"From 1 July, work undertaken lawfully in Australia by journalists, think tank analysts, academics and others may be characterised as criminal under Chinese law," warned a recent essay first published in The Australian.
China's Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law
The Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law, which took effect on 1 July, asserts legal authority to pursue people beyond the People’s Republic of China who, in the Chinese Communist Party’s view, "undermine ethnic unity or promote ethnic division." The legislation does not read like a purely domestic statute: it explicitly claims a right to judge conduct that occurs inside other sovereign states and embeds President Xi Jinping’s vision of a single Chinese national identity into law.
The law demands reinforcement of that vision across schools, universities, media organisations, technology companies, employers and community organisations. Crucially for Australia, it also authorises Chinese authorities to pursue organisations and individuals outside China who allegedly undermine ethnic unity or promote ethnic division.
How the law can reframe lawful activity in Australia
The practical effect is straightforward and consequential: lawful work in Australia — research on Tibet, journalism investigating Xinjiang, policy analysis on foreign interference — can be reframed by Beijing as conduct that threatens China’s ethnic unity. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has noted its concerns about the law. The essay argues that even if Chinese authorities do not act against a particular individual, "the possibility alone may encourage self-censorship or deter engagement," and that deterrent effect appears to be an intent of the law.
The piece anticipates a familiar rebuttal — that Australia itself has extraterritorial laws — and answers it: Australian extraterritorial statutes explicitly target terrorism, espionage, drug trafficking and child sex offences and enable the law to follow Australian citizens or residents anywhere in the world. The new Chinese law is not framed around those predicates; it is a political-legal instrument aimed at preserving a conception of national unity.
Past precedents: Fox Hunt, Sky Net, and the Hong Kong law
The essay places the new law in a broader pattern. It points to Operations Fox Hunt and Sky Net, which were established as anti-corruption campaigns but, according to governments and law enforcement agencies in several democracies, included elements of surveillance, intimidation and pressure directed at individuals living overseas and, in some cases, at their family members in China. Those operations illustrate how Beijing has pursued people beyond its borders when it deems core national interests involved.
Likewise, the Hong Kong national security law previously asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction. Chinese authorities later issued arrest warrants for overseas dissidents (including in Australia), announced financial rewards for information leading to arrests and sought to intimidate critics living in democratic countries. The Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law, the essay argues, “extends that same strategic logic into another policy domain.”
What this means for universities, think tanks, media organisations, and Canberra
- Universities: Reaffirm commitments to academic freedom and resist pressure that could reshape teaching and research agendas.
- Think tanks: Resist attempts to shape research through intimidation and make clear that policy analysis conducted lawfully in Australia will not be governed by foreign political imperatives.
- Media organisations: Reject efforts to influence editorial judgment through the threat of foreign legal action and protect journalists working lawfully in Australia from being reframed as criminals overseas.
- Canberra and government agencies: Formally reject the law’s claim to extraterritorial jurisdiction; make clear that Australian citizens and residents acting lawfully under Australian law remain subject to Australian sovereignty; review travel advice to ensure Australians understand the potential implications of expansive foreign legislation.
Beijing’s parallel tool: countering perceived extraterritorialism
The essay highlights an additional development from April: the Chinese State Council issued regulations allowing Chinese authorities to identify and counter foreign laws and actions they deem "improper exercises of extraterritorial jurisdiction." That move, the piece notes, compounds the problem — Beijing is both expanding its own reach and creating a regulatory framework to contest foreign legal actions, creating reciprocal legal instruments that can be invoked in strategic competition.
Collectively, the measures described — counter-espionage laws, data-security statutes, anti-foreign sanctions, state-secrets reforms and now the Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law — are presented not as isolated legal tweaks but as an "integrated legal architecture for strategic competition." The essay concludes with a clear prescription: Canberra should publicly reject the extraterritorial claims, reaffirm that Australian law governs conduct in Australia, and take steps to protect Australians from coercion cloaked in foreign legal authority.
