What if a little-known rule in Hong Kong’s constitution could help build a more open, fair, and community-driven approach to digital life?
In March 2025, the Chief Executive's Policy Unit (CEPU) of Hong Kong published a pioneering policy report by Professor Marcelo Thompson, who joined the Common Law Section and the Centre for Law, Technology and Society earlier this spring. Supported by a CEPU Public Policy Research grant – awarded for the first time to research in this area – the report offers a bold and hopeful path forward for data governance in Hong Kong. At a time when concerns about overbearing government control dominate international discourse on China and Hong Kong, Professor Thompson offers a compelling counter-narrative: a vision that points to a path toward reform driven by openness, flexibility, and collaboration, while abandoning adversarial framings of Hong Kong in relation to China.
Entitled "Standards-Setting, National Security, and the Responsibility of Technological Platforms in Hong Kong: Understanding Article 139 of the Hong Kong Basic Law," the report explores how Hong Kong can harness a little-known but powerful legal tool: Article 139(2) of the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Article 139(2) grants the Hong Kong government the authority to independently determine technological standards and specifications within the Region. Despite the provision’s potential, it has received almost no serious scholarly attention. This report seeks to change that.
Professor Thompson carefully traces the historical roots of Hong Kong's current legal and policy environment, showing how its data governance structures have failed to keep pace with technological and social changes. But his analysis is far from cynical. Rather than offering only critique, the report presents a practical framework for renewal, examining how Article 139(2) can be used to promote the public interest within a rapidly evolving digital environment. At the core of the report is Professor Thompson’s vision for a future in which public institutions, civil society, and the private sector can work together to create regulations that are not only effective but also fair, transparent, and inclusive.
Professor Thompson argues that Article 139(2) can serve as the legal basis for a more responsive and forward-thinking approach to online risks and harms, particularly those posed by powerful technological platforms. Moving beyond the dominant lens of national security, the report encourages a broader normative discussion centered on the public interest, including questions of data privacy, governance, and platform accountability.
Most importantly: as such questions go to the heart of the governance of any society in the 21st century, Article 139(2) emerges as an unsuspected cornerstone of Hong Kong’s legal system as a whole. Seen from this perspective, ideas in the report acquire heightened relevance for informing the relationship between Hong Kong and China’s Central Authorities in the information age – including through shedding light on how the very principle of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ that governs this relationship should be interpreted.
Indeed, one of the most provocative aspects of the report is its exploration of Hong Kong's regulatory autonomy. Can Hong Kong, despite its geopolitical context, exercise a meaningful policy mandate distinct from mainland China? Professor Thompson argues that while the answer may be yes, the nuances far transcend global perceptions in relation to the region. The greatest challenge for Hong Kong – and for the very idea of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ – is not so much resisting perceived attempts of encroachment by the Central Authorities. The challenge, instead, is forging ahead in creating a new legal narrative for Hong Kong – one that ensures the region’s relevance and endurance in an age of complex and inexorable technological change.
In creating this narrative, Professor Thompson suggests that Hong Kong must seek to energize and mobilize all relevant actors around a dynamic and collaborative standardization framework that can serve as the basis for further legal development in the region. While China has an increasingly sophisticated system of public interest protections against the power of technological platforms, the reality in Hong Kong is, ironically, much different. Outside the bounds of a sophisticated financial regulatory system, and of basic copyright reform that took over a decade to pass, the clock of technology regulation in Hong Kong is virtually stopped at the time of the handover. Without a swift and transformative approach to how Hong Kong’s information environment is regulated, this ossification risks being the fate of the Hong Kong legal system itself.
The report's significance extends beyond Hong Kong. It exemplifies how scholarly research can create space for constructive criticism within complex political environments. Professor Thompson’s report is a significant scholarly contribution, but it is also a hopeful and strategic policy intervention. It marks a milestone not only for Hong Kong’s development of its digital governance regime, but also for academic engagement in difficult political contexts. As the first CEPU Public Policy Research grant awarded for a study of this kind, the report sets a precedent for future research in Hong Kong at the intersection of law, governance, and public policy.
Prior to joining the University of Ottawa, Professor Thompson was a full-time member of the Faculty of Law at The University of Hong Kong, where he served as Acting and Deputy Director of both the Law and Technology Centre and of the Master of Laws in Technology and Intellectual Property Law. His research remains deeply interested and involved in issues concerning the regulation of the Internet in China and, within it, the future of Hong Kong’s legal system.
The Common Law Section proudly celebrates this exceptional achievement by Professor Thompson!