article 23 essay

What Article 23 means for the future of Hong Kong and its once vibrant pro-democracy movement

Professor of Law and International Affairs, O.P. Jindal Global University

Disclosure statement

Michael C. Davis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

Lawmakers in Hong Kong passed new security legislation on March 19, 2024, handing authorities in the semi-autonomous city-state further power to clamp down on dissent.

The law, under Article 23 , has been decades in the making but was resisted for a long time by protesters who feared the legislation’s effect on civil liberties in Hong Kong, a special administrative region in China that has become increasingly under the thumb of Beijing.

To explain what the adoption of Article 23, which is set to be signed into law on March 23, 2024, means for the future of Hong Kong, The Conversation turned to Michael C. Davis, a law professor who taught constitutional law and human rights in Hong Kong for more than 30 years, most recently at the University of Hong Kong, and is the author of “ Freedom Undone: The Assault on Liberal Values in Hong Kong .”

You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, here .

What is the background to Article 23?

Article 23 has a lengthy backstory. It is an article in the Basic Law of Hong Kong requiring the Hong Kong government to enact a local ordinance governing national security. The Basic Law itself is effectively the constitution of Hong Kong. Its promulgation by the central government was part of China’s obligation under the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 – the treaty providing for Hong Kong’s return to China. Thirteen years later, in 1997, the territory was transferred to Chinese rule after more than a century under the British.

The Basic Law established a largely liberal constitutional order for post-handover Hong Kong. This included guarantees of the rule of law and basic freedoms, as well as a promise of ultimate universal suffrage. It was formally adopted by China’s National People’s Congress in 1990.

Basic Law Article 23 requires the Hong Kong government to “on its own” enact certain national security laws relating to treason, secession, sedition, subversion or theft of state secrets, and to regulate foreign organizations.

The Hong Kong government first put forward an Article 23 bill in 2003. But due to concerns over the implications for press and organizational freedoms, as well as expanded police powers, the proposed bill met with widespread opposition .

A group of seven leading lawyers and two legal academics, including myself, challenged the proposed bill in a collection of pamphlets that highlighted its deficiencies under international human rights standards. Meanwhile, half a million protesters took to the streets of Hong Kong.

In the face of such opposition and the consequent withdrawal of support by a leading pro-goverment party, the bill was withdrawn.

Rather than come forward with a replacement bill that would address human rights concerns, the government opted to let Article 23 languish for two decades.

Then, in 2020, Beijing imposed a national security law that gave Hong Kong authorities greater power. It led to the arrest and repression of opposition figures in Hong Kong, silencing the once-vibrant democracy movement.

With no effective opposition left and the threat of arrest for anyone who speaks out, the pro-Beijing Hong Kong government decided now was the time to ram through a more extreme version of the bill.

The Hong Kong government, with Beijing’s encouragement, was able to open up a short consultation on the new Article 23 legislative proposal with little or no opposition expressed.

The process was facilitated by a “ patriots only” electoral system imposed by Beijing in 2021 that has tightened Beijing’s grip over the Hong Kong legislature, leading to unanimous support for the bill.

How will it affect civil liberties in Hong Kong?

In tandem with the 2020 Beijing-imposed national security law, the new Article 23 legislation will have a dramatic effect on civil liberties.

The national security law – with its vague provisions on secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion – has already been used along with a colonial-era sedition law to arrest and silence dissent in Hong Kong. Many opposition figures are in prison or have fled into exile . And those with dissenting views who remain have largely gone silent.

The draft bill expands on the national security law in key areas: the stealing of state secrets, insurrection, sabotage and external interference in Hong Kong.

It essentially embraces mainland China’s comprehensive national security regime, which has long focused on suppressing internal opposition, targeting numerous areas of local civil life, impacting organizational, press and academic freedoms.

Included in Article 23 is the adoption of the mainland’s broad definition of “state secrets ,” which can even include reporting or writing on social and economic development policies.

The legislation expands the potential use of incarceration with both lengthy sentences upon conviction and longer holding of suspects before trial.

Article 23 also intensifies scrutiny of “foreign influence ” – making working with outsiders risky for Hong Kong citizens.

The draft legislation speaks disparagingly of activism under the guises of fighting for or monitoring human rights and is critical of “so-called” nongovernmental organizations.

All of this makes working with or supporting international human rights organizations perilous.

In short, in the space of two decades, Hong Kong’s liberal constitutional order has been transformed into a national security order with weak or no protections for basic freedoms.

What is the wider context to Article 23?

To understand this legislation, one must appreciate the Chinese Communist Party’s deep hostility to liberal values and institutions, such as the rule of law, civil liberties, independent courts, a free press and public accountability. Such liberal ideas are viewed as an existential threat to party rule.

This mindset has led to a dramatic expansion of the party’s national security agenda under current leader Xi Jinping.

Beijing has emphasized economic development in recent decades, staking its legitimacy on economic growth – betting that people will care more about their standard of living than about political freedoms. But as growth declines , leaders’ concerns about security and dissent have grown, placing such security even above economic development.

This has led to the comprehensive national security concept now being imposed on Hong Kong.

With Beijing advancing an agenda that casts liberal, democratic ideas as a threat, a liberal Hong Kong on the country’s border became impossible for the Chinese Communist Party to ignore.

Widespread protests in Hong Kong in 2019 both exacerbated this concern and offered an opportunity for Beijing to address the perceived threat under the claim that protesters were advancing a so-called “color revolution .”

Having long nurtured its loyalist camp to rule Hong Kong, these loyal officials became the instrument of the crackdown.

What does the lack of protest now say about the pro-democracy movement?

It tells us that the mainland national security regime imposed on Hong Kong has effectively intimidated the society, especially those with opposition views, into silence.

Hong Kong’s pro-democratic camp had historically enjoyed majority support, at around 60% of the voters in the direct elections that were allowed for half of the legislative seats.

The introduction of loyalists-only elections led to a dramatically reduced turnout.

This and emigration patterns tend to show that the majority of Hong Kong people do not support this new illiberal order.

