1. Introduction
Hong Kong has a strong policy directive to develop a “low-altitude economy” by the utilization of unmanned aircraft system (UAS), including small unmanned aircraft (SUA) and electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft (eVTOL). One goal of this initiative is to facilitate cross-border operations with Mainland China. Given the disparities in legal systems, a new legal framework for SUA and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) collaborative operations is required to bridge the disparities in legal systems between Mainland China and Hong Kong.
To implement such policy goals, the Hong Kong government has amended its legislation governing unmanned aircraft, expanding the scope of application for regulations in 2025, compounded with practical guidance on the implementation of legislation. This commentary will introduce the policy directive, recent legal development, and address the subsequent stage for advancement.
2. Hong Kong’s separate mandate for civil aviation
China has its own regulation on authorizing and supervising unmanned aircraft operation, the Interim Regulation on the Administration of the Flight of Unmanned Aircraft (Interim Regulation). In Hong Kong, there is the Small Unmanned Aircraft Order (Cap 448G), which operates independently from the Interim Regulation.
Hong Kong has the mandate under the “One country, Two systems” principle after the reunion with China in 1997 to develop its own laws in the civil aviation sector under the Basic Law Articles 128 to 135. In particular, Article 128 states that “The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall provide conditions and take measures for the maintenance of the status of Hong Kong as a centre of international and regional aviation.” This is the constitutional basis of Hong Kong to legislate on SUA and AAM matters, and the Transport and Logistics Bureau (TLB) and Civil Aviation Department (CAD) are responsible for designing the legal framework and implementation.
3. Governmental Directive
made a clear declaration to develop the low-attitude economy. Putting emphasis on economic activities in airspace below 1,000 meters, the government aims to explore a myriad of opportunities in technology and economic advancement. This includes the use of unmanned aircraft on “rescues, surveys and delivery of goods and passengers” and development of “telecommunication technologies, AI and the digital industry” as a collateral benefit.
The government has established the Working Group on Developing Low-altitude Economy to meet the directive. It entails the designation of test venues, amendment of relevant regulations, and research of the infrastructure of commercial UAS operations. Notably, one of the major assignments is the alignment with China’s policies and regulations on unmanned aircraft, which is proposed; the official wording includes a “joint establishment of low-altitude cross-boundary air routes, immigration and customs clearance arrangements, and supporting infrastructure.” In fact, the technology and commercial application of China’s unmanned aircraft has been skyrocketing in recent years, with a relatively mature market in UAS delivery services and the respective legal framework. To collaborate and cooperate with China, being a close economic partner, Hong Kong’s development of unmanned aircraft is imperative.
a. Amendments of Regulations
Hong Kong’s core aviation regulation is the Civil Aviation Ordinance (Cap 448), prescribing the executive mandate and general principles of civil aviation. In response to the Chief Executive’s policy address, the TLB has proposed the amendment of two subsidiary legislation under Cap 448, being Small Unmanned Aircraft Order (Cap 448G) and Air Navigation (Hong Kong) Order 1995 (Cap 448C) and promulgated the amendment in July 2025 following the deliberation in the legislative council.
The main amendment in Cap 448G is adding the “category C” aircraft. Section 3(2)(d) provides that “a small unmanned aircraft is a category C aircraft in respect of a flight if its weight exceeds 25 kg at any time during the flight,” and “does not exceed 150 kg at all times during the flight.” This amendment introduced a new category, expanding the scope and authorization of Cap 448G to include larger UAS models. Previously, this authorization was limited to 25kg by the 2022 edition. The weight is determined by “everything installed in, carried by or attached to the aircraft,” akin to the Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) concept. The TLB envisaged the use of larger UAS model for equipment transport during rescue operations in remote areas.
An application for operation permission to the Director-General of Civil Aviation for category C aircraft under Section 37 of Cap 448G is required. The record of a safety system, including information for geographical location, flying altitude and flying speed of the aircraft in real time and restricted area alerts must be kept for 6 months beginning on the date on which the flight begins and must be accessible in Hong Kong by an authorized officer. The pilot, responsible persons, and other persons providing permission of operation or knowingly causing the operation in violation may risk a criminal prosecution. Insurance is a requirement for operating SUA, and the insured amount differs depending on the aircraft’s weight. Section 12(2)(ba) states that for a category C aircraft—
- if its weight does not exceed 75 kg at all times during the flight—$15,000,000; or
- if its weight exceeds 75 kg at any time during the flight—$20,000,000
To facilitate the amended legislation, the CAD has produced guidelines on the criteria for the application of permission for category C aircraft, which is not stated in the regulation. include the proof of:
- A Category C SUA is issued with a Type Certificate (“TC”) by a national aviation authority (“NAA”) in accordance with certification standards defined in ICAO Annex 8 as accepted by the CAD;
- A Category C SUA is issued with an official document or a documentary substantiation by the SUA manufacturer to demonstrate compliance with technical standards of its national authority or NAA as accepted by the CAD;
- or A self-assembled or self-built SUA Category C SUA is demonstrated in conformity to a NAA-approved design or a national authority’s technical standards as accepted by the CAD and assessed to the satisfaction of the CAD.
