New | Interpreting the rule of law

I have been invited to speak to you today about the rule of law.

I do so gladly because I believe observance of the rule of law is fundamental to any civilised society. But I also do so with some trepidation because I feel myself to some extent an outsider. I have though been coming here frequently since the 1980s and also have great affection for Hong Kong and its people. I am very proud now to play a role in Hong Kong’s International Arbitration Centre, and to visit my firm’s office here.  

I cannot claim though that I am of Hong Kong and recognise that others have greater legitimacy and knowledge to express opinions about the issues facing Hong Kong today.

For the same reason, I want to be circumspect about any statement I make about the current protest.  Like all right minded people, I deeply and sincerely hope that it will not end in blood shed and therefore commend the restrained response of the authorities. I will however have some statements more of general principle to make.

At this point let me make clear. As well as being a practising lawyer I continue as an active member of the Upper House of the British Parliament, the House of Lords, and sit on its Constitution Committee which is concerned with many of the issues I will discuss today. Everything I say today however is in a personal capacity.

Nonetheless, as the rule of law is now a matter of universal interest reflected in many local and international statements, I hope what I have to say is of value to those considering these issues. 

Further, I have indeed had to think hard about the rule of law especially during my time as Attorney General in the United Kingdom. I took office three months to the day before 9/11 and served thereafter through a turbulent and difficult period. It was an unprecedented and challenging time.