Macau Business Magazine | August 2026
Legal disputes in the Greater Bay Area can ping‑pong between Hong Kong, Macau and the Mainland, fuelling ‘forum shopping’, duplicate lawsuits and uneven outcomes, a study indicates. Scholars argue the remedy is deeper legal harmonisation, drawing on the European Union’s experience with model laws and unified private‑law rules, alongside practical cooperation on procedures
João Paulo Meneses
Due to the distinct jurisdictional systems in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macau, it is inevitable that multiple jurisdictions may claim authority over the same legal dispute, resulting in “significant confusion,” state a team of legal scholars.
For instance, if a Hong Kong merchant (Plaintiff A) and a Macau merchant (Defendant B) agree to perform a contract within the Greater Bay Area, a subsequent dispute could potentially fall under the jurisdiction of all three regions: the Hong Kong court would have jurisdiction because Party A is in Hong Kong and the summons can be effectively served; the Macau court would have jurisdiction because the defendant has a domicile or residence in Macau; and the Mainland Chinese court would also have territorial jurisdiction because the place of contract performance is in Mainland China, explain Xiaoding Fan (University of Porto), Fu Kuan Ian (Renmin University of China) and Weng I Yang (University of Macau).
“This overlapping authority gives rise to two main forms of conflict: parallel litigation and forum shopping,” they summarise.
On one side, parallel litigation may manifest in two ways: via duplicate litigation (where, for example, a Macau merchant simultaneously sues a Hong Kong merchant in both Mainland China and Macau courts) and via counter‑litigation (where, upon learning of an initial lawsuit in Mainland China or Macau, a Hong Kong merchant decides to counter‑sue in Hong Kong on the same dispute).
“These conflicts are further complicated by differences in history, culture and political background across the regions, leading to varying conflict‑of‑laws rules. Consequently, the governing law and judicial interpretations may differ from one jurisdiction to another,” state the three authors.
“Many of these [previous] arrangements have been unilateral and fall short of constituting a comprehensive tripartite agreement”
A vicious cycle of uncertainty and inefficiency
Since the plaintiff generally has the freedom to choose the forum, this unilateral choice can place the defendant at a disadvantage, forcing a reactive stance in a potentially less favourable court — a practice known as ‘forum shopping’.
In their research paper they explain: if a defendant anticipates that the conflict‑of‑laws rules applied by the chosen court will be unfavourable, they might initiate a counter‑lawsuit in another jurisdiction. “This action, in turn, spawns additional instances of parallel litigation, creating a vicious cycle of legal uncertainty and inefficiency.”
So, resolving these issues — specifically, “eliminating parallel litigation and curbing forum shopping—is crucial.”
Xiaoding, Fu and Weng propose several approaches for the resolution of jurisdictional conflicts but exclude one of them (unifying national substantive law, because its “impracticality”) and consider another as “a temporary solution” (separate legal amendments in the three regions).
For them, unifying interregional private law is “the inevitable path for a unitary state,” while a model law inspired by the Treaty of Brussels (European Union) “offers the most viable path forward.”
“Such a framework would provide a unified set of jurisdictional principles tailored to the region’s unique legal landscape while respecting the autonomy of Hong Kong and Macau under the One Country, Two Systems principle. By promoting consistency in judicial interpretation and application, a model law would reduce unnecessary jurisdictional disputes, enhance procedural efficiency, and reinforce the credibility of the legal environment in cross-border commercial activities,” sustain the authors of “Plural Legal System under a Unitary State: Jurisdictional Conflicts in Cross-Border Commercial Disputes in the Greater Bay Area and Lessons from the EU Experience” (2025).
Legal harmonisation
The European Union also serves as a starting point for the reflections of three legal experts from the Mainland, who wrote about “Integration through Law in the Guangdong–Hong Kong–Macao Greater Bay Area.”
According to them, integration should be pursued through “the role of legal harmonization” in promoting cohesion within the GBA.
Drawing on the European experience, Liu Zuozhen, Li Jiannan and Li Shizian examine law as both a tool and a product of integration.
As a tool, “legal harmonization facilitates border flows, supports economic coordination, and undermines national identity under the ‘one country, two systems’ framework.”
