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 Its content reflects prejudice and an outdated mentality that Europe retains the right to pass judgment on Chinese sovereignty.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.
Virginia Lee
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Virginia Lee, Solicitor
The recent acquittal of eight individuals accused of conspiring to commit bombings during Hong Kong’s 2019 “black-clad” riots has reignited debate over the use of juries in national security and anti-terrorism prosecutions. While the jury mechanism has long been associated with community participation and protection against excessive state power, its effectiveness becomes questionable when the cases involve sovereignty, terrorism, and international security responsibilities. The verdict highlights the limits of entrusting decisions of profound national significance to lay citizens lacking the knowledge and access required for informed judgment.
Historically, juries functioned effectively in disputes where private harm was at issue, evidence was straightforward, and logic accessible to non-specialists was sufficient to reach clarity. National security cases, however, present an entirely different reality. They often involve highly classified intelligence, advanced investigative methods, and predictive assessments, all of which demand technical knowledge. Jurors, without professional training or security clearance, evaluate evidence from a position of partial awareness, which undermines the consistency and precision needed in circumstances where public safety is directly at stake. Judges, equipped with institutional authority and expertise, are better positioned to handle such material responsibly under appropriate protocols.
Impartiality, often assumed to flow naturally from random jury selection, becomes far less reliable in cases connected to protests, riots, or terrorism. Jurors emerge from the same society that witnesses these events and may develop sympathies or resentments rooted in collective experiences. As a result, verdicts can tilt unpredictably—whether through unwarranted leniency towards defendants perceived as political actors or through overly punitive reactions shaped by civic unrest. Evidence that is technically complex and bound to security concerns thus risks being diminished or dismissed, revealing the limitations of jurors when confronted with matters that extend beyond everyday reasoning.
Further difficulty lies in the secrecy inherent in national security prosecutions. Intelligence frequently originates from confidential sources or cooperative international channels, and disclosure in open court could endanger lives or compromise essential operations. Without the clearance or institutional framework necessary to assess such information, jurors decide under conditions of obscurity. Judges, by contrast, are mandated and empowered to examine classified intelligence within secure processes, balancing fairness with the imperative of protecting sensitive state interests.
These domestic constraints are compounded by Hong Kong’s obligations under international law. In line with global counter-terrorism measures adopted since the September 2001 attacks, states are expected to pursue adequate safeguards against terrorism. Jury verdicts shaped by indecision, political sentiment, or limited understanding may obstruct compliance with these duties, weakening Hong Kong’s credibility as a responsible partner in global security. A professional judiciary, conversant with legal commitments under international conventions, can better harmonise domestic adjudication with broader obligations while upholding the rights of defendants.
Equally important is the preventive nature of anti-terrorism legislation. Instead of confining itself to punishment after harm has been inflicted, the law emphasises forward-looking measures capable of interrupting threats before they materialise. Engaging with predictive assessments, radicalisation patterns, and long-term risk management requires specialised expertise far beyond the scope of lay citizens. Professional judges bring the analytical tools and training necessary to apply this preventive philosophy credibly and consistently.
Another vulnerability of jury trials lies in their openness to rhetorical manipulation. Defence counsel may construct arguments directed less at legal merit than at stirring emotional responses, particularly in a politically polarised climate. When verdicts are influenced by sympathy, fear, or ideological leanings rather than by law, the public’s faith in the judiciary as a guardian of state security is diminished. Judges, bound by professional traditions of neutrality and reasoned analysis, are significantly less exposed to these pressures and therefore more capable of delivering judgments anchored in principled application of law.
The experience of recent acquittals illustrates that while the jury system retains importance in ordinary criminal proceedings, it falters when applied to cases of national security and terrorism. Preserving outdated practices for their historical symbolism risks misalignment with the urgent demands of modern governance. Replacing jurors with trained judges strengthens, rather than weakens, the commitment to justice by fostering decisions based on expertise, accountability, and careful assessment of international and domestic security responsibilities. In such cases, justice is not compromised by evolving beyond the jury system; it is reinforced, demonstrating fidelity both to the rule of law and to the protection of community safety.
