental European language (French, German etc), or another Asian civil law language (Japanese, Chinese etc)? Second, what is the effect on the civil law of civil law jurists pursuing their graduate studies not only in English but also in common law jurisdictions, rather than in civil law jurisdictions and returning home to become academics or practicing lawyers in civil law jurisdictions? Finally, since English is the lingua franca of civil law jurists in Asia, how can we adapt English to the civil law so as to make English one of our civil law languages?

When an authoritarian state starts democratic transition reforms, the constitution can facilitate such reforms. However, a little-studied role of the constitution during democratic transition is that it can back indigenous peoples’ demands. Constitutional reform during democratic transition enables indigenous peoples to challenge the state's ‘internal colonialism’. The democratic institutions and democratic rights established and guaranteed by the constitution open possibilities for indigenous peoples to push for constitutional reforms that promote ‘internal decolonization’. This means that indigenous peoples are empowered and that their interests are protected. For indigenous peoples, a ‘double transition’ can thus take place: from authoritarianism to democracy, and from internal colonialism to internal decolonization. A case study of the constitutional reforms in Taiwan confirms that the constitution can guarantee indigenous peoples’ participation in constitutional reform. But in Taiwan, this involvement has not led to meaningful incorporation of indigenous peoples in the constitution, and it has not fully promoted double transition. The case study highlights serious problems for indigenous peoples to realize strong constitutional reforms. This article provides a foundation for additional research on constitutional change and indigenous peoples. This is critical to advance constitutional theory and to ascertain whether and how constitutions can give indigenous peoples a voice.

This article considers whether the academic inquiry of comparative constitutionalism in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan may be further developed by a full consideration of the relevance of social movements. Integrating social movement theories into comparative constitutional law, this article argues that a more nuanced positive account of the creation and consolidation of constitutionalism in these East Asian polities must be situated within the engagement of social movements in discursive venues for formal and informal constitutional change.

This article examines the objectives for the establishment of circuit tribunals of the Supreme People’s Court of China and the politico-legal functions of such tribunals in the context of judicial reforms that were first launched in 1999. It starts with an analysis of the fundamental problems and difficulties that impeded judicial reforms in the last two decades. It then provides a careful analysis of the establishment of circuit tribunals and examines the political barriers to fundamental reforms towards genuine, though limited, independent adjudication in China. Although we do not believe that the circuit tribunals will be a breakaway force in the Chinese polity, the present reforms do have the potential to break up certain circular reforms and break through some fundamental barriers to deep reform. Further, while judicial independence, in the sense of the judiciary being an independent force in the political and constitutional scheme of checks and balances, is not attainable in the political environment in China today or indeed in the near future, it is hoped that the present reforms might grant the Chinese judiciary some limited, but much needed, autonomy within the Chinese political system.

Institutional investors are acknowledged as an influential force in markets worldwide. As a result of increased focus on the impact from the investing and shareholding practices of institutional investors, stewardship codes were first introduced in the UK, followed by Malaysia. This article evaluates the theory and practice of institutional investor stewardship in Malaysia through functional and contextual lenses, as juxtaposed against the more established position of stewardship in the UK. Notwithstanding an analogous legal framework for shareholder rights and the textual similarities of the UK Stewardship Code and Malaysian Code for Institutional Investors, the dominance of government-linked investment companies and government-linked companies in Malaysia results in a distinct set of issues in relation to institutional investor stewardship. This article then argues that the stewardship codes are in themselves insufficient in increasing the quality and scope of institutional investor engagement as they fail to address the underlying agency conflicts between the institutional investors and ultimate beneficiaries or clients. In learning from the UK's experience, it is important that Malaysian policymakers pay attention to the overarching structural factors and incentives driving institutional investor engagement alongside the development and take-up of the stewardship code.