As a product, “it reflects the evolutionary dynamics and tensions between the region’s distinct legal systems.”
The authors argue that, unlike in the European Union, “the formation of a unified legal framework in the Greater Bay Area remains a complex and long-term challenge.”
“A model law inspired by the Treaty of Brussels (European Union) offers the most viable path forward”
Introducing fresh approaches to improve governance
In recent months, several experts have examined the problem of legal conflicts in the GBA. While most agree on the diagnosis, the solutions they propose vary.
Wan Xue, a postgraduate student at Saint Petersburg State University, has also written about the background, causes and distinguishing features of legal conflicts in the GBA. According to her, if the primary objective of the GBA is “to enhance collaboration among the three administrative regions,” it is necessary to study “the underlying causes and unique features of legal conflicts within a specific region in order to establish a basis for resolving these disputes.”
Since “conflicts are bound to arise in the field of public law due to the local legislation of the nine cities in the Pearl River Delta region,” leading to potential conflicts in the interpretation and application of laws, as well as jurisdictional issues, Wan proposes “to establish a cohesive legal framework, and subsequently introduce novel approaches to enhance the level of governance.
Previous unsuccessful attempts
Since 1997, several attempts have been made to establish a unified interregional private law. The three regions have entered into multiple judicial assistance arrangements based on Article 95 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong and Article 93 of the Basic Law of Macau.
“However, these arrangements have largely focused on subordinate aspects—such as service of process, evidence collection, recognition and enforcement of judgments, and arbitration—rather than directly addressing the core jurisdictional issues,” according to the authors of “Plural Legal System under a Unitary State…”. “Moreover, many of these arrangements have been unilateral and fall short of constituting a comprehensive tripartite agreement.”
Last June, a joint meeting on close cooperation in legal matters between Macau, Zhuhai and Hengqin discussed “exchange and cooperation in legislation between the three regions, cooperation in legal dissemination, the mechanism for sharing and exchanging legal information, the coordination of rules and mechanisms between Macau and Hengqin, among other topics,” as part of the second phase of development of the In‑Depth Cooperation Zone.
According to a statement from the Legal Affairs Bureau (DSAJ), “innovative paths” were discussed, including “the establishment of a cooperation mechanism for the training of qualified professionals in foreign legal matters between Macau, Zhuhai, and Hengqin, and cooperation in notarial matters between the three regions.”
In future, it reads, “an innovative path will be jointly explored for the coordination of rules and mechanisms, to promote high‑quality integration between Macau and Hengqin and the construction of the rule of law in GBA.””
Two different examples
The coexistence of three legal systems within the GBA is reflected in several areas. Below are two distinct examples that illustrate the contrasts.
Ageing finance and pensions
Professor Mei Ge, from the City University of Macau, recalls that, also in the GBA, ageing finance has become a crucial tool to address pension challenges and achieve sustainable development. While the nine mainland cities have established a system centred on pension finance, elderly care service finance and elderly care industry finance, “Hong Kong and Macau rely on multi-pillar pension systems and market-oriented investment strategies.”
Ageing finance in the GBA still faces several major challenges, the first being “insufficient policy and regulatory coordination,” with it being necessary, according to this scholar, “improving the policy and regulatory framework by establishing cross-border coordination mechanisms and legal details.”
Cross-border data governance
The GBA is the main driver of China’s digital economy strategy and ranks first nationwide in the number of 5G base stations. However, “the cross-border flow of communication data in the GBA faces the dilemma of adapting rules under the governance framework of ‘one country, two systems, and three legal domains’.”
“Due to limitations in the design of collaborative mechanisms between jurisdictions and the localization and adaptation of international rules, the current institutional mechanisms are difficult to break the value tension between data sovereignty and circulation efficiency,” states Weitao Meng, Zhaoqing University, China.
Among other suggestions, Prof. Meng proposes that “a collaborative rule-of-law model for cross-border communication data flow in the GBA can promote the formation of a governance paradigm for balancing national security, regional development, and the protection of individual rights, and facilitate the construction of a cross-border data governance system in the digital age.”