China — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

The 2022 Sino-Russian Statement: A Legal Justification for War?

On February 4th, 2022, as the Beijing Winter Olympics opened, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping declared a “no limits” partnership between their two nations. [1] Their Joint Statement proclaiming a new global era affirmed support for Russian and Chinese territorial ambitions in Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively, and promised to strengthen collaboration between the two nations against the West. The Joint Statement underscored their ambition to collaborate on a wide variety of issues—from climate change to cybersecurity. Less than three weeks later, the world watched as Russia unilaterally invaded Ukraine—overlooking its international obligations under the United Nations (UN) Charter Article 2(4) which states that “all members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” [2] Russia and China's claim of “no forbidden areas of cooperation” and their endorsement of each other’s territorial ambitions may be indications that Russia’s use of force serves as an implicit threat against international law. [3] By claiming a “New Era” for global affairs, the Joint Statement poses an unprecedented challenge to the existing world order and disrupts the legally binding standards of the UN international system.

Beatriz OliveiraMay 21, 2022International Law, Sino-Russian Pact, Russia, Ukraine, China, Sovereignty

Could China Be Charged for the Xinjiang Conflict? Exploring the Applicability of International Genocide Law

The cultural and religious customs practiced by the Uyghurs have been alleged to be inimical to the unity of the Chinese state. This has led to measures including the alleged detainment of more than a million Uyghurs in “re-education camps” by the government, as well as state-led campaigns such as the 2014 “Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism” which, as the Human Rights Watch found, had resulted in the imprisonment of several Uyghurs without a proper trial. These occurrences highlight the incongruity between the rights guaranteed to religious and ethnic minorities in the constitution of China and the treatment of these groups in reality.

Ashley TanJanuary 6, 2021China, genocide law, international law, Uyghurs, ICC

The 2019 Hong Kong Extradition Bill: Eroding Domestic Autonomy?

Earlier this year in Hong Kong, a series of demonstrations against a government-proposed extradition bill has resurfaced questions of the region’s “high degree of autonomy” under the People’s Republic of China. The contested bill, the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill, would permit the transfer of criminal suspects in Hong Kong to other areas of China, including the region controlled by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Despite these momentous protests, Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, has not formally withdrawn the bill and the threat of future protests continues to destabilize Hong Kong.