This article compares the Korean and Japanese jury systems, evaluating the performance of jury trials as reflected in empirical studies in these countries, and identifying some innovative practices in Korean and Japanese systems that can be adopted by other jurisdictions. This comparative study of Korean and Japanese jury systems will also address common problems and investigate different approaches to those problems. At this juncture, numerous existing empirical studies conducted in both countries provide a good framework for comparison. Although jury trials are firmly entrenched within the Korean and Japanese legal systems, there are several common challenges faced by each country that uses lay juries: avoidance of bias, judicial oversight and intervention for reasoned decision-making, importance of rationality in the jury deliberation process, etc. A careful analysis of the Korean and Japanese experiences will provide useful guidance to not only policymakers in Asia but also criminal justice scholars around the world.

In Semenyih Jaya v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat, the Federal Court of Malaysia asserted that the Federal Constitution continues to vest a distinct and independent judicial power in the judiciary notwithstanding earlier constitutional amendments, and also gave substantive effect to the ‘basic structure doctrine’ for the first time in Malaysia. This has contributed significantly to the long-standing discussion of whether, and to what extent, the ‘basic structure doctrine’ applies in Malaysia. Situating that landmark decision within the context of the evolving judicial practice in Malaysia and other jurisdictions on the ‘Westminster model’, this article evaluates the extent to which Semenyih Jaya has contributed towards strengthening constitutionalism and the rule of law in Malaysia. Considering that the apex court stopped short of directly invalidating the relevant constitutional amendments, this article argues that Semenyih Jaya represents a sophisticated modification of the ‘basic structure doctrine’ to fit the current context of Malaysian constitutionalism. This article also examines how Semenyih Jaya advances the ‘constitutional dialogue’ between the judiciary and its co-equal branches of government, and assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the approach taken by the Federal Court in that case.

Notions of the social good including rights, fairness, and economic efficiency influence our choices of law and policymaking. The discussion on social good is normally a heated one in pluralistic societies with multiple worldviews on the right thing to do. This article brings a novel Islamic perspective on the social good in pluralistic societies. In doing so, it makes and defends three propositions: first, religious notions of the social good, including those derived from the Islamic worldview, should not be excluded from public justifications when making moral and policy choices. There is no good reason for plural/secular societies to reject the benefits of religious presence in public discourse given the overwhelming evidence on religious precepts being a mobilizing force to promote co-existence and social cooperation. Second, Islamic notions of social good can contribute to that end. The article criticizes the common perception of Islamic ethics that views Islamic doctrine as a rigid positivist system which imposes inflexible moral codes limiting the influence of independent human intellect and agency. I show that Islamic notions of the social good are dynamic and adaptable to change. The third part of the article shows that the social good in Islamic doctrine has always been defined with reference to essential human needs, including the promotion of life, intellect, social cooperation, and justice. At their core, Islamic notions of the social good exhibit an overarching deontological orientation towards moral choices. They broadly overlap with comparative and influential frameworks on human flourishing, including the ‘Human Development Paradigm’ and the ‘Capabilities Approach’.

After Soeharto stepped down in 1998, Indonesia began a radical decentralization program, one aspect of which was granting wide-ranging lawmaking powers to subnational governments. The national legislation establishing the decentralization framework gave power to the central government to review provincial-level laws, and, from 2014, for provincial governors to review city and county laws, and to invalidate them if they are inconsistent with national laws, morality, or public order. In 2017, the Constitutional Court declared these review mechanisms unconstitutional, deciding that these reviews should be conducted by the Supreme Court rather than the national or provincial executive governments. This decision reversed the trend of successive reforms from 2004 that had begun restoring political and legal power to the centre. It was also one of the most problematic in the Court’s history, as this article demonstrates. The legal reasoning was poor and incomplete, the Court appeared to be equally split (though the Court did not acknowledge this), and the consequences of the decision (which the Court did not appear to consider) are likely dire. The decision has caused great confusion, but despite its flaws may well lead to reforms requiring the Constitutional Court, rather than the Supreme Court, to review subnational laws.

Chinese court cases have attained increasing importance in recent studies of Chinese law, but remain insufficiently understood. In this article, I demonstrate why Chinese court cases should be given more weighty consideration in comparative studies involving Chinese law as a comparator, and how such cases, particularly ‘Guiding Cases’ and ‘Gazette Cases’ (which are published in the official Gazette of the Supreme People's Court), should be properly dealt with and assessed in view of the complexity of the court case system in China.