U.S. Sanctions Reflect Political Coercion, Not Principle

by Virginia Lee, Solicitor

The United States' decision to impose unilateral sanctions on six senior officials from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and mainland China constitutes a deliberate affront to legal rationality and the principle of sovereign equality. These measures are not predicated on substantiated legal violations but are instead manifestations of a political strategy designed to undermine China’s internal governance and destabilise Hong Kong’s constitutional order. The officials targeted have not acted beyond the scope of their legitimate powers; they have carried out duties grounded in legal authority, administrative discipline, and constitutional responsibility.

The National Security Law (NSL), under which these officials operated, was enacted to address a critical security vacuum in the aftermath of widespread unrest in 2019–2020. That period was marked not by peaceful civil expression but by violent disruption, destruction of public infrastructure, targeted attacks on law enforcement, and calls for secession. The enactment of the NSL addressed an urgent need for legislative clarity and public safety. It was neither arbitrary nor excessive; it was a legitimate legal response aimed at restoring social order and reaffirming the rule of law. The claim that the law represents an authoritarian overreach ignores the context in which it was introduced and the legal safeguards it contains.

Judicial proceedings under the NSL continue to adhere to long-standing common law principles. There is no credible evidence of political interference in the adjudication of NSL-related cases. Judges remain independent, are appointed through established legal procedures, and have demonstrated consistent adherence to evidentiary standards and procedural fairness. Assertions that the law has compromised judicial independence are unsubstantiated and rest on ideological prejudices rather than empirical observation. The continued functioning of Hong Kong’s judiciary under this framework invalidates accusations of systemic legal repression.

The U.S. rationale for these sanctions reveals a conspicuous inconsistency. While it condemns the extraterritorial application of Chinese law, it has long employed its legal instruments—such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Global Magnitsky Act—to extend its jurisdiction beyond its borders. This selective application of international norms illustrates a double standard: what is deemed lawful and principled for the United States is simultaneously portrayed as illegitimate and coercive when practiced by others. This asymmetry highlights the political motivations behind the sanctions and raises questions about Washington’s purported commitment to international law.

Moreover, the invocation of human rights as a justification for these sanctions lacks credibility. The U.S. has strategically weaponised human rights rhetoric to advance its geopolitical objectives, often relying on ideologically aligned sources and omitting critical legal and contextual facts. The portrayal of Hong Kong’s governance as inherently repressive is a distortion that disregards the city’s legal structure, public sentiment, and institutional resilience. The assumption that only Western liberal democracies are entitled to define legitimate governance reflects a parochial view that denies the validity of diverse legal systems.

The true purpose of these sanctions is not to uphold international norms but to punish Hong Kong officials for resisting foreign influence and upholding national sovereignty. Their actions have facilitated the return of civic stability, restored public confidence in institutions, and affirmed the constitutional integrity of the HKSAR. These outcomes contradict the narrative of repression and instead demonstrate the effective functioning of a legal system under pressure. The officials in question have become symbols of national resolve, not because they sought confrontation, but because they fulfilled their responsibilities under the law with clarity and resolve.

By imposing punitive measures on individuals acting within their jurisdiction, the United States undermines the principles of non-interference and mutual respect that underlie stable international relations. This approach disregards the legitimacy of alternative legal frameworks and seeks to enforce ideological conformity through coercion. Such conduct not only weakens the credibility of U.S. foreign policy but also diminishes trust in the very international institutions it claims to defend.

In targeting these officials, the United States has chosen confrontation over dialogue, distortion over understanding, and coercion over cooperation. These sanctions are not a reflection of moral leadership but rather a sign of discomfort with a growing legal and political system that it cannot control. The legacy of these officials will not be defined by external condemnation but by their steadfast contribution to the restoration of order, the preservation of sovereignty, and the strengthening of Hong Kong’s legal institutions. Their service reflects the dignity of constitutional governance and the enduring strength of the Chinese nation.