Be that as it may, with most of their pro-democratic leaders either in jail or exile, they dare not speak out against the new national security regime.

• Press freedom
• Security laws
• Demonstrations
• Hong Kong pro-democracy movement
• Hong Kong protests
• Hong Kong security law
• Audio narrated

Compliance Lead

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Search form

Human Rights Concerns Regarding Article 23 Legislation: Background and Key Issues

Related Topics

• Access to Justice
• Government Accountability
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• More topics >>

All defenders >>

After almost a century of colonial rule, the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 between the United Kingdom (UK) and The People’s Republic of China (PRC) paved the way for the return of Hong Kong to the PRC in 1997. It established a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) to be administered “directly under the authority” of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. It also states that Hong Kong shall enjoy a “high degree of autonomy,” and that its social and economic systems and lifestyle shall remain unchanged for 50 years. While the term “one country, two systems” is not explicitly mentioned in the instrument, it underpins the Joint Declaration. [1] Despite efforts in 2017 by the PRC to dismiss the Joint Declaration as a historical document, it remains a legally-binding treaty registered with the UN. The UK government, as a co-signatory, has an obligation to monitor and ensure the treaty’s effective implementation to protect the rule of law and fundamental rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, along with the rest of the international community. [2]

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR, enacted in 1990, enshrines the provisions of the Joint Declaration and serves as the constitution of Hong Kong. [3] Article 23 of the Basic Law —currently one of the most controversial articles in the law—provides:

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies. [4]

While the PRC has signed but not yet ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Hong Kong has enacted the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (1991), which incorporates the provisions of the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong. [5] Any proposed Article 23 bill must therefore comply with applicable international standards, including the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality that govern the permissibility of any reasonable restrictions on rights and the Hong Kong SAR’s international obligations. The provisions of any security law must also adhere to international standards and norms on national security law, including the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information . [6]

Introduction of Article 23 Bill, 2003

In September 2002, the Hong Kong SAR government released a consultation document (“the blue paper”) outlining its proposal to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law . The proposal focused on revisions to existing laws—the  Crimes Ordinance , [7] the Official Secrets Ordinance , [8] and the  Societies Ordinance [9] — included the creation of new offenses of subversion and secession; extended state secrets to include all communications between the Hong Kong SAR government and the central PRC government; and added provisions that allow the central government to play a security role in Hong Kong. [10] In addition to public criticism of the lack of transparency and adequacy of government consultation, substantive concerns regarding the consultation document and the subsequent drafts of the Bill included the impact on Hong Kong’s rule of law and on the legitimate exercise of rights protected by Hong Kong and international law. [11]

Examples of specific concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed bill that were raised at the time include the following: [12]

• Vague and broad definitions and terms in the proposed revisions regarding subversion, for example, the actus reus element of “intimidating the Central People’s Government (CPG)” failed to satisfy the requirements of clarity and precision in the criminal law, or the uncertain meaning of phrases such as the “basic system of the People’s Republic of China.”
• “Political and social criticisms of the government”—whether constructive or not—should not be criminalized under any definition of “proscribed act.”
• The definition of “national security” should expressly exclude protection of the government from embarrassment or exposure of wrongdoing or concealment of information about the proper functioning of public institutions.
• Distinction should be made between political advocacy and private solicitations of criminal activities because political advocacy should not be treated as national security crimes.
• The burden of proof with regard to the offenses of sedition and handling seditious publications should not be shifted from the prosecution to the defendant.
• Criminal liability should not apply to “ extraterritorial subversion and secession ” without appropriate limitations, such as actual impact or effect on Hong Kong itself.
• Hong Kong’s generally transparent and open system must be maintained when it comes to disclosure of information, including information in defense of a public interest, such as when the public interest in knowing outweighs the harm or likely harm of disclosure of the information.

Legal experts and the Hong Kong Bar Association also argued that the proposal put forward by the government went much further than what is required by Article 23 and was arguably unconstitutional, and that there was no need to create new offenses or additional laws. [13] Prominent constitutional scholar and barrister Professor Johannes Chan argued at the time (and again more recently): “In our view, existing legislation already provides mechanisms for proscribing groups on the ground of national security (see both the Societies Ordinance (Cap. 151) and also the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance (Cap. 575)). Indeed, these laws go beyond what is necessary to comply with Article 23. Even the Government’s Consultation Document acknowledged that Hong Kong law already complies with Article 23 in this respect.” [14]

On July 1, 2003, half a million people in Hong Kong took to the streets in a mass protest against the proposed National Security (Legislative provisions) bill. On September 5, 2003, the Bill was withdrawn indefinitely. [15]

Current climate and renewed calls for national security legislation

Current climate

As veteran Hong Kong journalist Steve Vines has pointed out, what has changed since the failed attempt in 2003 is that “the atmosphere of political confrontation has deepened; tolerance of the opposition has diminished and its legitimacy has been increasingly questioned as both civil society organizations and the media have found themselves in the firing line.” [16]

The arrests on April 18, 2020 of 15 pro-democracy figures, including former and current Legislative Council members, prominent barristers, veteran democracy activists, and youth leaders alike marked a sharp intensification in government intolerance of political dissent, sending shockwaves through Hong Kong and beyond. All 15 individuals were arrested on suspicion of organizing or participating in “unauthorized assemblies” from August to October 2019 in protests against the controversial extradition Bill proposed by Chief Executive Carrie Lam and her government. [17]

In addition, the COVID-19 health pandemic is being invoked by the authorities as justification for renewed calls for national security Article 23 law. However, international experts and United Nations human rights bodies have highlighted the importance of respect for human rights across the spectrum, including economic, social, and cultural rights, and civil and political rights, as fundamental to the success of the public health response and recovery from the pandemic. [18] “A state of emergency, or any other security measures, should be guided by human rights principles and should not, in any circumstances, be an excuse to quash dissent.” [19]

