Author
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.
Suggested Citation
Taixia Shen, 2022.
"Judicial Interpretation of Human Dignity by Hong Kong’s Courts,"
SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, February.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:21582440221078298
DOI: 10.1177/21582440221078298
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:21582440221078298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.