Hong Kong

Antitrust in Asia : One size fits all ? ASEAN, China, Hong Kong, India...

This third edition of the Antitrust in Asia conference was jointly organised by Concurrences Review and the Chinese University of Hong Kong with the support of the Hong Kong Competition Asssociaton, ESSEC Singapore and Sorbonne-Assas International Law School and in partnership with Baker McKenzie, Charles River Associates, Clifford Chance, Compass Lexecon, Holman Fenwick Willan, King & Wood Mallesons, Linklaters, Qualcomm, Slaughter and May (Panel sponsors), as well as PaRR Global and MLex (Media sponsors).

Conference summary

The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), the Hong Kong Competition Association (HCA) and Concurrences hosted the 2017 edition of the conference “Antitrust in Asia : One Size Fits All ?” at the Graduate Law Centre of CUHK Faculty of Law on Friday, April 7, 2017. Sandra Marco Colino (Assistant Professor, CUHK) and Carter Chim (Professional Consultant, CUHK) welcomed the participants by sharing their excitement at hosting the event at their Faculty and their city, where the first cross-sector antitrust legislation, the Hong Kong Competition Ordinance, entered into force in December 2015. The event brought together practitioners, academics, industry representatives and other leading experts to discuss the developments and challenges currently affecting Asian competition law systems such as China, India, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan or Korea.

Keynote speech

Justice Godfrey Lam Wan Ho (President, Hong Kong Competition Tribunal) delivered the opening keynote speech, in which he discussed the feasibility of the conference’s “one-size-fits-all” theme in Asia—that is, harmonization of the competition law regimes developed in this continent within the last few decades. The different systems do share some common ground, in addition to being subject to common inter- national and regional policies. There is further an increasing need for more uni ed regulations regarding corporations’ multi-national development. Yet full harmonization could fail to recognize the region’s legitimate differences. These include differences between : 1) legal and constitutional systems, 2) market sizes, 3) political considerations, 4) socioeconomic and cultural characteristics, and 5) stages of development in competition policy.

Photos © Powerful Colour Image​

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.



  • Saint-Gobain (Paris)
  • New South Wales Department of Customer Services
  • Singapore Legal Service
  • The Court of Appeal of Hong Kong
  • The Chinese University of Hong Kong
  • BHP Billiton (Singapore)
  • Clifford Chance (Brussels)
  • University of Dundee
  • Compass Lexecon (Hong Kong)
  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)
  • University of Hong Kong
  • O’Melveny & Myers (Hong Kong)
  • Keystone Strategy (London)
  • Japan Fair Trade Commission (Tokyo)
  • University of Hong Kong
  • Qualcomm (San Diego)
  • Baker McKenzie (Hong Kong)
  • Indonesian Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (Jakarta)
  • University of New South Wales (Sydney)
  • Asian Competition Forum
  • Tencent (Beijing)
  • Economics Partners (Hong Kong)
  • StubHub (Hong Kong)
  • Holman Fenwick Willan (London)
  • University Paris-Panthéon-Assas
  • APEC (Singapore)
  • Microsoft (Singapore)
  • Slaughter and May (Hong Kong)