Concerns regarding the potential impact of another draconian draft Article 23 legislation on Hong Kong’s rule of law are also fueled by ongoing rights deterioration in mainland China and the central government’s increasingly aggressive intervention in Hong Kong affairs. Examples include the following:

• Efforts by Beijing to introduce “patriotic education” in Hong Kong schools;
• A “ Decision ” issued on August 31, 2014 by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress reversing its earlier pledge that the election of the Hong Kong Chief Executive in 2017 “may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage,” which triggered the Umbrella Movement of 2014 ; [20]
• Violent attacks on and intimidation of protest organizers and candidates for the November 2019 district council elections and their supporters in Fall 2019; [21] o-democracy
• Attempts to weaken local elections, including through pressure to disqualify elected Legislative Council members who support universal suffrage; [22] and
• Chilling of Hong Kong press freedoms, highlighted by a ten-year criminal sentence announced on February 25, 2020 against a Hong Kong bookseller and Swedish citizen who was abducted while abroad and transported to the mainland. [23]

The anti-extradition protest movement in Hong Kong in 2019-2020 that resulted in the withdrawal of the proposed extradition bill—and also expanded to include demands for accountability and democratic reforms—powerfully demonstrated the lack of trust on the part of millions of Hong Kong people in a mainland legal system lacking in independence and procedural protections. [24] Even in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, protests in Hong Kong continue, including against the government’s mishandling of response measures. Shared demands in the decentralized social movement have unified demonstrators from diverse backgrounds: they are students, educators, parents, airline personnel, civil servants, social workers, union organizers, and pro-democracy legislators. By the end of February 2020, there were at least 973 protests involving 14,507,591 protesters. [25]

Despite reported incidents of police intimidation, harassment, violent arrests, and abusive treatment of journalists, protesters and bystanders, and detained suspects, [26] the Hong Kong administration, echoing Beijing’s uncompromising stance, has firmly defended the Hong Kong police force’s use of force as “appropriate,” including its use of tear gas at unprecedented levels resulting in documented health risks and impacts on 88% of Hong Kong people. [27] The Hong Kong police also mounted a massive military-style tear gas assault and siege on several university campuses, trapping students, university staff, and journalists. The serious humanitarian crisis sparked widespread local and international attention and expressions of concern. [28]

The Hong Kong authorities’ demonstrated indifference to the demands of the protests and defense of the excessive use of force with impunity by the Hong Kong police force [29] have further exacerbated conflicts among the society, the Hong Kong Police Force, and the Administration. The Hong Kong police, dressed in tactical gear, with rubber bullets, guns, tear gas, pepper spray, and batons, wield the coercive power of the state, with the clear backing of the central government. In carrying out their duty to maintain public safety, the police should be held to a standard of professional conduct in accordance with international law and be accountable to the public. [30]

Despite ongoing demands by the Hong Kong people for an independent commission of inquiry, international support, and expressions of concern regarding the excessive use of force by the Hong Kong police, [31] including statements by the High Commissioner for Human Rights [32] and joint statements by UN special rapporteurs, [33] the Hong Kong Chief Executive continues to reject calls for an independent commission of inquiry. Police brutality and impunity, almost certainly backed by Beijing, against a largely peaceful protest movement must be effectively and transparently addressed in order to ensure the protection of the legitimate exercise of rights in Hong Kong.

Renewed calls for national security legislation

Pressure has been clearly mounting on the Hong Kong SAR government to once again make an attempt to introduce an Article 23 law. The overwhelming election of Pan-Democratic candidates in the district council elections in November 2019, [34] along with the sustained mobilization of diverse sectors during the protest movement, has also deepened the central government’s fears of a Hong Kong that cannot be completely controlled by Beijing. Pro-Beijing voices point to the necessity and urgency of implementing a national security legislation, citing the “Occupy Central” protests, the Mong Kok riots, and “illegal” demonstrations that “expose Hong Kong to risks such as calls for independence, or acts that undermine China's sovereignty, security and development.” [35]

The central government and Hong Kong authorities are also highlighting incidents of bombings, attempted bombings, and confiscation of bomb-making materials, [36] and invoking the specter of “homegrown terrorism” to justify recent police actions and arrests as well as counter-terror exercises. [37] Senior Superintendent Ernest Chu Man-lung from the Inter-departmental Counter-terrorism Unit (ICTU) stated that “[i]t is important to prevent terrorism. If we only respond when things happen, then it is too late,” adding that officers would also track any terror-related activities online. Hong Kong’s Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu further warned that while the government would continue to create an environment for the Article 23 legislation, it would not turn a blind eye to “homegrown terrorism.”

As yet, despite threats to do so, the police have not effected any arrest under the Cap. 575 United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance , [38] although there are some cases in relation to the Securities and Futures Commission under the  Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615). Commissioner of Police Chris Tang Ping-keung said that the force had been working with the Department of Justice to consider invoking counter-terrorism legislation to prosecute bomb suspects. [39] In mid-April 2020, Beijing’s emissary to Hong Kong as well as Hong Kong’s Chief Executive provided a preamble to renewed calls for enactment of Article 23 national security legislation.

In a video message to the people of Hong Kong on April 15, 2020, “National Security Education Day,” Director of the central government’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong, Luo Huining, in an attempt to promote a security crisis narrative, warned that Hong Kong has always been deficient in its national security system and mechanisms. Referencing the social unrest and protests in 2019, Luo called that deficit a “fatal hidden danger.” [40] The same day, in her own video message to the Hong Kong people, Chief Executive Carrie Lam, citing the “extremist actions approaching terrorism” brought on by the anti-extradition protests and the threat of the COVID19 pandemic, urged Hong Kong’s people to understand the importance of and think about how to further safeguard national security. [41]

Arrest of District Councilor on sedition

On March 26, 2020, the Hong Kong police arrested the chairperson of the Central and Western District Council, Cheng Lai-king on charges of “seditious intention” under sections 9 and 10 of the Crimes Ordinance allegedly based on a Facebook post she made on March 24, 2020. [42] Section 11 of the Crimes Ordinance requires the written consent of the Secretary for Justice for prosecution, [43] but it is unclear whether the arrest was effected after consulting the Department of Justice. Since the Facebook post was published on March 24 and the arrest was carried out in the early morning of March 26, the timing of the arrest raises questions whether legal advice of the Department of Justice was sought.