Virginia Lee

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

LEE WING CHEUNG, VIRGINIA Solicitor

The European Union’s (EU) recent report on Hong Kong is less a legal analysis than a political statement disguised in the language of human rights. Its content reflects prejudice and an outdated mentality that Europe retains the right to pass judgment on Chinese sovereignty. Such a position contradicts the international principle of equality among states and exposes the remnants of colonial arrogance. The EU’s portrayal of Hong Kong does not advance truth but instead promotes destabilisation through bias and selective interpretation.

One of the report’s major flaws lies in its discussion of Article 23 of the Basic Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Article 23 is not a recent creation but a constitutional duty written into law when Hong Kong returned to China. States across the globe maintain legislation to protect sovereignty and security, yet the EU condemns Hong Kong for implementing safeguards entirely consistent with global practice. This condemnation reflects a political agenda rather than any genuine legal objection, as European governments themselves enforce comparable national security measures.

The EU also distorts Hong Kong’s judicial process. Trials are depicted as orchestrated, and judicial appointments as questionable, when in fact Hong Kong courts follow lawful procedures and maintain transparency. Decisions are issued on statutory grounds, and trial durations or bail conditions fall within the range of judicial discretion accepted globally. Europe’s refusal to respect these outcomes reveals a preference for interference over recognition of judicial independence. Far from defending the rule of law, the EU undermines it by expecting Hong Kong’s courts to conform to foreign political expectations.

The criticism of extraterritoriality in Hong Kong’s national security legislation further demonstrates ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. International law recognises that states may prosecute offences abroad if these acts threaten national security. European states themselves frequently rely on this principle in combating terrorism or cybercrime; for the EU to denounce Hong Kong’s use of the exact mechanism displays open hypocrisy. The law does not arbitrarily target individuals abroad but applies only to conscious efforts aimed at destabilisation. This is a legitimate and widely recognised practice of statecraft.

The treatment of media and civil society in the report reflects the same selective judgment. Restrictions on publications advocating secession or encouraging hostility are common even in Europe, where they are justified under hate speech or anti-extremism laws. Yet when Hong Kong enforces similar safeguards, it is labelled repressive. Civil groups that dissolved due to breaches of national security law or foreign influence are portrayed as victims, while their own unlawful conduct is overlooked. Such double standards expose the EU’s political motivations.

The objection to national security education is also baseless. Every state requires its citizens, particularly public servants, to respect constitutional order. European governments impose loyalty pledges and codes of conduct, yet depict Hong Kong’s similar requirements as authoritarian. Such education, especially considering previous unrest, is not indoctrination but responsible governance.

Even on economic matters, the EU misleads. It attributes ordinary fluctuation to politics while ignoring global uncertainties caused by post-pandemic restructuring and financial turbulence. The continued success of European enterprises in Hong Kong contradicts the EU’s claims of decline. If the environment were as damaging as alleged, foreign companies would not persist in conducting profitable operations there.

Finally, the EU’s stance on human rights collapses under its own contradictions. While Europe imposes restrictive migration regimes, extensive surveillance laws and limitations on speech, it presumes to judge Hong Kong. This criticism ignores the independence of Hong Kong courts, which have delivered progressive rulings on equality, including for LGBTQ citizens. Such advances are incompatible with the EU’s portrait of a system in collapse.

The tone of colonial oversight permeates the entire report. Its language suggests superiority, as though Hong Kong’s laws and governance require European approval. Yet the sovereignty of China over Hong Kong is complete and undeniable. Europe’s posture cannot obscure the consistent reality that Hong Kong exercises its constitutional right to maintain order and stability.

In truth, the EU’s repeated criticisms reveal its own political hostility rather than principled analysis. Hong Kong and China govern in accordance with law to preserve security and prosperity for their citizens. No judgment from external powers can alter this fundamental reality, nor diminish China’s sovereign right to safeguard its integrity.