Judicial Interpretation of Human Dignity by Hong Kong’s Courts

Taixia Shen

SAGE Open, 2022, vol. 12, issue 1, 21582440221078298

Abstract: This study employed empirical, case, and comparative analysis methods to examine how Hong Kong’s courts have judicially interpreted the concept of human dignity. It aimed to understand the concept of human dignity in Hong Kong law and its role in judicial adjudication and to explore the contributions that Hong Kong’s courts have made to interpreting and developing the concept of human dignity in support of the development of national and international human rights. In this study, cases heard in Hong Kong’s courts from 1997 to 2019 were analyzed. The results showed that Hong Kong’s courts interpreted the concept of human dignity in cases concerning the right to equality, right to privacy, right to work, right to dignity, and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment, despite the fact that some of them are not found in the Hong Kong Basic Law. The concept of human dignity provides a foundation on which judges can interpret human rights and is a useful tool for litigants to safeguard their human rights. Although Hong Kong’s courts have cited interpretations of human dignity made by the European Court of Human Rights and other common law courts, they have also interpreted it in their own unique way. Hong Kong’s courts have made great contributions to shaping the concept of human dignity to increase justice around the world.

Keywords: human dignity; human rights; Hong Kong’s courts; judicial interpretation; right to dignity (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221078298 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:21582440221078298

DOI: 10.1177/21582440221078298

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in SAGE Open
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().