Does the United States Government have the legal right to issue a law that sanctions anyone who would commit human rights violations in Hongkong? Let’s discuss this.

A fundamental principle in international law is the recognition of the autonomous status of states–that states exercise their own sovereignty, and that no state is considered bigger or smaller in relation to another.

The international system is essentially chaotic due to the absence of a collectively recognized political hegemon. There are, however, regional and global institutions created by states themselves, that establishes some set of behaviors which, thru multilateralism, is expected to be followed by member-states.

Recognition is one thing– strict adherence is another.  A state may recognize such a set of standards yet reserves it’s rights to strictly adhere or follow them since the internationally accepted principle of the primacy of a state’s basic law remains universally recognized. National law remains paramount over international conventions, except of course if such conventions have been incorporated into a state’s basic law. When this happens, it is as if this state follows international standards however, interpreted independently and selfishly by the state’s national legislature.

Since diplomatic relations recognize the continued exercise of a state’s sovereignty over another, in the case of the United States, it clearly establishes such a right to create bills like this, under the pretext of protecting a state’s interests in another. In the case of the Hongkong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, the US government says that it is their state policy to support and promote democratization principles at the same time, protect the rights of American citizens living or residing in Hongkong.

What the US is just establishing as a principle is it is establishing jurisdiction over any law or policy which would harm its interests in Hongkong. It is communicating to China that it intends to impose sanctions against any one in China who would try to impinge the democratic rights of citizens of Hongkong, and if sanctions are to be meted, these are legally and morally supported thru this bill.

Though these sanctions are in the form of economic pressure or at worse, political denunciation, the bill does not allow however, the US to use its military force in enforcing this. Such a thing is not universally acceptable, and may even be interpreted as a true act of war.

Hence, this bill covers the interests of the United States in maintaining the continued democratization of Hongkong as part of the island’s status in relation with the US. Meaning, democratization of Hongkong is a stated US policy, and therefore, the US reserves the right to impose or pursue such policy.

This is how the US has interpreted what is happening in Hongkong:

“SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States—

(1) to reaffirm the principles and objectives set forth in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–383), namely that—

(A) the United States has “a strong interest in the continued vitality, prosperity, and stability of Hong Kong”;

(B) “[s]upport for democratization is a fundamental principle of United States foreign policy” and therefore “naturally applies to United States policy toward Hong Kong”;

(C) “the human rights of the people of Hong Kong are of great importance to the United States and are directly relevant to United States interests in Hong Kong [and] serve as a basis for Hong Kong’s continued economic prosperity”; and

(D) Hong Kong must remain sufficiently autonomous from the People’s Republic of China to “justify treatment under a particular law of the United States, or any provision thereof, different from that accorded the People’s Republic of China”;

(2) to support the high degree of autonomy and fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, as enumerated by—

(A) the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong, done at Beijing December 19, 1984 (referred to in this Act as the “Joint Declaration”);

(B) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, done at New York December 19, 1966; and

(C) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, done at Paris December 10, 1948.

(3) to support the democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong, including the “ultimate aim” of the selection of the Chief Executive and all members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, as articulated in the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (referred to in this Act as the “Basic Law”);

(4) to urge the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region to uphold their commitment to the people of Hong Kong, including providing a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong as articulated in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law;

(5) to support the robust exercise by residents of Hong Kong of the rights to free speech, the press, and other fundamental freedoms as provided by the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration;

(6) to support freedom from arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention, or imprisonment for all Hong Kong residents, as provided to them by the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration;

(7) to draw international attention to any violations by the Government of the People’s Republic of China of the fundamental rights of the people of Hong Kong and any encroachment upon the autonomy guaranteed to Hong Kong by the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration;

(8) to protect United States citizens and legal permanent residents living in Hong Kong as well as people visiting and transiting through Hong Kong; and

(9) to maintain the economic and cultural ties that provide significant benefits to both the United States and Hong Kong.”

Are these policy statements violate China’s right to exercise political jurisdiction over its own citizens in Hongkong? No. China, being an internationally recognized state, has all the rights to exercise political jurisdiction over its own citizens. So, what is the effect of paragraph 6, section 3?

This may only apply if, say, a Hongkong dissident decides to declare himself as eligible for US protection as a politically persecuted individual.

Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019

This bill addresses Hong Kong’s status under U.S. law and imposes sanctions on those responsible for human rights violations in Hong Kong. (Hong Kong is part of China but has a largely separate legal and economic system.)

The Department of State shall certify annually to Congress as to whether Hong Kong warrants its unique treatment under various treaties, agreements, and U.S. law. The analysis shall evaluate whether Hong Kong is upholding the rule of law and protecting rights enumerated in various documents, including (1) the agreement between the United Kingdom and China regarding Hong Kong’s return to China, and (2) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The bill extends existing annual reporting requirements on matters of U.S. interest in Hong Kong through 2027 and expands such reports to include assessments of (1) limits to Hong Kong’s autonomy, either self-imposed or due to China’s actions; and (2) whether rescission of Hong Kong’s special treatment would further erode Hong Kong’s autonomy.

The President shall annually report to Congress on Hong Kong’s enforcement of U.S. export controls, including whether items of U.S. origin have been used for mass surveillance in China and whether Hong Kong has been used to evade sanctions on North Korea or Iran.

The State Department shall notify Congress if any proposed or enacted law in Hong Kong negatively impacts U.S. interests, including by putting U.S. citizens at risk of rendition to China.

The President shall impose property and visa-blocking sanctions on foreign persons responsible for gross human rights violations in Hong Kong.