US President Joe Biden’s extension of Hong Kong’s “emergency status” through the renewal of an executive order has elicited substantial criticism. The initial declaration and the subsequent extension of the “emergency status” for Hong Kong is a calculated move taken by the US government in response to the implementation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) in June 2020 and the Article 23 legislation (the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance) in March, which Washington claims have undermined Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.
Washington asserts that these measures represent an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States”. However, the rationale for maintaining such an “emergency status” warrants critical examination due to its profound implications.
The NSL, enacted in response to the unrest in Hong Kong in 2019, was necessary to restore stability and uphold territorial integrity. Contrary to assertions that it erodes Hong Kong’s autonomy, this law represents a sovereign state’s effort to maintain public order, supported by international law, which permits such measures if they are legal, necessary, and proportionate. The Article 23 legislation helps reduce ambiguities and enhance legal certainties, fostering an environment conducive to stability and prosperity. The legislation is essential for restoring order and supporting the economic and social rights contingent upon such stability.
However, the US response, specifically the extension of the “emergency status” based on allegations that Hong Kong’s situation directly threatens US national security, is unwarranted. The US has not convincingly demonstrated how Hong Kong’s internal legal adjustments would jeopardize its national security; Washington’s actions thus have led to criticisms of an expansive interpretation of national security interests that may infringe upon principles of state sovereignty and nonintervention as outlined in the United Nations Charter. Furthermore, the US’ decision to deny Hong Kong’s special trading status, predicated on the belief that Hong Kong no longer retains its autonomy, conflates the city’s high degree of autonomy with US foreign policy expectations. This move impacts significant economic interactions between Hong Kong and the US, affecting businesses and consumers in both markets.
In the broader context, many countries have similar laws to protect national security, which are considered legitimate within their legal frameworks.
Washington’s and its allies’ selective scrutiny of China’s actions regarding its Hong Kong Special Administrative Region could be perceived as a double standard, highlighting inconsistencies in their responses to similar domestic policies. Such differential treatment underscores the complexity of international law and diplomacy, where legal actions within sovereign jurisdictions are often viewed through a geopolitical prism.
The decision by the US to extend Hong Kong’s “emergency status” presents a multifaceted challenge in international law and global diplomacy. The US justification for this extension, citing national security concerns, aligns with the prerogatives of sovereign states to protect their interests. However, the broad application of the national security concept as a rationale for imposing economic and political measures on Hong Kong necessitates a more rigorous examination. Washington must foster dialogue and delve into the complexities of such legal measures rather than defaulting to unilateral actions, which could exacerbate bilateral tensions. This underscores the importance of constructive dialogue, a key element in maintaining peaceful and cooperative international relations.
Washington’s assertion about Hong Kong’s legislative measures posing a “national security threat” to the US must be substantiated with concrete evidence that meets internationally recognized legal standards. This approach is essential to maintain the credibility of national security claims and ensure they are not perceived as pretexts for geopolitical maneuvering. Moreover, the response from Chinese officials, who have accused the US of “persecutory delusion” and have issued warnings against interference in Hong Kong’s affairs, underscores the sensitivity of these measures. Such statements reflect the increasing frustration with what is seen as an overreach by the US into internal matters that are legally and historically within the purview of Chinese sovereignty.
In this context, a balanced and legally grounded approach is crucial. Unilateral measures, especially those lacking solid legal justification, risk alienating international partners and undermining the stability and prosperity of global economic systems. Engaging in constructive dialogue, respecting the principles enshrined in international law, and adhering to the norms of nonintervention are not just diplomatic niceties but essential practices that underpin peaceful and cooperative international relations. This emphasis on maintaining international norms should reassure the audience of the commitment to a fair and just approach.
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.
