A “people’s court” known as The Court of the Citizens of the World confirmed crimes against humanity and genocide charges against Chinese President Xi Jinping regarding China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims and ethnic Tibetans. This tribunal, comprised of Former Ambassador for War Crimes Stephen Rapp, Former Madela appointee before the Constitutional Court of South Africa Zak Yacoob, and lawyer and international law specialist Bhavani Fonseka, sat from July 8-11, 2024 to hear crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity, and genocide charges against Xi.
Accusations centred around acts of aggression in Taiwan, crimes against humanity in Tibet, and genocide against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. These were meticulously presented through opening statements, expert testimonies, and victim narratives.
Proceedings
Proceedings commenced with the examination of evidence regarding Taiwan’s statehood and its right to self-determination. Prosecutor Jonathan Rees KC underscored the criminality of China’s military actions against Taiwan, reflecting violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Expert witnesses argued that despite limited international recognition, realpolitik interactions and de facto recognition support Taiwan’s claims to statehood. Key witnesses drew parallels between China’s actions against Taiwan and Russia’s hybrid warfare tactics in Ukraine. They highlighted how China’s military drills, missile tests, and psychological warfare aim to erode Taiwan’s sovereignty, similar to Russia’s strategy during the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
A professor from the US Naval War College and a former US Navy officer emphasized China’s continuous efforts to undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty through military intimidation and political subversion. They explained how China’s provocative exercises and missile tests in the Taiwan Strait intended to pressure and destabilize Taiwan.
In Tibet and Xinjiang, there is evidence of systematic attacks directed against civilian populations belonging to religious and ethnic minorities. The tribunal listened to witnesses and examined material evidence detailing the widespread human rights abuses in Tibet and Xinjiang. Victims of these atrocities shared harrowing personal experiences, with one Tibetan monk recounting the intense surveillance and intimidation he faced, and a Uyghur victim describing the use of torture instruments.
In Tibet, the prosecution claimed that the widespread destruction of temples and the imposition of restrictions on religious and cultural practices amount to crimes against humanity. Colonial boarding schools were constructed, and Tibetan language and traditions were criminalized in an effort to eradicate their distinct cultural and religious identity. First-hand accounts from victims provided a poignant and human perspective on the suffering caused by China’s policies. For instance, Guoluo Juimei, a monk from Labrang Monastery, narrated his forced displacement from Tibet, highlighting the severe repression faced by Tibetan activists. Religious experts and monks testified about the systematic targeting and destruction of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, restrictions on religious practices, and policies aimed at dismantling Tibetan religious and cultural identity.
Victims and experts spoke about the psychological and emotional trauma caused by China’s implementation of colonial boarding schools, which have forcibly moved over a million Tibetan children and threatened the transmission of their language and culture to future generations. Experts provided evidence of widespread restrictions on free expression, opinion, movement, assembly and association faced by Tibetans and Uyghurs. This included reports of torture, denial of services to prisoners, and enforced disappearances.
In Xinjiang, mass detention camps have been set up across the region, where torture and forced sterilization have taken place. Witnesses report being blindfolded, beaten and denied food and sleep in these camps. Surveillance and controls on the lives of Uyghurs have been highly organized using state technology. Mosques have also been destroyed.
Legal Analysis of Principles and Doctrines
The tribunal’s decision involved an intricate legal analysis of several critical principles and doctrines in international criminal law and international humanitarian law. This approach underscores the tribunal’s methodical and comprehensive examination of the case to establish whether crimes had been committed.
Principle of Statehood: The tribunal scrutinized theories of recognition and declarative statehood to ascertain Taiwan’s status. Although it refrained from issuing a definitive ruling, the tribunal concluded that Taiwan satisfies the criteria for statehood under the Montevideo Convention.
Crime of Aggression: The tribunal delved into the Kampala amendments to the Rome Statute, which delineate specific acts of aggression against states. It also considered customary international law stemming from the Nuremberg Trials, which define crimes against peace as the planning or waging of aggressive wars.
Crimes Against Humanity: Citing Article 7 of the Rome Statute, the tribunal evaluated whether there was a widespread or systematic attack directed at a civilian population, considering elements like state policy and the accused’s knowledge. It addressed various charges, including forcible transfer, imprisonment, and persecution.
Genocide: The tribunal investigated whether China’s actions in Xinjiang met the intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part, as defined by the Genocide Convention. It found substantial evidence indicating such intent over an extended period, primarily targeting the Uyghur population.
Command and Superior Responsibility: The tribunal’s judgment involved a nuanced analysis of these doctrines to determine Xi Jinping’s culpability. Xi was found to exercise effective control over state organs that executed these crimes, establishing his liability.
