China’s legal system has long been criticized for its opacity and use of vague, sweeping laws to stifle dissent and activism.
Under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, this tactic has intensified, with critics accusing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) of wielding its legal system as a tool to suppress freedom of expression, punish political opposition, and maintain its unchallenged rule.
From national security laws to charges of “picking quarrels,” the Chinese government has broadened its legal arsenal to target activists, lawyers, journalists, and even ordinary citizens who challenge its authority.
China’s legal framework allows authorities to arrest and punish individuals for a wide array of actions deemed threatening to the state.
One of the most prominent examples is the concept of “endangering national security,” which is interpreted broadly by the CCP.
Under this framework, activities ranging from human rights advocacy to public criticism of government policies can be construed as threats to state stability.
Laws like the 2015 National Security Law and the 2020 Hong Kong National Security Law give authorities enormous latitude to define dissent as criminal behaviour.
These laws include charges such as “subversion of state power,” “separatism,” and “terrorism,” but their definitions are deliberately vague, allowing the government to apply them to a wide range of actions.
- China’s economic picture grows murkier in Xi’s ‘new era’
- Chinese Tech stocks slump as Xi's new team of loyalists lack market-mindedness
- China: The 30-year rule
- Beyond Beijing’s “gift” to Zimbabwe
Keep Reading
The National Security Law in Hong Kong has been used to target not only protesters advocating for independence but also journalists, pro-democracy activists, and opposition politicians.
In mainland China, similar charges have been used to suppress ethnic minorities, particularly in Xinjiang and Tibet.
Perhaps the most notorious charge used against activists and dissidents in China is “picking quarrels and provoking trouble,” a vague accusation that allows authorities to arrest individuals for anything from social media posts to public protests.
This charge, codified in Article 293 of China’s Criminal Law, carries a penalty of up to five years in prison but is often used in politically motivated cases.
Human rights defenders, lawyers, and even artists have been targeted with this accusation.
The vagueness of the law enables authorities to apply it arbitrarily, which has a chilling effect on public discourse.
China’s vague laws are often applied with particular severity in regions with ethnic minority populations, such as Xinjiang, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia.
In these areas, the Chinese government has justified its repression under the guise of national security and anti-terrorism measures, cracking down on individuals for religious practices, cultural activities, and linguistic expression.
Days ago, a global human rights organization accused China of using its vaguely worded laws to penalize citizens and human rights defenders for expressing dissent or engaging in activism.
According to the report titled *For China, Human Rights is Disturbing Social Order*, published on Oct. 8 by Spain-based human rights group Safeguard Defenders, Chinese authorities frequently charge human rights advocates with “disturbing social order.”
The report highlights that while “disturbing social order” is the primary charge against human rights defenders, the most common crime category for the broader population is “endangering public security.”
This broad category covers a wide range of offenses, from violent crimes and dangerous driving to selling counterfeit medications.
Safeguard Defenders points out that China’s legal system uses such vague laws, allowing authorities significant discretion to interpret them and apply charges as they see fit.
The findings of the report are based on data collected from 2008 to 2022, as well as figures from China’s Supreme Court’s National Court Judicial Statistics Bulletin (Gongbao) for the years 2009 to 2022.
While Gongbao’s data consists of “decided cases”—those that have gone to trial and received a verdict, either guilty or not guilty—it does not include cases that were appealed.
Given China’s near-perfect conviction rate, Safeguard Defenders concludes that decided cases are almost always synonymous with convictions.
The report also incorporates data from sources such as the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) and the NGO Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD).
Safeguard Defenders’ analysis reveals that 62 percent of the cases in its database pertain to charges related to obstructing the administration of social order, particularly the charge of “disturbing social order.”
One of the most common accusations within this category is “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (Article 293 of China’s Criminal Law), a vague charge often used against petitioners, activists, and critics of the government.
Another frequently used law is the anti-cult law (Article 300), which targets groups like Falun Gong and other banned religious organizations.
According to the report, Chinese authorities often escalate charges against human rights defenders to ensure harsher penalties.
Initially charged with “disturbing social order,” activists are later accused of more severe crimes, such as “endangering national security,” “incitement to subvert state power,” or “subversion of state power.”
These charges carry significantly higher punishments and are part of the government’s strategy to silence dissent.
The report also sheds light on the rapid growth in criminal cases over the past decade.
Data from Gongbao shows that the number of criminal cases decided in courts of first instance increased by 35.35 percent, rising from 766,746 in 2009 to 1.03 million in 2022.
Despite China’s restrictive stance on data transparency, Safeguard Defenders has managed to document these numbers.
The group notes that getting access to court judgment data has become increasingly difficult as China has begun limiting access and removing previously available data from its online databases.
The peak in criminal cases occurred in 2019, with nearly 1.3 million cases decided in that year alone. Since then, cases involving “endangering public security” have surged, rising fourfold from 86,814 in 2009 to 350,290 in 2022.
Similarly, cases related to “obstructing the administration of social order” more than doubled, from 133,639 in 2009 to 298,803 in 2022.
The report points out that since 2018, “endangering public security” has become the most common crime category.
Safeguard Defenders’ findings highlight that China’s anti-cult laws play a significant role in its repression of human rights defenders.
More than half (55 percent) of human rights-related cases between 2008 and 2020 were linked to China’s anti-cult legislation, which has been used to target religious groups that the government considers a threat to its authority.
Thirteen percent of human rights cases were related to charges of subversion and incitement, while seven percent involved the vague accusation of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”
The report demonstrates how China’s laws are used strategically to punish dissent and create a climate of fear.
Laws that are intentionally ambiguous, such as those related to “social order” and “public security,” allow the Chinese government to arrest and charge activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens with crimes that carry harsh sentences.
These laws enable the authorities to maintain control by silencing opposition and ensuring that any form of activism or criticism is met with swift punishment.
China’s use of vague laws to suppress dissent has garnered widespread condemnation from the international community.
Human rights organizations and foreign governments have repeatedly criticized Beijing for its tactics, accusing it of violating fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial.
At the United Nations, several countries have called for investigations into human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong.
Governments in Europe and North America have also imposed sanctions on Chinese officials linked to human rights abuses, but these measures have so far done little to deter the Chinese government from continuing its repressive policies.
However, China, which holds a powerful position on the UN Security Council, along with its economic influence on the global stage, continues to dismiss these accusations, framing its actions as necessary for maintaining social stability and national security.
While international pressure has resulted in some limited sanctions and condemnations, China’s significant global influence has made it difficult to hold the government accountable for its human rights abuses.
The increasing opacity surrounding China’s legal system, including the removal of court data, underscores the government’s efforts to limit transparency and shield itself from scrutiny.
The report by Safeguard Defenders exposes the ongoing use of vague laws by the Chinese government to silence dissent and suppress activism.
Whether through charges of “disturbing social order,” “picking quarrels,” or “endangering national security,” the Chinese legal system remains a powerful tool in the CCP’s arsenal to punish those who challenge its authority.
With criminal cases on the rise and limited access to legal data, it is clear that China’s grip on free expression and activism shows no signs of loosening.
China’s use of vague and sweeping laws to punish dissent and activism has created a climate of fear and repression.
The ambiguity of charges like “endangering national security” or “picking quarrels” allows the government to target anyone who challenges its authority, whether they are lawyers, journalists, activists, or ordinary citizens.
These tactics have not only silenced critics but have also eroded the basic rights and freedoms of China’s population.
As global awareness of these practices grows, the international community must continue to press for greater transparency and accountability in China’s legal system, the report stated.
