The significance of Hong Kong’s arrest warrants and bounty in the EU

In March 2024, the Hong Kong government introduced a new security law, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Also known as ‘Article 23 legislation’, it exacerbates the impact of the 2020 National Security Law by introducing a number of new crimes and longer sentences for existing crimes. Practically speaking, the two pieces of legislation are complementary legal tools for cracking down on dissent since the 2019 pro-democracy protest movement.

The 2020 National Security Law was extensively criticised by governments worldwide including many EU countries as well as international bodies such as the UN and the European Parliament. The UN Human Rights Committee even recommended that the law be repealed and that Hong Kong refrain from applying it in the meantime. At the UN Universal Periodic Review of China in January 2024, 18 UN member states raised concerns about human rights violations in Hong Kong including Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The EU issued a similar response after the 2024 law was introduced, but member states were less vocal this time.

EU governments should advocate for the rules-based international order and the upholding of international law; principles which are enshrined in the Treaty of Lisbon, EU institutions, and across domestic policies and legislation. While it is not perfect, the EU stands for fundamental rights and freedoms, which it seeks to promote at home and abroad. Furthermore, speaking out about human rights violations in Hong Kong and China is a clear way of reiterating those values in the face of Beijing’s quest to reshape international human rights norms and language. This is particularly important when Beijing’s actions have an impact within the EU itself.

Intimidation and division among Hong Kongers in the EU

In July and December 2023, the Hong Kong government issued arrest warrants and HKD 1 million (USD 128,100) bounties, under the 2020 National Security Law, for 13 activists based in the UK, US, and Australia. All these individuals reside outside Hong Kong and China and several hold foreign citizenship. Most recently, in June 2024, the Hong Kong government cancelled the passports of six activists based in the UK. Article 96 of the new Safeguarding National Security Ordinance allows for the cancellation of “absconders” passports, enacted in this instance. Exemplified by the government’s latest round of threats against activists abroad, these measures constitute an innovative new type of transnational repression against Hong Kong citizens.

The Hong Kong government’s new national security laws, introduced and implemented under Beijing’s direction, are not in compliance with international legal standards and Hong Kong’s obligations under international law. These laws also violate other international norms and standards; for example, their retroactive application is prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The laws are an expression of Beijing’s control over Hong Kong and are evidence of an increasingly less autonomous Hong Kong. While most obvious in the legal space, these trends are also reflected in a multitude of fora from business to education. The arrest warrants, bounties, and now passport cancellations, show that Hong Kong (and China) is entering uncharted territory in its transnational repression and violations of international law. The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO) has also been used in similar ways.

These developments can set a dangerous precedent not just for Hong Kongers, but also for the citizens of other states that engage in transnational repression — inspired by these actions and the lack of consequences that Hong Kong faces. While other governments and international organisations need to criticise these violations, as they have done previously, the EU’s words must be followed by targeted action to show that it is not all bark and no bite. Otherwise, these threats to the rules-based international order will not remain limited to Hong Kong and multiply on the international stage.

Impact in and on the EU

Although none of these repressive measures have been employed against European citizens or residents so far, they send a signal to Hong Kongers based in the EU that these actions can be used against them too. More broadly, they signal that the Hong Kong government (and Beijing) can take extraterritorial action with little consequences. This is a test to measure the international response: if they can do this with little accountability, they know that they can commit further harassment, and other forms of human rights violations, abroad. This is noted by other undemocratic countries, who may be inspired by this impunity and consider forms of extraterritorial human rights violations they can commit themselves. Thus, a strong pre-emptive response is vital to deter extraterritorial human rights violations against people in the EU.

EU member states have the legal obligation to guarantee rights and freedoms within their jurisdictions, in accordance with domestic and international laws. It is important that they respond to the Hong Kong government’s extraterritorial threats to show that there is no basis for such actions in their jurisdiction. This protects Hong Kongers in the EU, and also tells Beijing and other governments that they cannot impose their human rights violations on people who are in the EU.

Furthermore, based on my experiences and observations of the diaspora, these threats divide Hong Kong activists from the diaspora. Hong Kongers abroad are more afraid to interact (especially publicly) with Hong Kong activists as they may face consequences themselves. Additionally, this also divides the Hong Kong diaspora from those who remain in Hong Kong, as the risks of communicating with people abroad (especially activists) increase. This comes on top of the fact that many politically active people have left or are behind bars, although there still remains underground resistance in Hong Kong itself.

This will create a challenge for EU governments and their respective Hong Kong policies. They could face a more fragmented Hong Kong diaspora, who will also communicate with them less — and the people who do communicate with EU governments and citizens will be those more removed from ‘the ground’. This risks shaping EU-level and EU member states’ policies towards Hong Kong and China, which may be less informed or informed in a more distant way as a consequence.

How the EU can act

Novel threats from the Hong Kong government are already causing real consequences for Hong Kongers in the EU — for activists and more ‘ordinary’ citizens alike — and they are creating new challenges for advocacy from both the civil society and diplomatic channels. This is consistent with Beijing’s efforts to reshape international laws and norms, from their statements at the UN Human Rights Council to the policy language surrounding the Taiwan Strait. China, on its own and through Hong Kong, is trying to weaken the rules-based international order, including international law, towards a model where states face less oversight and can treat their people in increasingly undemocratic ways.

Strategically, EU member states should adopt a more consistent and unified approach towards China, particularly its violations of international human rights law and the rules-based international order. This includes more frequent and stronger statements from EU member states about upholding the rules-based international order and international law, which the EU has been instrumental in creating and supporting. These statements should explicitly criticize Hong Kong and China’s violations of international law, and make clear that all forms of transnational repression in EU jurisdictions will be taken seriously, investigated, and prosecuted according to domestic law. No exceptions can be made for China.

Furthermore, China and Hong Kong need to be held accountable and face real consequences for their human rights violations and violations of international law. This could include targeted sanctions against key government officials and entities, trade restrictions on items that support the Hong Kong government’s oppression, and legal challenges at international courts.