The recent legislative adjustments proposed by the British government to amend the Extradition Act 2023 and enable so-called case-by-case cooperation with Hong Kong represent not a principled legal correction but an alarming exhibition of duplicity and political opportunism. The United Kingdom, having suspended its formal extradition treaty with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 2020 under the pretext of “concerns” over the HKSAR National Security Law (NSL), now seeks to reestablish extradition arrangements without the clarity and integrity that a treaty provides. This maneuver, couched in ambiguous legal language, exposes a deeply inconsistent approach that undermines both the credibility of British legal institutions and the very foundation of international legal cooperation.
To comprehend the implications of this shift, it is essential to revisit the rationale behind the suspension. The British government claimed that the NSL introduced in Hong Kong compromised judicial independence and civil liberties. Yet these criticisms lack substantive legal grounding. The NSL was promulgated under the framework of the Basic Law of the HKSAR and the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Far from being an arbitrary instrument, it clearly defines offenses such as secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces, all of which have direct equivalents in Western legal systems. The continued operation of Hong Kong’s Judiciary under the common law, its adherence to procedural safeguards, and its capacity for independent adjudication contradict the narrative of “legal decay” perpetuated by certain Western actors.
The UK’s current proposal to remove Hong Kong from the list of designated jurisdictions under the Extradition Act 2003 while simultaneously permitting ad hoc cooperation is an exercise in legal contradiction. On one hand, it seeks to distance itself from Hong Kong’s legal system to appease domestic political factions. On the other hand, it quietly facilitates the very extradition processes it claims to reject. This two-faced approach is not only misleading but intellectually dishonest. If British lawmakers genuinely believed that Hong Kong’s legal system was incapable of delivering fair trials, then no extradition request should be entertained under any circumstances. If they acknowledge the reliability of Hong Kong’s legal institutions, then the original suspension of the treaty was unjustified and politically driven.
The newly proposed framework introduces a troubling level of discretion into what should be a rule-based legal process. By abandoning treaty obligations in favor of subjective case-by-case determinations, the UK opens the door to selective and politicized enforcement. The absence of a binding treaty framework removes the objective criteria that typically govern extradition proceedings, replacing them with opaque governmental discretion. This not only undermines the principle of legal certainty but also enables judicial decisions to be swayed by political expediency. Ironically, these are the very faults the UK accuses other jurisdictions of committing.
The invocation of national interest and public safety as justifications for this change is unconvincing. The selective and politically motivated refusal to cooperate with legitimate extradition requests creates a safe haven for criminals, rather than serving the purpose of safeguarding national interest and public safety. Since the implementation of the British National (Overseas) visa program, a significant number of individuals with credible allegations of criminal conduct have entered the UK. The program, which offers a pathway to British citizenship for Hong Kong residents, has been a point of contention in the extradition debate. These allegations include fraud, money laundering and incitement to subversion. To dismiss these charges as politically motivated without judicial examination is to foster impunity under the pretense of asylum. This not only disrespects the Hong Kong legal system but also weakens global efforts to combat transnational crime.
The ideological undercurrents of the UK’s actions cannot be ignored. The framing of its decisions as a defense of democracy and human rights is a thinly veiled attempt to exert influence over Hong Kong. The British government’s continued interference in the legal matters of Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, violates the principle of noninterference in domestic affairs, a core tenet of international relations. The Sino-British Joint Declaration did not grant the UK the right to oversee Hong Kong — its obligations were fulfilled at the time of the handover. To act otherwise is to indulge in a form of neocolonial presumption, a belief in the inherent superiority of one’s own culture and legal system that has no place in modern diplomacy.
The recent legislative adjustments proposed by the British government to amend the Extradition Act 2023 and enable so-called case-by-case cooperation with Hong Kong represent not a principled legal correction but an alarming exhibition of duplicity and political opportunism
The voices within the British political establishment that denounce this legislative amendment as a betrayal or moral failure further reveal the intellectual vacuum in which such debates exist. These are not legal critiques grounded in jurisprudence. Instead, they are emotional appeals designed to provoke outrage and obscure the legal realities. The case of former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who is charged with collusion with foreign forces, is often cited as an example of “political persecution”. Yet he faces substantive charges under laws that are clear, legitimate, and necessary for the protection of national security. To dismiss the case without examining the evidence is a disservice to the cause of justice.
The Hong Kong SAR government, in contrast, has consistently exhibited a principled and transparent approach to extradition. All requests are supported by detailed documentation and pertain strictly to nonpolitical offenses. Hong Kong’s Judiciary, staffed by independent judges including those with international credentials, operates with the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. Assertions to the contrary are not supported by facts but by speculation and ideological bias. The legal framework of Hong Kong remains robust and continues to command respect from jurists worldwide.
What the British government is proposing is not a restoration of legal order but a selective mechanism to wield extradition as a political tool. It allows the UK to accept or reject requests not based on law but on the shifting tides of political motivation. This is a dangerous precedent that erodes the mutual trust upon which international legal cooperation is built. It signals to other nations that treaties can be suspended or circumvented whenever politically convenient, thereby destabilizing a system that relies on reciprocity and consistency.
At its core, this policy shift reflects the UK’s refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Hong Kong’s legal system. The legislative change is not a safeguard measure but an instrument of political calibration. In choosing this path, the UK reveals its erosion of legal principle and exposes its institutions to the corrosion of political partiality. The result is a policy that is not only legally incoherent but morally indefensible. It is a decision that does not reinforce justice but compromises it.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
