Abstract:Under what conditions will two subnational supreme courts diverge fundamentally in their understandings of, and approaches toward, constitutional adjudication, in spite of being invested with identical jurisdictions and overseen by a shared sovereign, within roughly the same time frame? China's two autonomous Special Administrative Regions (SARs), Hong Kong and Macau, possess constitutional frameworks that are nearly the same, yet their paths of judicial review of legislation could not be more different. While the Chinese SARs commonly feature undivided governments returned by rigged electoral systems dominated by the pro-establishment blocs in their respective polities, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal has repeatedly nullified unconstitutional acts of the legislature with finality, while the Macau Tribunal de Última Instância has never challenged the validity of legislation at all. This study argues that such divergence can hardly be blamed on the differences between Hong Kong's English common law and Macau's Portuguese civil law heritages. It reveals, with the aid of a theoretical framework that integrates the concept of transaction costs into the strategic model of judicial review, that factional infighting inside, and formidable popular resistance against, Hong Kong's ruling elite have disabled the government to credibly threaten the Court while reinforcing demand for judicial review of unpopular statutes. By contrast, high levels of executive-legislative harmony, minimal popular unrest, and weak pressures to democratize have rendered it very difficult for the Macau Tribunal to defy its government with impunity. Overall, this study contributes to several increasingly important academic fields, including comparative Chinese law, subnational constitutional law, and judicial review in authoritarian polities.INTRODUCTIONI. A STRATEGIC TRANSACTION COST PERSPECTIVE ON JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER UNIFIED AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTSII. COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE FROM HONG KONG AND MACAUA. OverviewB. Track Record in Reviewing and Invalidating LegislationC. Understandings of the Scope and Extent of the Judicial Power of Concrete ReviewD. Approaches to Abstract Constitutional ReviewIII. ANALYSISA. OverviewB. External ResistanceC. Regime IncoherenceIV. ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONSV. CONCLUSION

The Mode and Function of and Supervision on Judicial Review

Establishing Judicial Review in China

Study On the Localization of The Constitutional Review in China—With Reference to The United States

The Standards and Methods of Judicial Review:From the Perspective of American Administrative Law

On "Refusal to Apply Rules" in Administrative Litigation:Based on the Analysis of No.5 Guiding Case Published by the Supreme People's Court

The Legal Structure and Practical Dilemma of the Establishment of the "Review System"

Judicial Review System in Perspective of State Governance System Modernization--Improving Current Administrative Procedure Law as Center

How Do Chinese Judges Invoke the Constitution? Analysis Based on 1907 Decisions

Study on Judicial Review of Investigative Power

On the Constitution Normative Foundation of the Legitimacy of Administrative Procedure

The Essential Constituents of a Lawful Administrative Action

The Judicial Application of "general Principles of Law" from the Perspective of European Administrative Law

Judicial Control of Administrative Discretionary Power

On Judicial Power in Constitutional Perspective——Beginning with the Classic Judgment of Montesquieu

"Constitutional Review" in China:Characteristics and Actuality of Generating——From the Perspective of the Tactics for Change of Three Related Terms

Authority of and Dissidence to Judicial Decision

Authority of Normative Document and Levels of Judicial Review

Constitutional Review without a Constitution: The British Story

The Evolution of Constitutional Adjudication in the Chinese Special Administrative Regions: Theory and Evidence

Judicial Review of the Balance Between Crime and Punishment

Administrative Law and the Chinese Legal System: Some Issues on Judicial Review of Administration Activity