On the morning of July 4, 2026, the “Rule of Law Construction in China and the Charm of Jinling Law” Jiangsu-Hong Kong-Macao Law Student Exchange Meeting was successfully held in Conference Room 434, Xingmin Building, Xianlin Campus of Nanjing Normal University. The forum specially invited Mr. Chen Qi, Deputy Director of the Organization and Personnel Division of the Political Department of the Jiangsu Provincial High People’s Court; Ms. Chen Haiyan, Deputy Director of the Judge Training Division of the Political Department of the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court; Professor Ni Fei, Associate Dean of the Law School of Nanjing Normal University; and Associate Professor Chen Hui, Associate Dean of the Law School of Nanjing Normal University, to provide guidance. Law students from Hong Kong, Macao, and the mainland engaged in in-depth exchanges on four topics: comparative models of legal education across the three regions, internship experience and career paths, legal reasoning and practice, and the future development and contemporary responsibilities of law students in the new era. This was a cross-regional, cross-jurisdictional, and cross-stage youth dialogue. At the intersection of Jinling’s cultural heritage and the spirit of the rule of law, the participants jointly sketched a new vision for young legal professionals to understand China’s rule-of-law construction.

Wang Junlan, a Master of Laws student at the Law School of Nanjing Normal University, served as the host and opened the event with a warm and friendly introduction. She welcomed the young law students from Jiangsu, Hong Kong, and Macao to the Law School of Nanjing Normal University and outlined the basic schedule of the exchange meeting and the distinguished guests present.

The exchange meeting began with the topic “Joint Discussion on Education.” Xie Xiulin, an undergraduate student at the City University of Hong Kong School of Law, shared her educational experience in the common law system and introduced Hong Kong’s legal education model, which is rooted in case reading and aimed at legal argumentation. Lecture courses provide students with a knowledge framework, while tutorial courses use small-class discussions and layered questioning to deepen thinking. Students need to delve into judges’ opinions, observe how rules emerge from the factual fabric of specific cases, and see how they are distinguished, revised, and extended in subsequent judgments. It is in this open yet intensive classroom atmosphere that students gradually learn to read precedents, respond to challenges, and approach the true meaning of “thinking like a lawyer” through continuous reasoning.

Chen Yinglu, an undergraduate student at the University of Macau Faculty of Law, spoke about the training system of her faculty, highlighting Macao’s legal education as rooted in the civil law tradition while embracing a multicultural perspective. She noted that Macao’s legal system inherits the Portuguese legal tradition, with codes and written norms as its institutional foundation. Therefore, Macao’s legal education places special emphasis on statutory interpretation, systematic understanding, and normative application. The parallel tracks of Chinese law and Sino-Portuguese law enable Macao’s legal education to be deeply embedded in the local realities of legal services and public governance, while also facing the increasingly close economic, trade, and legal cooperation between China and Portuguese-speaking countries.

In response to the two students’ presentations, Zhang Guoxiang, a master’s student in Jurisprudence at the Law School of Nanjing Normal University, delivered a commentary. Taking the systematic training of mainland legal education as the axis, he compared Hong Kong’s approach of deriving rules from precedents, Macao’s bilingual and dual-track training features, and the mainland’s curriculum that gradually unfolds from jurisprudence and specific branches of law. He particularly noted that the characteristic of mainland legal education is “first establishing the skeleton, then enriching the flesh and blood.” In the early years, students receive systematic lectures in large classes to grasp legal concepts and basic principles. In the upper years and at the graduate level, small-class discussions, thematic seminars, and academic writing become more important learning methods. Students begin to understand the value order behind the law through continuous questioning and analysis, rather than merely being learners of rules. It is through this progressive process that legal education completes the transformation from knowing the law to understanding its rationale, and from learning rules to learning to think.

  

Next, the exchange moved to the topic “Joint Discussion on Career Paths,” shifting the discussion from the classroom to the broader horizon of the legal profession. Ran Ruifeng, a doctoral student at the City University of Hong Kong School of Law, took Hong Kong’s legal career path as an entry point and introduced that Hong Kong law students typically start with a law degree, and after completing basic legal education, they must enter the Postgraduate Certificate in Laws (PCLL) program for more career-oriented training. He noted that, depending on personal interests and career plans, graduates will then proceed either to a training contract as a solicitor or to a pupillage as a barrister, honing their professional skills on different tracks. The former is more closely related to client services, documentation, commercial transactions, and general legal affairs, while the latter is more oriented toward advocacy and litigation practice. Although the two paths have different emphases, they both point to the transition from knowledge learners to professional practitioners. It is through this relatively long training cycle that law school graduates can truly enter the legal profession and find their place in social life.

