ABSTRACT

Over more than two years, the territory of Hong Kong has faced a major political crisis with an unprecedented wave of public protests. In response to initially peaceful gatherings, the police deployed water cannon and fired lesslethal projectiles and huge quantities of tear gas, often indiscriminately, leaving hundreds of demonstrators and bystanders injured. Without doubt, the European Union (EU) cannot stand by idly, but has to act as a credible and potent human rights advocate beyond its own borders. In resolutions adopted in 2020 and 2021, the European Parliament called upon EU members to initiate proceedings against China before the International Court of Justice for its violations of fundamental human rights. This contribution explores the circumstances, limits and constraints under which such proceedings could be brought against China, in particular for breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Most importantly, China itself has never ratified the Covenant, but its applicability on the territory of Hong Kong is guaranteed indirectly by the Joint Declaration of 1984 and the Hong Kong Basic Law. It is of utmost importance for the European Parliament to base its arguments on solid legal grounds in order to guarantee its credibility when exerting pressure on the Chinese government. Since the legal hurdles, as will be shown, are almost unsurmountable, the contribution also considers alternative avenues to accountability before the Court, such as imposing sanctions against Hong Kong and Chinese state officials under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime.

INTRODUCTION

Over the course of several years, Hong Kong faced a major political crisis with an unprecedented wave of public protests and mass demonstrations. In response to initially peaceful gatherings, police forces reacted violently, using water cannon and firing kinetic projectiles and huge quantities of tear gas, often indiscriminately, leaving hundreds if not thousands injured. The actions of the authorities have been well documented by the media, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and states, as well as by United Nations (UN) special procedures. The nature and extent of the repression transformed peaceful protests into violent upheaval, adding to the Special Administrative Region’s political turmoil.