Besides SUA, the newly added Part IXA in Cap 448C introduces the framework for trials of unconventional aircraft, specifically targeting the AAM systems. Section 82C mandates the issuance of practical guidance on such trials, encompassing the definition of unconventional aircraft. Accordingly, the CAD adopted a practical guidance specifying the definition of unconventional aircraft and the application of Part IXA in the , and the specifying the application process for trial operations. The opening up of trials foresees the future legislation on a concrete framework for actual operation of AAM, including eVTOL aircraft, which is not covered by Cap 448G.
b. “Low-altitude Economy Regulatory Sandbox X”
Some comparable measures between Hong Kong and China have already been introduced. In Hong Kong, the gives investors and operators an opportunity to examine their products in different aspects of operation, including Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) system demonstrations, unconventional aircraft, cross-border applications, multiple applications/users shared-platform, and others. Five venue partners have been introduced for trials, where applicants may also propose to conduct trials at other locations, subject to the approval of the authority. This program can both benefit the potential players in the industry through trials and errors and the government in collecting data and industry opinions for the purpose of legal development with a risk-based approach. Until January 2026, there were 32 successful applications. On the other hand, the Experimental Zones in China were introduced in 2020 and served a purpose similar to the Hong Kong regime. Aiming to provide designated areas for industry players to gain experience and for the government to develop a legal framework and technical standards.
The similarity in the testing regime can foster communication and cooperation. In January 2026, was made for testing between Hong Kong and Qianhai, Shenzhen, exploring the expansion of the test environment and coordination of rules applicable. In the end, such cooperative testing can act as a sample to commence a larger scale of collaboration in the foreseeable future.
4. Next Step forward
The legal issue of cross-border UAS operation hinged on the unsettled interpretation of Article 8 of the Chicago Convention, which requires special authorization for an “aircraft capable of flying without a pilot” to fly over the territory of a contracting state.
Hong Kong is not a state of ratification to the Chicago Convention 1944, but according to the Notification issued by the Government of the People’s Republic of China dated 5 June 1997, China extended the application of the Chicago Convention to Hong Kong. This fact, compounded with Hong Kong adopting a dualist system for incorporation of international treaty obligations, means the legal basis of Hong Kong’s obligation to the Chicago Convention is solely embedded in its domestic law instead of being a ratifying party. Yet, the main legislation which adopted the Chicago Convention and SARPs, Cap 448C, specifically mentions that small unmanned aircraft are not subject to this order. Cap 448G also failed to mention the “special authorization” requirement in cross-border operations.
This legal lacuna will require further action for the Hong Kong government to legislate on what defines special authorization and its scope to comply with the Chicago Convention. For instance, an air service agreement as a form of special authorization can be a potential option. In reality, the ambiguity of international obligations is unlikely to hinder collaboration, especially when there are no sovereignty concerns and given the strong political relationship between Hong Kong and Mainland China.
a. Unmanned Aircraft Air Service Agreement
It is foreseeable that an overarching air service agreement for unmanned aircraft can be introduced for market opening and liberalization in the future. Lessons can be learnt from the long-existing practice of air services agreement for conventional air travel, designation, frequency, capacity and other matters can be replicated in such an agreement to ensure market access and seamless travel. While liberalization stands as the predominant model for air service agreements, for a nascent operation, a full-blown deregulation may not be ideal given the foreseeable traffic congestion and the competitive advantage of Mainland China in the unmanned aircraft market.
The mandate to put this into practice is grounded constitutionally under Article 131 of the Basic Law, stating that “The Central People's Government shall, in consultation with the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, make arrangements providing air services between the Region and other parts of the People's Republic of China for airlines incorporated in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and having their principal place of business in Hong Kong and other airlines of the People's Republic of China.”
The Hong Kong and Chinese governments can start with a regional agreement, such as an air service agreement between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, and then extend it to the whole Greater Bay Area. The experience of Hong Kong performing its mandate under the Basic Law for concluding air service agreements can surely aid the negotiation, notwithstanding the difference in legal systems between Hong Kong and Mainland China.
b. Liability
The liability regime has been clearly outlined by both Hong Kong and Mainland China’s existing legal framework, including criminal liability and the requirement of insurance for civil liability. For instance, Section 12 Cap 448G and Article 12 of the Interim Regulation on insurance requirements.