Huang Shengfeng, an undergraduate student at the Macau University of Science and Technology Faculty of Law, focused on Macao’s lawyer admission system, presenting another picture of professional formation. He explained that the lawyer internship in Macao includes both theoretical knowledge deepening and practical work in real legal settings, with clear regulations on the internship duration and admission requirements. The entrance to the legal profession is not merely a qualification confirmation but rather a transitional bridge from student to legal professional: one end connects to classroom learning of statutes, concepts, and institutions, and the other leads to the real scenarios of case handling, client communication, and professional ethics.

Lu Xinhe, a doctoral student in Economic Law at the Law School of Nanjing Normal University, in his commentary linked the legal admission systems in Hong Kong and Macao with the mainland’s bar examination system. He introduced the foundational role of the National Unified Legal Professional Qualification Examination in the mainland’s legal admission, and, combined with the professional internship training system, explained how mainland law students transition from classroom to career through practice in courts, procuratorates, law firms, corporate legal departments, and other fields. Lu also drew on his own research interest in competition law to note that the growth of a legal career is not only the result of knowledge accumulation but also a process of continuously confirming interests and calibrating aspirations. Young law students should identify their interests early in study and practice, and gradually unfold a legal career path that suits them.

Subsequently, the exchange entered the topic “Communication between Legal Systems.” Ran Ruifeng again spoke from the perspective of Hong Kong’s common law reasoning, pointing out that when faced with new facts and disputes, Hong Kong judges often need to find referential lines of judgment in existing precedents. The common law continuously performs analogy, distinction, and development between precedents and new facts. Under “one country, two systems,” Hong Kong retains a legal system based on common law while maintaining close ties with mainland legal practice. This requires Hong Kong law students not only to be familiar with the skills of precedent reasoning but also to learn to switch between common law language and mainland statutory expression, and to find bridges of communication in different institutional contexts. Therefore, young law students should have both the steadiness to be rooted in their own legal tradition and the ability to understand the language of different systems.

Chen Yinglu summarized the characteristics of Macao’s legal system, pointing out that although Macao and the mainland both belong to the civil law system, there are many differences in important legal institutions such as criminal penalties and sentencing, as well as civil and commercial legislation models – and this is precisely the value of comparative law research. She remarked that Macao is like a window through which one can observe the encounter of multiple legal families, enabling legal professionals to understand the origins of institutions through comparison and to grasp the possibilities of cooperation through understanding. The encounter between different legal cultures should not become a barrier to understanding but rather an opportunity to expand horizons. What Macao presents is precisely such a rule-of-law model with both historical depth and contemporary vitality, providing a sample for the coexistence of different legal systems.

Tian Jiayi, a master’s student in Civil and Commercial Law at the Law School of Nanjing Normal University, as the discussant for this session, engaged in exchanges on institutional connectivity within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. She particularly mentioned several nuanced yet warm legislative designs – whether it be the protection of fetal interests, the special computation of the statute of limitations for sexual assault cases involving minors, or the establishment of the divorce cooling-off period – all of which inject an awareness of social reality into the rational structure of legal provisions, reflecting a people-centered legislative intent. The seemingly contradictory use of precedents, in fact, demonstrates the flexibility and wisdom in the operation of the system. Although China has always maintained the basic framework of written law, through the guiding case system and case database construction, judicial practice has gradually formed a flexible mechanism of case reference, allowing abstract norms to gain more refined and stable vitality in specific cases.

The final topic of the exchange meeting was “Jointly Undertaking the Mission,” moving the discussion from comparative institutions to youth responsibility. Xie Xiulin, an undergraduate student at the City University of Hong Kong School of Law, began with the question “Whose law is the law?” She discussed the interplay of reason and rules in grassroots dispute resolution, touched on the impact of artificial intelligence on the legal profession and the irreplaceability of empathy and judgment, and addressed the complex reality of legal integration among the three regions, arguing that young legal professionals should find institutional interfaces in concrete issues. She emphasized that legal application must take into account its connection with people’s lives. The mechanical application of legal provisions may indeed be replaced by AI, but areas requiring human judgment remain irreplaceable. What parties need most is to be heard and understood, not merely to receive a perfectly formatted legal opinion – and this is the irreplaceable value of human legal practitioners.