The controversial arrest of Cheng has drawn wide criticism and renewed attention to the Sedition Ordinance . The UN Human Rights Committee has pointed to the overbroad definition of incitement and treason in the Sedition Ordinance and recommended its revision. [44] Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, a civil society group, also criticized the sedition law for being outdated, overly broad, and in violation of the ICCPR and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights . Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok criticized the colonial-era sedition law as “outdated,” “draconian,” and in contravention of freedom of expression and human rights. He accused the government of using the colonial law to silence political discontent and called it an act of “political revenge.” [45] In a statement, the Democratic Party, of which Cheng is a member, accused the police of arresting her without justified reason and, in so doing, abusing the sedition law. The use of the colonial-era law to incriminate Cheng was aimed at creating a chilling effect, said the Civic Party, which stressed that the police move would not silence the opposition and pledged to continue monitoring the police force. [46]

“Arresting a pro-democracy politician for seeking police accountability is political persecution, not legitimate policing,” said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. “Hong Kong authorities should immediately drop the case against councilor Cheng Lai-king.” [47]

Cheng Lai-king was released upon posting $10,000 bail, and under the six-month requirement of the Crimes Ordinance , her case should be prosecuted within six months.

The debates and opposition to provisions of the 2003 proposed national security (Legislative provisions) bill highlighted the tensions inherent in implementing the “one country, two systems” framework in the context of an authoritarian one-party system and a partially democratic, more open Hong Kong. Unfortunately, many of the past concerns raised by the Hong Kong people regarding the 2003 proposed Article 23 legislation remain valid and more trenchant today.

As stated by a group of legal experts and scholars in 2003:

“The implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law is one of the most important constitutional developments in Hong Kong since 1997. It constitutes a major test of the ‘one country, two systems’ model and the issues at stake are fundamental and controversial. The proposals should, therefore, be carefully scrutinized. The final legislation should ensure that civil liberties and the rule of law continue to thrive in the SAR and should avoid any unnecessary extension of mainland controls over words, activities and legitimate organizations in the Hong Kong SAR.” [48] (Emphasis added.)

This caution is even more apt today in light of tightened political control on the mainland and the central government’s blatant aggressive expansion of its reach in Hong Kong, with implications for Hong Kong’s independent courts, media, and civil society space.

Recommendations

• Any permissible derogations from rights associated with emergency or security measures, must be limited and proportional to achieving a legitimate objective, and must comply with the requirement of immediate notice to the United Nations Secretary General.

Any proposed Article 23 national security bill should:

• Comply with international standards on security legislation and protection of rights. The context for invocation of emergency measures, whether it is widespread social protest or the Covid-19 health crisis, cannot justify impermissible restrictions on rights and freedom in violation of the ICCPR and international standards and norms, including the Johannesburg Principles.
• Reflect and incorporate wide and inclusive consultation with experts and diverse sectors of Hong Kong society. If a consultation document is issued, adequate time should be provided for discussion and input. However, the actual text of any proposed bill and subsequent revised final draft should be made publicly available with adequate time for public review and input.
• With respect to the Sedition Ordinance and potential prosecutions under the Ordinance, the Hong Kong government should provide clarification and assurances that rights protected under the Basic Law , Hong Kong’s Bill of Rights , and international law, including the ICCPR, are protected under Hong Kong’s legal system, both formally as well as in practice. [49]

Clearly, Hong Kong today is in a much more vulnerable environment for the introduction of a very tough version of anti-subversion legislation than in 2003. These developments heighten the critical importance of the compliance by any Article 23 security bill with international standards and the Hong Kong SAR government’s international obligations to protect Hong Kong’s rule of law and fundamental rights and freedoms. [50] The pending review of the Hong Kong SAR’s implementation of its international obligations under ICCPR is an important opportunity for Hong Kong civil society and all stakeholders to press for accountability and compliance with international standards.

[1] Louisa Brooke-Holland, “Hong Kong: the Joint Declaration,” July 5, 2019, House of Commons Library, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8616/ .

[2] Upon the 20 th Anniversary of the handover in 2017, China’s Foreign Ministry made the alarming unilateral statement that the Sino-British Joint Declaration was now just a historical document that no longer had any practical significance. “China says Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong no longer has meaning,” Reuters, June 30, 2017, www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-anniversary-china/china-says-sino-british-joint-declaration-on-hong-kong-no-longer-has-meaning-idUSKBN19L1J1 .

[3] The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China , adopted at the Third Session of the Seventh National People’s Congress, April 4, 1990, https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/images/basiclaw_full_text_en.pdf .

[4] Article 23, The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China , adopted at the Third Session of the Seventh National People’s Congress, April 4, 1990, https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/images/basiclaw_full_text_en.pdf .

[5] An Ordinance to Provide for the Incorporation Into the Law of Hong Kong of Provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong; and for Ancillary and Connected Matters , https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap383 .

[6] The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information , Article 19, November 1996, https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/joburg-principles.pdf .

[7] Crimes Ordinance of Hong Kong, November 19, 1971, https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap200 .

[8] An Ordinance to Control the Unauthorized Obtaining or Disclosure of Official Information (Official Secrets Ordinance) , https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap521 .

[9] An Ordinance to Provide for the Registration of Societies, for the Prohibition of the Operation of Certain Societies and for Matters Related Thereto (Societies Ordinance) , https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap151 .

[10] See Proposals to Implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, https://www.basiclaw23.gov.hk/english/ .

[11] See, for example, Hong Kong Bar Association, “Hong Kong Bar Association’s Views on the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003,” April 11, 2003, https://www.hkba.org/sites/default/files/20030411_eng.pdf ; The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Centre for Comparative and Public Law, “Group Submission to the Legislative Council and the Security Bureau of the Hong Kong SAR on the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill,” May 2003, https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr02-03/english/bc/bc55/papers/bc55-s162-e.pdf ; Human Rights in China, “Article 23 and the Attack on Human Rights,” 2003, https://www.hrichina.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/CRF.2.2003/Article23.pdf .

