Necessity and Institutional Design of Introducing a Qualified Right to Human Review of Significant Automated Decisions in Hong Kong, China: A Comparative Study Based on GDPR Article 22 and the PRC's Personal Information Protection Law

The rapid proliferation of automated decision-making (ADM) systems has raised significant concerns regarding algorithmic accountability, transparency, and the protection of individual rights. This article critically examines the necessity and institutional design of introducing a qualified right to human review for significant automated decisions within the legal context of Hong Kong, China. By conducting a comprehensive comparative study based on Article 22 of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the People's Republic of China's Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), this research identifies the respective strengths and weaknesses of these prominent regulatory frameworks. The analysis demonstrates that Hong Kong, China's current reliance on voluntary administrative guidelines and fragmented, sectoral-specific regulations is insufficient to address the complex challenges posed by advanced algorithmic systems. Consequently, this study argues that Hong Kong, China urgently requires the enactment of a robust statutory right to human review. To achieve this, the article proposes a five-pronged institutional design: first, redefining the legal scope of ADM subject to mandatory human review; second, establishing substantive and meaningful human intervention mechanisms; third, embedding a clear right to explanation as the foundational pillar for algorithmic transparency; fourth, formulating differentiated regulatory requirements tailored to the public and private sectors, coupled with independent oversight; and fifth, improving practical application, enforcement mechanisms, and accessible remedies. Ultimately, this framework aims to balance technological innovation with fundamental data privacy rights.