Beijing law targets critics overseas
China’s new Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress has raised concerns among critics who say it could be used to target people outside the country.
The legislation, which came into force on 1 July, formalises President Xi Jinping’s policy of “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation”.
Much of the attention surrounding the law has focused on its domestic impact, including policies promoting Mandarin education, unified state textbooks and the integration of minority communities.
Critics, including some rights groups and academics, describe these measures as part of a wider assimilation campaign affecting groups such as Uyghurs and Tibetans.
However, a provision near the end of the law has attracted particular international attention.
Article 63 states that organisations and individuals outside Chinese territory who “undermine ethnic unity” or “create ethnic division” may face legal consequences.
Critics argue that the wording could allow Beijing to pursue people abroad who campaign on ethnic minority issues, including members of Chinese, Uyghur and Tibetan diaspora communities.
The debate centres not simply on whether countries can apply laws beyond their borders, but on what conduct is being criminalised, who may be targeted and how such measures would be enforced.
Dispute over extraterritorial powers
Extraterritorial laws are not unique to China. Governments around the world apply certain laws beyond their borders.
European data protection rules apply to organisations outside Europe that process the personal data of EU citizens. The United States prosecutes some cases of overseas bribery, while courts in several countries have used universal jurisdiction principles to pursue international crimes.
Supporters of those measures argue they are based on clearly defined offences.
Critics of Article 63 argue that terms such as “undermining ethnic unity” are vague and could allow authorities broad discretion in deciding what constitutes a crime.
They also argue that the targets are different from traditional cases involving extraterritorial jurisdiction.
While universal jurisdiction is generally used to prosecute individuals accused of serious crimes, critics say Article 63 could affect activists, researchers and community members who speak about alleged abuses.
Concerns over enforcement
Questions have also been raised over how the law would be enforced outside China.
Critics point to previous cases involving alleged pressure on overseas Chinese communities, including claims of intimidation and coercion against relatives of activists living in China.
The new legislation has been compared with Article 38 of Hong Kong’s 2020 national security law, which states that certain offences can apply to people outside Hong Kong, regardless of their nationality or residency.
Researchers and rights organisations have previously accused China of using various methods to influence or intimidate critics overseas, a practice often described as transnational repression.
Calls for a response
Some governments and advocacy groups have called for a co-ordinated response.
They argue that countries should make clear that foreign laws cannot override domestic legal protections, investigate cases of alleged intimidation and ensure diaspora communities have access to support.
They have also called for closer scrutiny of politically motivated international legal requests and greater protection for people facing pressure because of their activism.
China has defended its policies as necessary to promote national unity and social stability.
The debate over Article 63 reflects a wider question facing governments around the world: how far states can extend their legal authority beyond their borders while respecting the sovereignty of other countries.