[12] The Hong Kong Bar Association pointed out that the proposed Bill had “fundamental flaws.” See “Hong Kong Bar Association’s Views on the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003,” http://www.law.hku.hk/ccpl/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/updated/14062003b-hkba.pdf.pdf . See also The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Centre for Comparative and Public Law, “Group Submission to the Legislative Council and the Security Bureau of the Hong Kong SAR on the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill,” May 2003, https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr02-03/english/bc/bc55/papers/bc55-s162-e.pdf .

[13] Hong Kong Bar Association, “Hong Kong Bar Association’s Views on the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003,” April 11, 2003, https://www.hkba.org/sites/default/files/20030411_eng.pdf .

[14] Deryk Yue, “How Article 23 of the Basic Law has already been enacted,” Medium, February 19, 2019, https://medium.com/@derykyue/how-article-23-of-the-basic-law-has-already-been-enacted-af011111c567 ; The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Centre for Comparative and Public Law, “Group Submission to the Legislative Council and the Security Bureau of the Hong Kong SAR on the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill,” May 2003, https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr02-03/english/bc/bc55/papers/bc55-s162-e.pdf .

[15] Elson Tong, “Reviving Article 23 (Part I): The rise and fall of Hong Kong’s 2003 national security bill,” Hong Kong Free Press , February 17, 2018,  https://hongkongfp.com/2018/02/17/reviving-article-23-part-i-rise-fall-hong-kongs-2003-national-security-bill/ .

[16] Steve Vines, “Article 23: Is Hong Kong’s anti-subversion legislation upon us under Carrie Lam?,” The Foreign Correspondents’ Club, Hong Kong, https://www.fcchk.org/correspondent/article-23-is-hong-kongs-anti-subversion-legislation-upon-us-under-carrie-lam/ .

[17] Human Rights in China, “Escalating Attacks on Hong Kong's Rule of Law and Freedoms,” April 21, 2020, https://www.hrichina.org/en/press-work/statement/escalating-attacks-hong-kongs-rule-law-and-freedoms .

[18] UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “ CV19 Guidance,” April 27, 2020, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Events/COVID-19_Guidance.pdf .

[19] Chairpersons, ten UN Treaty Bodies, “UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies call for human rights approach in fighting COVID-19,” March 24, 2020, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25742&LangID=E . The UN Human Rights Committee also issued a statement reminding states parties to the ICCPR that any derogations from the rights protected must be in compliance with their treaty obligations and with standards on derogations. See UN Human Rights Committee, “Statement on derogations from the Covenant in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic,” April 24, 2020, by clicking “Committee adopts statement on derogations from the Covenant in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, 24 April 2020” on this webpage: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/CCPRIndex.aspx .

[20] The UN Human Rights Committee has also consistently raised its concerns during its periodic reviews of the Hong Kong SAR government’s implementation of its obligations under the ICCPR and of the lack of meaningful progress in ensuring genuine universal suffrage and the right to participate in public affairs and to stand and run for election.

[21] Men wielding hammers and bats attacked protest leader Jimmy Sham and two district council candidates, Jocelyn Chau, 23, and Jannelle Leung, 25. Notwithstanding this intimidation and physical violence, voter turnout, at 71%, was the highest in Hong Kong since it first held district council elections in 1999. The pan-democratic candidates took almost all of the 18 districts, including wins for candidates who had actively participated in the protest movement. K.K. Rebecca Lai  and  Jin Wu , “Hong Kong Election Results Mapped,” The New York Times, November 24, 2019,  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/24/world/asia/hong-kong-election-results .

[22] Kong Tsung-Gan, “Disqualified: How the gov’t compromised Hong Kong’s only free and fair election,” Hong Kong Free Press, January 31, 2018, https://hongkongfp.com/2018/01/31/disqualified-hong-kong-govt-compromised-citys-free-fair-elections/ .

[23] Ben Westcott, Steven Jiang, Eric Cheung, “Hong Kong bookseller Gui Minhai sentenced to ten years in Chinese jail,” CNN, February 25, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/asia/gui-minhai-china-hong-kong-sentence-intl-hnk/index .

[24] Human Rights in China, “2019-2020 Hong Kong Protests Timeline,” https://www.hrichina.org/en/node/24736 .

[25] See a timeline of selected key protests and events in the Hong Kong protest movement from February 2018 to February 2020 compiled by writer, educator, and activist Kong Tsung-gan, Medium, March 11, 2020, https://medium.com/@KongTsungGan/a-timeline-of-the-hong-kong-protests-1d13422ce006 . See also two excellent books by Kong Tsung-gan, Umbrella: A Political Tale from Hong Kong (Pema Press: September 12, 2017) and As long as there is resistance there is hope: Essays on the Hong Kong freedom struggle on the post-Umbrella Movement era, 2014–2018 (Pema Press: March 18, 2019).

[26] Medical professionals staged a protest in late October 2019 to express concerns regarding injuries they were treating, including head injuries, lacerations, and broken bones, as well as violations of patient privacy. Victor Ting, Sum Lok-kei, Zoe Low, “Thousands of Hong Kong medical workers and supporters hold peaceful anti-police rally, as city marks second straight Saturday without widespread violence,” South China Morning Post , October 26, 2019, https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3034718/more-1000-hong-kong-medical-workers-and-supporters-hold .

