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. **
