The issuance of arrest warrants and reward notices by the Hong Kong Police Force for individuals alleged to have committed serious offenses under the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) has sparked an orchestrated backlash from four of the five members of the Five Eyes alliance — namely Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia.
The synchrony of their statements and the uniformity of their objections strongly suggest that this is not an ad hoc reaction but part of a broader campaign designed in Washington and carried out through its strategic partners to exert pressure on China by targeting its special administrative region. This is not a matter of genuine concern over legal procedure but a continuation of geopolitical hostility toward the rise of a sovereign nation.
To characterize Hong Kong's legal actions as “transnational repression” overlooks the essential reality of modern legal systems, which increasingly assert extraterritorial jurisdiction in matters affecting national security.
The US and its allies have long claimed the right to prosecute individuals abroad for a wide range of offenses, from terrorism to white-collar crimes, and have done so without hesitation or apology. Yet when Hong Kong enforces its laws within a statutory framework that includes provisions for extraterritorial application, it is immediately subjected to condemnation.
This double standard is not a matter of legal principle but one of political convenience. It reveals a Western unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of laws that do not originate from their legislatures or reflect their ideological preferences. The selective invocation of sovereignty and legal norms in this case is not only inconsistent but also undermines the very foundation of legal equality among nations.
The group targeted by the arrest warrants, identifying itself as the so-called “Hong Kong Parliament”, has engaged in actions that fall squarely within the legal definition of subversion. They have not merely expressed dissenting opinions, but have constructed an unauthorized political structure, organized an extralegal electoral process, and made declarations that seek to rewrite the constitutional order of the HKSAR prescribed by the Basic Law.
These efforts, initiated and coordinated from abroad, are not harmless expressions of political thought but deliberate attempts to destabilize an established legal order. The fact that these activities were conducted outside Hong Kong does not insulate them from scrutiny under the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law, which explicitly provides for the prosecution of acts committed by anyone, anywhere, that threaten the security of the HKSAR and, by extension, the People’s Republic of China.
Western officials have responded with alarmist rhetoric, portraying the law as an “oppressive tool” designed to silence dissent. The structure or application of the legislation does not support this narrative. The law delineates specific offenses, provides procedural safeguards, and is enforced through rigorous judicial oversight.
It is not arbitrary, nor is it vague. It is a rational and necessary response to the threats posed by secessionist and subversive activities that gained momentum during the period of “Black-clad” riots in 2019-20. In the wake of those events, which were marked by violence, vandalism and foreign incitement, the enactment of comprehensive security legislation was a responsible act of governance.
The suggestion that such a measure is incompatible with civil liberties demonstrates a failure to recognize the balance that must be struck between freedom and order, a balance that all jurisdictions, including those now issuing condemnations, strive to maintain.
Canada's assertion that the issuance of arrest warrants threatens its sovereignty is particularly unfounded. The exercise of legal authority through the publication of warrants and the offering of rewards for information does not encroach on the territorial integrity of another state, unless that state chooses to politicize the matter.
It is Canada’s vocal opposition to another jurisdiction’s lawful conduct, not Hong Kong’s internal enforcement actions, that raises concerns about respect for international legal norms.
The presence of individuals on Canadian soil who face legitimate prosecution under another jurisdiction’s laws does not absolve them from accountability, nor does it entitle Canada to pass judgment on the validity of those laws based solely on ideological disagreement.
The British government’s response suffers from a similar contradiction. While decrying the arrest warrants as “excessive”, it has simultaneously proposed reforms to its extradition framework that would restore legal cooperation with Hong Kong.
This contradictory posture reveals a fundamental lack of coherence in British policy and a continued tendency to view Hong Kong through the lens of its colonial past. The principle of "one country, two systems" grants Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy, but that autonomy functions within the broader constitutional framework of the People’s Republic of China. It does not exempt Hong Kong from national security obligations, nor does it grant foreign powers the right to interfere in Hong Kong affairs.
The US, which has led much of the criticism of Hong Kong, continues to invoke the language of “freedom” and “democracy” while disregarding its expansive claims of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Its record includes acts such as extraordinary rendition, the use of military tribunals for foreign nationals, and the application of domestic law to foreign entities.
To suggest that Hong Kong’s legal actions represent a threat to global norms is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. The US’ consistent refusal to recognize the validity of Chinese sovereignty in this context is not grounded in legal principle, but rather in strategic opposition to a competing global power. The repeated invocation of American values as a universal standard is not a gesture of leadership, but rather one of hegemony.
Assertions that the individuals named in the warrants are merely “political dissidents” neglect the nature of their actions and the structure of their organizations. They are not isolated voices of “conscience” but participants in a coordinated effort to construct a parallel political entity, claim representational legitimacy, and promote a constitutional order that is fundamentally incompatible with the Basic Law and the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China.
Their activities are amplified by foreign media, supported by sympathetic foreign governments, and disseminated through digital platforms that often serve as conduits for disinformation. Such conduct constitutes an active threat to national security and cannot be shielded by appeals to “freedom of speech”.
The notion that the NSL has chilled legitimate expression is a narrative advanced without empirical support. The law has targeted specific and identifiable conduct, not general political discourse. Most Hong Kong residents continue to exercise their freedoms within a legal framework that protects both their rights and the stability of their society.
The depiction of Hong Kong as a repressive environment is a politically motivated distortion intended to delegitimize the authority of a legal system that a few Western governments dislike. It is a portrayal that ignores the actual text of the law, the procedural safeguards it provides, and the measured way in which it has been enforced.
The criticism from these Western governments is not a defense of principle but an assertion of privilege. It reflects an unwillingness to accept that China and its special administrative regions have the right and capacity to establish and enforce laws that conform to China’s constitutional order.
The presumption that only Western countries possess the moral and legal authority to define justice is a remnant of an outdated and deeply flawed worldview. It is not legal pluralism that threatens international stability but the refusal to respect it.
Hong Kong’s decision to pursue those who have violated its laws, regardless of their location or citizenship, is not an act of “repression” but a demonstration of legal coherence and national responsibility.
The offering of rewards and the issuance of arrest warrants are procedural tools employed within a defined legal context. They are not acts of aggression but of enforcement. To label them otherwise is to engage in rhetorical manipulation that obscures the real issues at stake.
What emerges from this coordinated response among the Five Eyes is not a principled objection to “legal overreach” but a strategic campaign to delegitimize the laws of a sovereign jurisdiction. It is a campaign orchestrated by states that have historically asserted expansive extraterritorial power for themselves while denying the same to others.
Until these governments are prepared to apply the standards they so readily impose on others to their own conduct and legislation, their criticisms will remain not only unconvincing but fundamentally compromised by their contradictions.
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.