Findings
The tribunal’s core findings are of significant importance, revealing the extent of human rights abuses committed by the Chinese state. Judge Stephen Rapp articulated the gravity of these crimes: “The evidence is clear that the aim of eliminating that whole community in the sense of a genocide is very clear.” Another judge emphasised the seriousness of the violations: “These are all very, very serious crimes against humanity. That attack is on the basis that these people are not worth living?”
The court confirmed charges of crimes against humanity against Chinese President Xi Jinping based on evidence of his effective control over the state organs committing widespread and systematic violations in Tibet and Xinjiang with knowledge of the situation. Despite the complexities involved in prosecuting a high-ranking leader like Xi Jinping, the judges concluded that international law compelled them to confirm the charges. As Judge Yacoob pointed out: “When against a country like China, a population that is so huge, that in my view, and this is not necessarily the only reason, that we come come to the conclusion that China be prosecuted.”
Regarding China’s actions in Tibet, the court confirmed counts 2-4 of crimes against humanity, including forcible transfer of children, imprisonment, and persecution. Judge Fonseka. said, “We believe there are substantial grounds to infer a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population with knowledge of cyber attacks. Thus, the court confirms counts two, three and four of the indictment.”
In Xinjiang, the court confirmed counts 5-12, including genocide and crimes against humanity of torture, rape, sterilisation and cultural suppression. The judges found clear evidence the intent was to destroy the Uyghur population in whole or part over the past 11 years through detention camps and other severe human rights violations. In Xinjiang, acts were confirmed to meet the definition in the Genocide Convention, as the judges analysed evidence of Chinese intent to destroy the Uighur population in part over 11 years through human rights violations in detention camps.
On Taiwan, the court did not find criminal acts of aggression had been committed yet based on international law definitions. However, it affirmed Taiwan’s right to self-determination as a state and said recent Chinese military escalation was wrongful and could become illegal depending on further invasion preparation. It found that Chinese actions did not yet manifestly violate standards of “character, gravity and scale” under the Kampala amendments. The judgment suggested that continued preparations for an invasion could lead to illegality, with Rapp saying: “We find that if China were now to violate that understanding and in fact, invade Taiwan, that would be contrary to an international understanding.”
Attempts to derail proceedings
The tribunal has faced harassment and attempts to shut it down. Correspondence sent to JURIST by The Court of Citizens of the World showed that the trial venue received a fraudulent cease and desist order. The letter, which the court said was confirmed as fraudulent, used the name of a real UK law firm with that of a fake lawyer. It stated in part:
This event purports to hold an illegal trial, which is not sanctioned by any recognized judicial authority. The planned event constitutes a serious violation of both Dutch and international law. Hosting or facilitating such an event may result in several legal violations, including but not limited to impersonation of judicial authority, violation of public order, defamation, false imprisonment, and complicity in criminal activities. Under Article 118 of the Dutch Penal Code, it is a criminal offense to impersonate a public official, including judicial authorities.
The court also said that an alleged spy, disguised as a new legal volunteer from Italy, claimed on July 2 with no reason in an unauthorised group message to all staff members that the court is not paying its staff, is acting “unjustly,” and further questioned the court’s moral legitimacy. The individual “provoked fellow volunteers to resign and sent an email to legal participants from the official email accounts, asking them not to attend the trial this coming week in The Hague against President Xi.”
The Tribunal’s Moral Authority and Global Impact
The tribunal’s conclusions have several critical implications:
The evidence-backed findings affirm the occurrence of severe crimes against humanity, lending credibility to calls for justice and accountability. The findings may compel countries to impose sanctions or reconsider their economic and political ties with China. The tribunal’s judgment may challenge domestic Chinese propaganda and prompt the younger Chinese populace to question their government’s policies. The rulings imply that human rights violations will not go unnoticed and signal to authoritarian regimes worldwide that justice may ultimately prevail. The tribunal’s findings validate the survivors’ and advocates’ efforts against atrocities, reinforcing their hopes for eventual accountability.
“Only thing to hope is that the international community takes note and that the relevant international court will come to the conclusion that it is important at that time China be prosecuted.” Judge Yacoob judge reflected on the process: “It has been a privilege to be part of this process, to hear all of the evidence and to put it together.”
The judgment highlights the bravery of witnesses who testified, often at great personal risk. Their testimonies contributed significantly to the tribunal’s conclusions, offering a resilient beacon of justice and human dignity.
The tribunal has imparted a powerful moral and legal message against human rights violations, even if current geopolitical realities might impede immediate action. Its comprehensive findings and unequivocal moral stance ensure these crimes remain in global consciousness. This judgment provides enduring hope that future international legal bodies might hold even the most powerful leaders accountable, thus upholding the rights of vulnerable communities worldwide.
As Oleksandra Matviichuk aptly put it, the trial underscores a global imperative: “We have to fight for justice globally, and that is why it’s so important to stop human suffering and human rights violations in China.” The pursuit of peace and human rights remains a universal endeavour, with the China Tribunal paving the way for a more just world.
