{"id":1164320,"date":"2026-08-23T05:51:22","date_gmt":"2026-08-23T05:51:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/1164320\/"},"modified":"2026-08-23T05:51:22","modified_gmt":"2026-08-23T05:51:22","slug":"fixing-the-gbas-legal-gridlock","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/1164320\/","title":{"rendered":"Fixing the GBA\u2019s legal gridlock"},"content":{"rendered":"

Macau Business Magazine | August 2026<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Legal disputes in the Greater Bay Area can ping<\/strong>\u2011<\/strong>pong between Hong Kong, Macau and the Mainland, fuelling \u2018forum shopping\u2019, duplicate lawsuits and uneven outcomes, a study indicates. Scholars argue the remedy is deeper legal harmonisation, drawing on the European Union\u2019s experience with model laws and unified private<\/strong>\u2011<\/strong>law rules, alongside practical cooperation on procedures<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jo\u00e3o Paulo Meneses<\/p>\n

jpmeneses@macaubusiness.com<\/a><\/p>\n

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 \u201csignificant confusion,\u201d state a team of legal scholars.<\/p>\n

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).<\/p>\n

\u201cThis overlapping authority gives rise to two main forms of conflict: parallel litigation and forum shopping,\u201d they summarise.<\/p>\n

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\u2011litigation (where, upon learning of an initial lawsuit in Mainland China or Macau, a Hong Kong merchant decides to counter\u2011sue in Hong Kong on the same dispute).<\/p>\n

\u201cThese conflicts are further complicated by differences in history, culture and political background across the regions, leading to varying conflict\u2011of\u2011laws rules. Consequently, the governing law and judicial interpretations may differ from one jurisdiction to another,\u201d state the three authors.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cMany of these [previous] arrangements have been unilateral and fall short of constituting a comprehensive tripartite agreement\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A vicious cycle of uncertainty and inefficiency<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 \u2014 a practice known as \u2018forum shopping\u2019.<\/p>\n

In their research paper they explain: if a defendant anticipates that the conflict\u2011of\u2011laws rules applied by the chosen court will be unfavourable, they might initiate a counter\u2011lawsuit in another jurisdiction. \u201cThis action, in turn, spawns additional instances of parallel litigation, creating a vicious cycle of legal uncertainty and inefficiency.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, resolving these issues \u2014 specifically, \u201celiminating parallel litigation and curbing forum shopping\u2014is crucial.\u201d<\/p>\n

Xiaoding, Fu and Weng propose several approaches for the resolution of jurisdictional conflicts but exclude one of them (unifying national substantive law, because its \u201cimpracticality\u201d) and consider another as \u201ca temporary solution\u201d (separate legal amendments in the three regions).<\/p>\n

For them, unifying interregional private law is \u201cthe inevitable path for a unitary state,\u201d while a model law inspired by the Treaty of Brussels (European Union) \u201coffers the most viable path forward.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSuch a framework would provide a unified set of jurisdictional principles tailored to the region\u2019s 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,\u201d sustain the authors of \u201cPlural Legal System under a Unitary State: Jurisdictional Conflicts in Cross-Border Commercial Disputes in the Greater Bay Area and Lessons from the EU Experience\u201d (2025).<\/p>\n

Legal harmonisation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Union also serves as a starting point for the reflections of three legal experts from the Mainland, who wrote about \u201cIntegration through Law in the Guangdong\u2013Hong Kong\u2013Macao Greater Bay Area.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to them, integration should be pursued through \u201cthe role of legal harmonization\u201d in promoting cohesion within the GBA.<\/p>\n

Drawing on the European experience, Liu Zuozhen, Li Jiannan and Li Shizian examine law as both a tool and a product of integration.<\/p>\n

As a tool, \u201clegal harmonization facilitates border flows, supports economic coordination, and undermines national identity under the \u2018one country, two systems\u2019 framework.\u201d<\/p>\n

As a product, \u201cit reflects the evolutionary dynamics and tensions between the region\u2019s distinct legal systems.\u201d<\/p>\n

The authors argue that, unlike in the European Union, \u201cthe formation of a unified legal framework in the Greater Bay Area remains a complex and long-term challenge.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cA model law inspired by the Treaty of Brussels (European Union) offers the most viable path forward\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Introducing fresh approaches to improve governance<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cto enhance collaboration among the three administrative regions,\u201d it is necessary to study \u201cthe underlying causes and unique features of legal conflicts within a specific region in order to establish a basis for resolving these disputes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since \u201cconflicts 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,\u201d leading to potential conflicts in the interpretation and application of laws, as well as jurisdictional issues, Wan proposes \u201cto establish a cohesive legal framework, and subsequently introduce novel approaches to enhance the level of governance.<\/p>\n

Previous unsuccessful attempts<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cHowever, these arrangements have largely focused on subordinate aspects\u2014such as service of process, evidence collection, recognition and enforcement of judgments, and arbitration\u2014rather than directly addressing the core jurisdictional issues,\u201d according to the authors of \u201cPlural Legal System under a Unitary State\u2026\u201d. \u201cMoreover, many of these arrangements have been unilateral and fall short of constituting a comprehensive tripartite agreement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Last June, a joint meeting on close cooperation in legal matters between Macau, Zhuhai and Hengqin discussed \u201cexchange 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,\u201d as part of the second phase of development of the In\u2011Depth Cooperation Zone.<\/p>\n

According to a statement from the Legal Affairs Bureau (DSAJ), \u201cinnovative paths\u201d were discussed, including \u201cthe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

In future, it reads, \u201can innovative path will be jointly explored for the coordination of rules and mechanisms, to promote high\u2011quality integration between Macau and Hengqin and the construction of the rule of law in GBA.\u201d\u201d<\/p>\n

Two different examples<\/strong><\/p>\n

The coexistence of three legal systems within the GBA is reflected in several areas. Below are two distinct examples that illustrate the contrasts.<\/p>\n

Ageing finance and pensions<\/strong><\/p>\n

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, \u201cHong Kong and Macau rely on multi-pillar pension systems and market-oriented investment strategies.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ageing finance in the GBA still faces several major challenges, the first being \u201cinsufficient policy and regulatory coordination,\u201d with it being necessary, according to this scholar, \u201cimproving the policy and regulatory framework by establishing cross-border coordination mechanisms and legal details.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cross-border data governance<\/strong><\/p>\n

The GBA is the main driver of China\u2019s digital economy strategy and ranks first nationwide in the number of 5G base stations. However, \u201cthe cross-border flow of communication data in the GBA faces the dilemma of adapting rules under the governance framework of \u2018one country, two systems, and three legal domains\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cDue 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,\u201d states Weitao Meng, Zhaoqing University, China.<\/p>\n

Among other suggestions, Prof. Meng proposes that \u201ca 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.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Macau Business Magazine | August 2026 Legal disputes in the Greater Bay Area can ping\u2011pong between Hong Kong,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1164321,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5174],"tags":[2000,299,5187,1699,316055,98134,316056,316057,316058,316059,197535],"class_list":["post-1164320","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-eu","tag-eu","tag-europe","tag-european","tag-european-union","tag-greater-bay","tag-macau","tag-macau-business","tag-mag","tag-mb","tag-mb-featured","tag-mna"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1164320","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1164320"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1164320\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1164321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1164320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1164320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1164320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}