[27] In past reviews of the Hong Kong SAR’s progress in implementing the ICCPR, the UN Human Rights Committee recommended that the government provide training to the police with regard to the principle of proportionality when using force, taking due account of the United Nations Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials . It also stated that the government should take necessary measures to establish a fully independent mechanism mandated to conduct independent, proper, and effective investigation into complaints about the inappropriate use of force or other abuse of power by the police and empowered to formulate binding decisions in respect of investigations conducted and findings regarding such complaints. See UN Human Rights Committee, “Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Hong Kong, China, adopted by the Committee at its 107th session (11 – 28 March 2013),” April 29, 2013, http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhsr2bAznTIrtkyo4FUNHETCQ0Y7P%2Fow040gd8LZ9d1NQukCEhx4dNtgXsWJSk7fStTBMEzKOWsqHv9SlKqzjoKxAY0VEuYSz7bBCEBkn48xMZfM8%2BrBXHTfUbyYz%2Btx3U9w%3D%3D .

[28] Mimi Leung, Yojana Sharma, “Police storming of campuses condemned internationally,” University World News, November 12, 2019, https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20191112165359859 .

[29] For example, there is still no official investigation of the attacks on Yuen Long residents by hundreds of triad-related gangs in white shirts wielding metal batons, while the police did nothing to intervene. Pro-Beijing legislator, Junius Ho, was video-taped shaking hands with a couple of the men in white shirts that same evening. The traffic police officer who ran motorcycle into protest crowd was only suspended briefly from frontline work. Kris Cheng, “Hong Kong police suspend motorcycle officer who drove into protesters,” Hong Kong Free Press , November 11, 2019, https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/11/11/hong-kong-police-suspend-motorcycle-officer-drove-protesters/ ;【11．11三罷衝突】警鐵騎三度撞向葵芳堵路人群　被撞者：失意識15分鐘　謝振中：涉事警停前線工作 (18:15) (【11.11 Three strikes】Motorcycle police officer drove three times into protesters at Kwai Fong. One victim was unconscious for 15 minutes. Xie Zhenzhong: The police officer involved was suspended from frontline work), Ming Pao , November 11, 2019, https://news.mingpao.com/ins/港聞/article/20191111/s00001/1573437253252/【11-11三罷衝突】警鐵騎三度撞向葵芳堵路人群-被撞者-失意識15分鐘-謝振中-涉事警停前線工 .

[30] Sharon Hom, “Hong Kong’s protests: The political bill for impunity must be paid sooner or later,”  Hong Kong Free Press , August 7, 2019, https://hongkongfp.com/2019/08/07/hong-kongs-protests-political-bill-impunity-must-paid-sooner-later/ .

[31] Congressional-Executive Commission on China, “Hearing: Hong Kong’s Summer of Discontent and U.S. Policy Responses,” September 17, 2019, https://www.cecc.gov/events/hearings/hong-kongs-summer-of-discontent-and-us-policy-responses .

[32] “Statement by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Regarding Disproportionate Use of Force by Police in Hong Kong,” August 6, 2019, https://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpBriefingsLatest_en)/7E21003165D441AEC12584510049265D?OpenDocument ; “Statement by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on Violence in Hong Kong,” August 13, 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24888&LangID=E ; “China/Hong Kong: UN experts urge China to respect protesters’ rights,” September 12, 2019, https://www.hrichina.org/en/press-work/hric-bulletin/chinahong-kong-un-experts-urge-china-respect-protesters-rights ; “PRC Response to UN Special Rapporteurs on Hong Kong Police Violence,” September 24, 2019, https://www.hrichina.org/sites/default/files/prc_sept._24_reply_to_sr_communication_on_hong_kong.pdf .

[33] Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, AL CHN 12/2019 28, June 2019,  https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24674 .

[34] James Griffiths, Eric Cheung, Maisy Mok, “Landslide victory for Hong Kong pro-democracy parties in de facto protest referendum,” CNN, November 24, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/24/asia/hong-kong-district-council-elections-intl/index ; see also District Council 2019 Election Results, https://www.elections.gov.hk/dc2019/eng/results .

[35] Chow Pak-chin, “Enactment of national security law in the SAR has been long overdue,” China Daily , November 26, 2018, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hkedition/2018-11/26/content_37312013.htm .

[36] Clifford Lo, “Hong Kong student carrying two petrol bombs arrested outside police station,” South China Morning Post , April 14, 2020, https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3079812/hong-kong-student-carrying-two-petrol-bombs-arrested ; Clifford Lo, “Three teens arrested after early-morning firebombing at Hong Kong police station, the 17th such attack since January,” South China Morning Post , April 1, 2020, https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3077907/three-teens-arrested-after-early-morning-firebomb ; Brian Wong, “Hong Kong protests: Remand in jail for student, 17, who was caught with hammer, petrol bomb in his backpack,” South China Morning Post , March 31, 2020, https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3077786/hong-kong-protests-remand-jail-student-17-who-was ; Clifford Lo, “Black-clad men hurl petrol bombs at Hong Kong police station,” South China Morning Post , March 30, 2020, https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3077536/black-clad-men-hurl-petrol-bombs-hong-kong-police ; Clifford Lo, “Petrol bomb attack at Hong Kong police married quarters,” South China Morning Post , March 23, 2020, https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3076411/petrol-bomb-attack-hong-kong-police-married-quarters .

[37] A journalist described an exercise that took place in March 2020: “The Inter-departmental Counter Terrorism Unit (ICTU), composed of officers from six disciplined services and headed by the Security Bureau, conducted an exercise code-named ‘Catchmount’ at Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point at noon on Friday to boost its readiness amid what it called an ‘emergent threat of local terrorism.’ About 250 officers from different departments participated in the drill. Police had earlier warned about the specter of home-grown terrorism, with the force confiscating at least five guns and cracking 15 significant bomb cases in the city since anti-government protests began.” Christy Leung, “After foiled bomb plots, Hong Kong anti-terror squad runs drill at mainland border,” South China Morning Post , March 20, 2020, https://www.scmp.com/print/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3076092/after-foiled-bomb-plots-hong-kong-anti-terror-squad .

[38] See the joint communication, as a comment on legislation, regulations, or policies, sent by six UN Special Rapporteurs—Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; and the Special Rapporteur on minority issues—to the ambassador of the PRC mission to the United Nations in Geneva on April 23, 2020, https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=25196 . The communication expresses concerns regarding the compatibility of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the Sedition Law with the Hong Kong SAR government's international human rights obligations, in particular, its ICCPR international obligations.