In a cross-border operation scenario, the determination of applicable law during an accident could be an issue. A potential proposal on such determination can be the location of the accident based on territorial jurisdiction, where liability will be determined by the respective court and paid out by insurance eventually. In terms of criminal liability, it will be determined by the unmanned aircraft’s place of registration. Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap 645) is also applicable for the enforcement of civil proceedings, commercial proceedings or monetary compensation or damages awarded from criminal proceedings.
A step forward is to consider whether the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Convention are applicable to unmanned aircraft operation. China is a party to the Warsaw Convention 1929 and Montreal Convention 1999 and extended its application to Hong Kong under Article 153 of the Basic Law, domesticated by Carriage by Air Ordinance (Cap 500). In practice, flight by traditional aircraft between Hong Kong and Mainland China is subject to the Montreal Convention, which could be a basis of passenger and cargo liability.
c. Mutual recognition on licensing, technical standards and administration
The existing legal framework in Hong Kong, despite undergoing an amendment recently, is still positioned in a rather preliminary stage, especially for eVTOL. The practical concern lies in mutual recognition concerning airworthiness, aircraft registration, personnel licensing, safety management, customs, flight rules, and the air navigation system, all of which aim to achieve seamless operations between the parties. Certain aspects can draw inspiration from the application of the Chicago Convention regime to traditional aircraft. For instance, Article 33 of the Chicago Convention has already established a legal foundation for mutual recognition of certificates and licensing to ensure smooth air travel operations, a principle that can be extended to unmanned aircraft. Additionally, a shared registry of unmanned aircraft can enhance flight tracking and traffic management, mirroring existing practices under the Chicago Convention for traditional aircraft. Ultimately, in cross-border operations where different legal systems exist, the resolution depends on negotiations between parties to determine mutual acknowledgement. Given Hong Kong’s current preliminary status in UAS operations, it has the potential to develop a system that aligns with Mainland China's existing legal framework without necessitating changes to the current regime or industry practices.
d. Unmanned Aircraft Financing
The perspective of unmanned aircraft financing is crucial, especially given the technological advancements and the cost associated with owning such aircraft. This need is underscored by the prevalent practice of airlines leasing mostlytraditional aircraft. It is expected that financing will be required for larger models of delivery drones and eVTOL, which costs a considerable amount in the case of a purchase. The Cape Town Convention and the Aircraft Protocol of 2001 can be a basis for the overarching legal framework. It is arguable that larger unmanned aircraft can fit squarely into Article I(l) of the Aircraft Protocol as a “helicopter”, where international interest can be registered accordingly. For instance, an eVTOL which can carry at least 5 passengers can sit firmly under this definition. Potential issues arise for smaller models of unmanned aircraft that are not covered by the Cape Town Convention. Moreover, the exclusion of remotely piloted aircraft systems and ground equipment, which are essential for the function and operation of a UAS, could pose another issue. This necessitates an amendment to the convention to offer more than just contractual protection.
China is a party to the Cape Town Convention and the Aircraft Protocol in 2009 but has not exercised its power under Article 153 of the Basic Law to extend its application to Hong Kong yet. Nevertheless, it is not the first occasion that China has extended the application of aviation-related international treaties to Hong Kong, including the Chicago Convention and the Montreal Convention 1999. Even without the protection of the Cape Town Convention, Cap 645 is handy for reciprocal enforcement of the respective civil or commercial matter, including the enforcement of a mortgage under the leasing contract.
5. Conclusion
Hong Kong is making good progress in facilitating a “low-altitude” economy by polishing its existing legal framework. Specifically including regulations on larger models of unmanned aircraft and unconventional aircraft. With the purpose of developing cross-border service with Mainland China, two legal regimes on unmanned aircraft can be aligned to provide seamless operations by adopting similar standards, and by referring to the legal framework of traditional air service agreements. The potential of a developing legal regime can surely foster collaboration between two jurisdictions without a detrimental impact on the unmanned aircraft industry. Afterall, it is the ultimate goal for Hong Kong to become a benchmark and pioneer for international standards on unmanned aircraft regulation and cross-border operation.
Yuk Wai WONG, Henry, is an LLM student at the Institute of Air and Space Law, ɬ.
In keeping with ɬ’s commitment to academic freedom, the Institute of Air and Space Law supports the free expression of ideas in its publications. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official positions or views of the Institute of Air and Space Law, the Faculty of Law, or ɬ. Furthermore, authors represent only themselves; they do not represent their countries of nationality nor any organizations with which they may be affiliated.