Chen Jiteng, a Master of Laws student at the Law School of Nanjing Normal University, further responded to the mission of young legal professionals in the new era. He cited the cases of telecom fraud in northern Myanmar and the compensation for a test-tube baby worker’s death, pointing out that the former, through the comprehensive application of jurisdictional rules, achieved cross-border accountability, demonstrating the governance capacity and international vision of China’s judicial system in the face of transnational crimes; the latter, where legal norms had not yet fully covered new social facts, returned to the original intent of the institution and the real needs of people’s lives. Chen suggested that students turn their attention to AI development, cross-border governance practices, and the rule-of-law needs in the process of Chinese-style modernization, and stressed that the responsibility of young legal professionals should not remain at grand declarations but should be embodied in continuously refined professional capabilities, consolidated into a sense of responsibility to respond to social issues, and transformed into innovative courage when facing new technologies and new governance scenarios.

During the free discussion session, the exchange further extended through questions and answers. One student asked how to obtain foreign materials in economic law research. Drawing on his own research experience, Lu Xinhe noted that antitrust research often needs to be conducted from a comparative perspective. He shared three types of access to foreign legal materials – databases of foreign enforcement agencies, academic paper platforms, and websites of international organizations’ thematic reports – providing ideas for students’ comparative law studies and research.

In response to the question that judges dominate adjudication while scholars have relatively limited influence, Professor Ni Fei observed that there has always been a close connection between the Chinese legal academia and judicial practice. Some scholars enter the judicial system, and judges continue to maintain enthusiasm for theoretical learning and academic exchanges. At the same time, the demands of judicial practice for independent judgment and professional boundaries have also resulted in a more prudent interaction between the courts and academia. This state of maintaining distance while needing each other precisely reflects that in China’s rule-of-law construction, adjudication must respond to real disputes while also relying on theoretical nourishment; academic research pursues intellectual depth but must also understand the specific circumstances of judicial operation.

After the exciting exchange and discussion, Associate Professor Chen Hui, Associate Dean of the Law School of Nanjing Normal University, delivered concluding remarks. He pointed out that current legal education is in an important transitional period from knowledge memorization to the cultivation of legal thinking. Case teaching enables students to enter real situations, while systematic training helps students grasp the normative structure. How to integrate the two is a question that legal education needs to continuously consider. He also touched on the connection between legal professional examinations and practical ability, reminding students not to understand legal learning merely as passing exams, but to hone their judgment in real disputes and social issues. Speaking of the mediation system, Associate Professor Chen emphasized that mediation plays a significant role in alleviating judicial pressure and resolving grassroots conflicts, but also noted the disparities in different groups’ access to legal services. The mission of legal professionals is not only to be familiar with rules, but more importantly, to make rules truly reach the lives of ordinary people.

Mr. Chen Qi, Deputy Director of the Organization and Personnel Division of the Political Department of the Jiangsu Provincial High People’s Court, affirmed the case-based teaching and cross-jurisdictional perspective demonstrated in this exchange. He noted that with the increasing number of cross-border legal matters such as equity investment, commercial arbitration, intellectual property, and family disputes, young law students from the three regions should enhance their ability to handle complex practical issues through comparison and mutual learning. Regarding the application of AI in legal work, technology can assist with retrieval, summarization, and analysis, but what remains most irreplaceable in legal work is still human value judgment, humanistic care, and the nuanced perception of fairness and justice.

Ms. Chen Haiyan, Deputy Director of the Judge Training Division of the Political Department of the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, reviewed the organization process of this event and affirmed the standardized procedures, professional attitude, and efficient coordination demonstrated by the Law School of Nanjing Normal University in its preparation. She pointed out that although the exchange time was limited, this forum successfully built a platform for communication and dialogue between mainland and Hong Kong-Macao law students, extending the activity from a single training session to a cross-regional exchange practice for young legal talents, and also demonstrated the professional self-awareness and sense of responsibility of young legal professionals in the common pursuit of the rule of law.

This forum was a sincere dialogue among young law students from the three regions. It unfolded against the profound cultural heritage of Jinling and concluded under the epochal theme of China’s rule-of-law construction. Different legal jurisdictions have their own historical paths, and different systems have their own operational logics, but the pursuit of the rule of law, fairness, justice, and social responsibility among young legal professionals is always shared. Students came together with their own classroom experiences, internship histories, and institutional observations, discussing in the forum how to learn law, the difficulties encountered in practice and their solutions, and how to sustain the warmth and power of the law in the new generation of young legal professionals. In the future, the Law School of Nanjing Normal University will continue to take such exchange activities as opportunities to promote mutual learning and broaden horizons among law students from different regions and different universities, to build consensus through intellectual collisions, and to raise a clearer and more determined youthful voice in the broad process of China’s rule-of-law construction.