[39] Natalie Wong, “Coronavirus pandemic and protests highlight need for national security legislation in Hong Kong, says Beijing’s top official in city,” South China Morning Post , April 15, 2020, https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3080009/coronavirus-pandemic-and-protests-highlight-need-national .

[40] Luo Huining’s National Security Education Day video message, April 15, 2020, https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=687024005384236 ; transcript of Luo Huining’s National Security Education Day video message, April 15, 2020, http://www.takungpao.com/news/232109/2020/0416/437780 .

[41] Carrie Lam’s National Security Education Day video message, April 15, 2020, https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=222392952376503 ; transcript of Carrie Lam’s National Security Education Day video message, April 15, 2020, https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202004/15/P2020041500195.htm .

[42] “Hong Kong politician arrested for 'sedition' over Facebook post,” Straits Times , March 26, 2020, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/hong-kong-politician-arrested-for-sedition-over-facebook-post ; for a summary of the context of the case, see “Hong Kong: Dubious Arrest of Pro-Democracy Politician,” Human Rights Watch, March 27, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/03/27/hong-kong-dubious-arrest-pro-democracy-politician# .

[43] Crimes Ordinance of Hong Kong , Section 11: “Legal proceedings (1) No prosecution for an offence under section 10 shall be begun except within 6 months after the offence is committed. (2) No prosecution for an offence under section 10 shall be instituted without the written consent of the Secretary for Justice (Amended L.N. 362 of 1997) ,” https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap200 .

[44] UN Human Rights Committee, “Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Hong Kong, China, adopted by the Committee at its 107th session (11 – 28 March 2013),” April 29, 2013,  http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhsr2bAznTIrtkyo4FUNHETCQ0Y7P%2Fow040gd8LZ9d1NQukCEhx4dNtgXsWJSk7fStTBMEzKOWsqHv9SlKqzjoKxAY0VEuYSz7bBCEBkn48xMZfM8%2BrBXHTfUbyYz%2Btx3U9w%3D%3D .

[45] “Hong Kong politician arrested for 'sedition' over Facebook post,” Strait Times , March 26, 2020, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/hong-kong-politician-arrested-for-sedition-over-facebook-post .

[46] “Pan-dems lash out at police over arrest of DC chief,” Ejinsight, March 27, 2020, https://www.ejinsight.com/eji/article/id/2416586/20200327-pan-dems-lash-out-at-police-over-arrest%20of%20DC%20chief .

[47] Human Rights Watch, “Hong Kong: Dubious Arrest of Pro-Democracy Politician,” March 27, 2020, https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/03/27/hong-kong-dubious-arrest-pro-democracy-politician# .

[48] The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Centre for Comparative and Public Law, “Group Submission to the Legislative Council and the Security Bureau of the Hong Kong SAR on the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill,” May 2003, https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr02-03/english/bc/bc55/papers/bc55-s162-e.pdf .

[49] The UN Human Rights Committee remained concerned at the broad wording of the definition of the offences of treason and sedition currently in the Hong Kong SAR’s Crimes Ordinance and recommended that the government amend its legislation regarding the offences of treason and sedition to bring it into full conformity with the ICCPR and ensure that the foreseen new legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law is fully consistent with the provisions of the ICCPR. UN Human Rights Committee, “Concluding observations on the third periodic report of Hong Kong, China, adopted by the Committee at its 107th session (11 – 28 March 2013),” April 29, 2013,  http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhsr2bAznTIrtkyo4FUNHETCQ0Y7P%2Fow040gd8LZ9d1NQukCEhx4dNtgXsWJSk7fStTBMEzKOWsqHv9SlKqzjoKxAY0VEuYSz7bBCEBkn48xMZfM8%2BrBXHTfUbyYz%2Btx3U9w%3D%3D .

[50] The Progressive Lawyers Group’s “Hong Kong Rule of Law Report 2018” points to the “resort to criminal proceedings to criminalize the pro-democracy movement to an unprecedented extent in Hong Kong has given rise to serious concerns of political persecution through prosecution.” The PLG report also concludes there are no signs of genuine universal suffrage in accordance with international standards. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N6xXIR99zp_lG1dxWltlMyA80B_VUgFP/view . See also Holmes Chan, “Decline and fall? Progressive Lawyers Group plans new barometer to measure Hong Kong’s rule of law,” Hong Kong Free Press , March 24, 2019, https://hongkongfp.com/2019/03/24/decline-fall-progressive-lawyers-group-plans-new-barometer-measure-hong-kongs-rule-law/ .

View the discussion thread.

Header and Footer Blocks

Search the United Nations

• Member States

Main Bodies

• Secretary-General
• Secretariat
• Emblem and Flag
• ICJ Statute
• Nobel Peace Prize
• Peace and Security
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Aid
• Sustainable Development and Climate
• International Law
• Global Issues
• Official Languages
• Observances
• Events and News
• Get Involved
• Israel-Gaza
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 ( General Assembly resolution 217 A ) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages . The UDHR is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels (all containing references to it in their preambles). 

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. 

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

• Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
• No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
• Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
• This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
• Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
• Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
• Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
• No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
• Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
• Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
• The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

• Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
• Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
• Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
• Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

• Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
• Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
• Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
• Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
• Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
• Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

• Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
• These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

• Text of the Declaration
• History of the Declaration
• Drafters of the Declaration
• The Foundation of International Human Rights Law
• Human Rights Law

2023: UDHR turns 75

What is the Declaration of Human Rights? Narrated by Morgan Freeman.

UN digital ambassador Elyx animates the UDHR

To mark the 75th anniversary of the UDHR in December 2023, the United Nations has partnered once again with French digital artist YAK (Yacine Ait Kaci) – whose illustrated character Elyx is the first digital ambassador of the United Nations – on an animated version of the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

UDHR Illustrated

Read the Illustrated edition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UDHR in 80+ languages

Watch and listen to people around the world reading articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in more than 80 languages.

