Can I (a random person in the world) be prosecuted under the new Hong Kong security law?

Question

According to Amnesty International, the new Hong Kong security law "applies to everyone on the planet". I quote:

The wording of the Hong Kong national security law asserts jurisdiction over people who are not residents of Hong Kong and have never even set foot there. This means anyone on Earth, regardless of nationality or location, can technically be deemed to have violated this law and face arrest and prosecution if they are in a Chinese jurisdiction, even for transit. Accused foreign nationals who don’t permanently reside in Hong Kong can be deported even before any trial or verdict.

Social media companies, for example, can be asked to remove content deemed unacceptable by the Chinese government, even if these were posted outside of Hong Kong or if the companies’ offices and servers are located in other countries.

That seems so surreal. Are countries allowed to do this? Can country X legislate stuff like "anyone who tells a joke that denigrates citizens of country X will be prosecuted"?

Answer 1

How far applicable the law of a country is is decided by the law of that country. If other countries disagree, they can obviously decline to assist in the enforcement of those laws, and disallow the agents of the first country to act on their territory.

There even is precedent that a country outlaws behaviour not related to it at all. For example, German law forbids stuff like genocide and human trafficing regardless of where it happens, who perpetrates it and who it is done to. France and the UK both make torture punishable, again regardless of who and where. There are more examples:

Universal Jurisdiction on Wikipedia

Answer 2

It is quite common for countries to prosecute both actions by and against their nationals as soon as the perpetrator enters their jurisdiction. Some will also prosecute certain crimes by anyone who is presently in their jurisdiction, no matter where they happened.

Some key points to take away:

• For some crimes (a citizen of country A murders a citizen of country B while both are in country C) there may be multiple, competing claims of jurisdiction. Here it will matter which country holds the perpetrator, and if they are willing to extradite to any other country before or after they hold a trial themselves.
• The number of countries which can effectively claim jurisdiction over people not on their territory is limited, they need the diplomatic power to push an extradition request through.

Did you follow the case of Meng Wanzhou? A Chinese businesswoman possibly did something against US laws with extraterritorial scope. She went to Canada and the US requested her arrest. Ever since she has been held in Canada while Canadian courts decide if she will be extradited.

For that matter, the US has been trying to get the Australian Julian Assange for ages.

But it is not just the US. Turkey issued an arrest warrant against a German with Turkish roots which Spain applied until the decision was overturned by a Spanish court.

Perhaps China implicitly announced that they see themselves in the same league when it comes to international enforcement of their domestic laws. If you do something China does not like, you shouldn't travel to China any more, or to any other country which would honor a Chinese extradition request.

Answer 3

This reflects similar situations applicable wrt other nations.

A person wanted by the US authorities flew on a Canada-Mexico flight across the US. The aircraft was instructed to land en-route in the US and the passenger was removed.

Israeli nationals who have any concern that they may be legally detained by countries who have extradition treaties with their "enemies" follow a circuitous air route to and from Israel - there is only one route which ensures access to "the world" without transiting territories where they may be detained.

In 2017 the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. when travelling from Australia to Singapore, took the route shown below so as to not transit Indonesian territory.

[From here.] This was due to a mix of the El Al airline not being authorised to enter Indonesian territory (or claimed territory) and the obvious inadvisability of the PM doing so.

Answer 4

Countries do this all the time. Sometimes, they will claim universal jurisdiction for crimes they consider particularly heinous or crucial to their national security (think Julian Assange). Many jurisdiction will prosecute crimes like defamation based on the victim's location (the perpetrator's might not even be known initially).

Some countries get some leverage from their role in the international financial system, sports, etc. so that you don't even notice that they effectively exercise some form of worldwide jurisdiction. The US in particular is well known to (selectively) arrest executives of foreign companies for crimes that have no particular connection to the US when they get the chance.

The only difference is how the crime is perceived from (y)our perspective (Is it serious enough? Should even be a crime?) but of course the Chinese authorities probably have a very different view of the crimes your country or my country choose to prosecute in that way.

Answer 5

YES you can be prosecuted.

BUT you are largely safe if you limit yourself to go to places that have no extradition arrangements with China or Hong Kong, or those places that will likely reject a extradition request.

Countries are perfectly allowed to prosecute slander, seditious speech, or lese-majeste, wherever they’re committed. A good example is Saudi Arabia, which quite actively enforces these laws, both by detaining suspects entering or transiting through Saudi Arabia, or by requesting the suspects’ extradition. Saudi Arabia’s extradition requests may not always be complied with, Dina Ali Lasloom’s case being a tragic counterexample.

From the Hong Kong government’s track record of enforcing the security law, people living overseas like you are even less likely to be prosecuted.

Between Jul-Sep 2020, the government has only charged a handful of people with crimes under the security law, mostly for displaying independence banners or similar symbols on July 1st and 21st. Unofficially, the security law made its greatest impact by pressuring major activist groups like Demosisto to voluntarily disband. On the other hand, the government did not attempt to prosecute activists who primarily worked overseas to lobby for foreign intervention, notably Joshua Wong. Still, only time will tell how Hong Kong's government handles the security law.