Law, Order, and China’s Global Leadership†

By: Dr. Mei Gechlik / On: November 27, 2024

Table of Contents

China and the Universal Periodic Reviews
China’s Mini-Criminal Law and Its Draft Amendments
A Key Provision in the Mini-Criminal Law

Estimated Reading Time

6.3 min

Law, Order, and China’s Global Leadership — Image: Gerd Altmann, *One Humanity* (Publicdomainpictures.net)

China’s ongoing effort to amend its “mini-criminal law” has drawn praises because the latest draft amendment reflects the authorities’ positive responses to public comments. If key provisions that have aroused widespread concerns can be ultimately improved with clarity, China will be able to gain more support from the United Nations, which just completed its fourth-cycle Universal Periodic Review of China’s human rights record. Strong support from the United Nations—through which China has increased its influence with other member states in the past decade—is crucial to China’s development of its global leadership in an increasingly contentious world.

China and the Universal Periodic Reviews

The United Nations has established a unique process called “Universal Periodic Review” (“UPR”) to conduct periodic reviews of the human rights records of each of its nearly 200 member states. As explained by the international organization, the UPR “provides an opportunity for all States to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries”.

During each cycle of UPR, three sets of information are provided by the member state under review, “UN entities” (e.g., human rights treaty bodies inside the United Nations), and “other stakeholders” (e.g., non-governmental organizations), respectively. At the end of each UPR, the member state under review receives a detailed list of recommendations contributed by other member states. According to the United Nations, “[t]he UPR ensures that all countries are accountable for progress or failure in implementing these recommendations. […] The international community will assist in implementing the recommendations and conclusions regarding capacity-building and technical assistance, in consultation with the country concerned.”

For China, four cycles of UPRs have been conducted in 2009, 2013, 2018, and 2024 to review the country’s human rights records at those times. At the end of the fourth-cycle UPR, which was completed in January 2024, China received 428 recommendations and accepted 290 of them. The acceptance rate was 68 percent, compared with an acceptance rate of 82 percent during the third-cycle UPR, when China accepted 284 of the 346 recommendations made.

“To sustain its positive influence inside the United Nations, China should take solid steps to show its commitment to working closely with the organization to ensure the success of the UPR mechanism.”

The decrease by 14 percentage points in China’s rate of accepting UPR recommendations will likely arouse concerns. To sustain its positive influence inside the United Nations, China should take solid steps to show its commitment to working closely with the organization to ensure the success of the UPR mechanism. The current amendment process of China’s “mini-criminal law” offers the country a good opportunity to accomplish this goal.

China’s Mini-Criminal Law and Its Draft Amendments

Dubbed China’s “mini-criminal law”, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishments (“PSAP Law”)¹ aims at, among other goals, “maintaining the public security and order of the society”, “safeguarding public safety”, and “protecting the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations”.

In September 2023, China’s national legislature issued a proposed amendment to the PSAP Law (“First Draft Amendment”) to solicit public comments. Within a month, nearly 100,000 people submitted comments to express their views on a law that has given the police extensive power to impose punishments (e.g., warnings, fines, and administrative detention) on individuals and other legal persons committing acts considered to be violations of public security administration.

Included in the First Draft Amendment was a new provision seeking to punish, inter alia, anyone wearing, in public places, clothing or a symbol that “damages the spirit of the Chinese nation or hurts the feelings of the Chinese nation” or anyone spreading speech that “damages the spirit of the Chinese nation or hurts the feelings of the Chinese nation”. In response to concerns about the ambiguity of the quoted phrase and the subjectivity involved when the police enforce the provision, the national legislature released another amendment (“Second Draft Amendment”)—which is now being considered by the national legislature—that no longer includes the quoted phrase.

“Such positive response to public comments on the First Draft Amendment should be commended. Yet, China’s national legislature should leverage this amendment process to significantly improve another provision containing a phrase that has drawn attention from the United Nations.”

Such positive response to public comments on the First Draft Amendment should be commended. Yet, China’s national legislature should leverage this amendment process to significantly improve another provision containing a phrase that has drawn attention from the United Nations.

A Key Provision in the Mini-Criminal Law

The crime of “picking quarrels and provoking troubles”, as stated in Article 293 of China’s Criminal Law, has led to concerns expressed by the United Nations about its vague meaning. “Chasing or intercepting” a person or “occupying public or private property” under “serious circumstances” are explicit examples of this crime, the punishment of which could be imprisonment.

The same expression “picking quarrels and provoking troubles” is also used in the PSAP Law, which provides, inter alia, that “chasing or intercepting a person”, “occupying public or private property”, and “other acts of picking quarrels and provoking troubles” could lead to adminitrative detention of up to 15 days. The catch-all phrase “other acts of picking quarrels and provoking troubles” has given significant discretionary power to the police, as reflected in the following interpretation offered by the police in Shenyang, Liaoning Province’s capital city:

[… The catch-all phrase] refers to […] other acts such as causing disturbances in public places, resulting in disorder in public places; beating others without any reason; and making troubles out of nothing or creating incidents in public places for the purpose of having fun.

In light of this broad interpretation, it is not a surprise that, according to official data reported in China’s Statistics Yearbooks, the police in China handled, in accordance with the PSAP Law, a total number of more than 500,000 cases involving “acts of picking quarrels and provoking troubles” from 2018 to 2022.

In an apparent attempt to narrow the scope of the catch-all phrase, the Second Draft Amendment suggests that the phrase be amended to: “other acts of picking quarrels and provoking troubles that amount to harrassment of others without cause and disruption of social order”. Unfortunately, adding new expressions that are themselves unclear does not help remove all the ambiguity surrounding the catch-all phrase.

The PSAP Law has significant impact on the daily life of anyone in China. If China can effectively clarify the PSAP Law and submit to the United Nations by 2026 a voluntary mid-term report to show its effort in response to the recommendations made during the fourth-cycle UPR, China will gain more support from the United Nations. With such support, China will be able to strengthen its global leadership to tackle enormous challenges such as the climate crisis and regional conflicts.

The citation of this article is: Dr. Mei Gechlik, Law, Order, and China’s Global Leadership, SINOTALKS.COM^®, In Brief No. 50, Nov. 27, 2024, https://sinotalks.com/inbrief/202411-english-law-order-global-leadership.
The original, English version of this article was edited by Nathan Harpainter. The information and views set out in this article are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the work or views of SINOTALKS^®. ↩︎

The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Public Security Administration Punishments is a piece of legislation under China’s administrative law, rather than criminal law. Therefore, the use of the term “mini-criminal law” by the source linked here (i.e., an article published on the website of China’s national legislature) could be misleading. It is interesting that this term has been quite commonly used by other official sources to refer to this law. See, e.g., another article published on the website of China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate that uses this term: https://www.spp.gov.cn/llyj/201604/t20160421_116545.shtml. ↩︎