Courts are political institutions. And judges do not operate in an institutional or ideological vacuum, as they are shaped by the social, political, and economic struggles that take place within their political systems. Where the strategic environment confers discretion on the courts, the judges can construct a constitutional identity for their jurisdiction distinct from their government’s vision and redefine the polity’s place in the world. And this constitutional convergence in East Asia will endure so long as the political system in each jurisdiction remains fragmented, the courts continue to be independent and judges choose to align their local jurisprudence with Western human rights law.

Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong are exceptional insofar as their courts are the only ones in Asia that have converged on the use of Structured Proportionality (SP) to invalidate legislation routinely. Their judges reason through the four-stage SP sequentially and harness SP to overturn state action regularly. In East Asia, SP has been used to invalidate laws that limit free speech, freedom of assembly, criminal due process, prisoners’ rights, the right to work, sexual autonomy and the right to property.

Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea have the only courts in Asia that regularly use a structured four-stage Proportionality Analysis system to invalidate laws. They also have the only courts in Asia that routinely apply innovative constitutional remedies such as Suspension Orders and Remedial Interpretation to rectify constitutionally flawed legislation. This book explores the constitutional convergence in East Asia and explains its limits.