Women Who Shaped the Declaration

Women delegates from various countries played a key role in getting women’s rights included in the Declaration. Hansa Mehta of India (standing above Eleanor Roosevelt) is widely credited with changing the phrase "All men are born free and equal" to "All human beings are born free and equal" in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

• General Assembly
• Security Council
• Economic and Social Council
• Trusteeship Council
• International Court of Justice

Departments / Offices

• UN System Directory
• UN System Chart
• Global Leadership
• UN Information Centres

Resources / Services

• Emergency information
• Reporting Wrongdoing
• Guidelines for gender-inclusive language
• UN iLibrary
• UN Chronicle
• UN Yearbook
• Publications for sale
• Media Accreditation
• NGO accreditation at ECOSOC
• NGO accreditation at DGC
• Visitors’ services
• Procurement
• Internships
• Academic Impact
• UN Archives
• UN Audiovisual Library
• How to donate to the UN system
• Information on COVID-19 (Coronavirus)
• Africa Renewal
• Ten ways the UN makes a difference
• High-level summits 2023

Key Documents

• Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Statute of the International Court of Justice
• Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization

News and Media

• Press Releases
• Spokesperson
• Social Media
• The Essential UN
• Awake at Night podcast

Issues / Campaigns

• Sustainable Development Goals
• Our Common Agenda
• Summit of the Future
• Climate Action
• UN and Sustainability
• Action for Peacekeeping (A4P)
• Global Ceasefire
• Global Crisis Response Group
• Call to Action for Human Rights
• Disability Inclusion Strategy
• Fight Racism
• Hate Speech
• LGBTIQ+ People
• Safety of Journalists
• Rule of Law
• Action to Counter Terrorism
• Victims of Terrorism
• Children and Armed Conflict
• Violence Against Children (SRSG)
• Sexual Violence in Conflict
• Refugees and Migrants
• Action Agenda on Internal Displacement
• Spotlight Initiative
• Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
• Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect
• The Rwanda Genocide
• The Holocaust
• The Question of Palestine
• The Transatlantic Slave Trade
• Decolonization
• Messengers of Peace
• Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
• Digital Financing Task Force
• Data Strategy
• Countering Disinformation
• UN75: 2020 and Beyond
• Women Rise for All
• Stop the Red Sea Catastrophe
• Black Sea Grain Initiative Joint Coordination Centre
• Türkiye-Syria Earthquake Response (Donate)
• Israel-Gaza Crisis

• Constitutional Law
• Research Column

Right against Exploitation | Article 23 & 24 of the Constitution

• April 14, 2021
• No Comments

In this article, the author has provided various rights that exist against exploitation. These rights are within the context of Article 23 and 24 of the Constitution.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Article 23 and 24 provides fundamental right against exploitation. The exploitation of lower castes by upper caste, practices like Sati Pratha, Devadasi system, forced prostitution, human trafficking, employing children in hazardous industries are some of the very common incidences of exploitation in India.

Through Article 23 and 24, the constitution of India expressly mentions its commitment to save humans being from the scourge of exploitation.

Meaning: Exploitation

Exploitation is a word borrowed from French. ‘Exploitation’ means depriving a person of his due through force or fraud. When a person is denied his share, reward or remuneration for his contribution of labour and service for producing the wealth then it is known as exploitation .[i] Marx links exploitation with that of surplus-value. It is a phenomenon where one enjoys the fruits of labour without performing any of the tasks of labour.

Article 23: Prohibition of Trafficking of Human Being and Forced Labour

Article 23(1) prohibits 3 aspects of exploitation-

1. Trafficking

3. Forced Labour

and mandates that any contravention of such prohibition shall be an offence.

The parliament has power under Article 35 to make a law prescribing punishment for all those acts which are prohibited under part III of the constitution.

In pursuance of such power, parliament has enacted several laws prohibiting forced labour, begar and trafficking. Laws passed by the Parliament in pursuance of Article 23:

A. Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956

B. Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976

Human Trafficking

It means the sale and purchase of human beings mostly for sexual slavery, forced prostitution, or forced labour. Slavery is not expressly mentioned under Article 23 but it is included within the meaning of ‘traffic in human beings.’

It means forcing a person to work for no remuneration. A person is compelled to work against his will.

Other forms of forced labour

It is considered forced labour if the less-than-minimum wage is paid. This article also makes ‘bonded labour’ unconstitutional. Bonded labour is when a person is forced to offer services out of a loan/debt that cannot be repaid .[ii]

The Calcutta High Court in Dulal Samanta vs Dist. Magistrate[iii] interpreting the expression -other similar forms of forced labour held that the expression is to be interpreted ejusdem generis and it has to be something like either traffic in human beings or begar.

Ban against traffic in a human being is absolute but ban against forced labour is subject to one exception as mentioned in Article 23(2)

ARTICLE 23(2)

The state can impose compulsory services for a public purpose like national defence, removal of illiteracy or the smooth running of public utility service like water, electricity, postage, rail, and air services .[iv]

In making any such provision compulsory for public purposes, the state cannot discriminate on the grounds of religion, race, caste or class or any of them. Sex is not a prohibited ground of discrimination which indicates that women could be exempted from compulsory public service. Term class is used in pure economic sense.

However, no such law at the central level is made in India so far in its history. For a brief period in Nagaland, there was a law that said that in case of impeding blood able-bodied person can be called to join the army.

Important Judgments on Rights against exploitation (Article 23)

1. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 1473 [v]

The Supreme Court interpreted the scope of Article 23. The petitioner scrutinized the working conditions of various people employed in Asiad projects. It was discovered that the labourers were subject to great exploitation, they were not given minimum wages, subjected to an inhumane working environment. PIL was filed.

J. PN Bhagwati observed that the scope of Article 23 is vast and unlimited. It is not merely ‘begar’ which is prohibited but this Article strikes at forced labour in whichever form it may exist. Every form of forced labour is prohibited.

No person shall be forced to provide labour or services against his will even if it is mentioned under a contract of service.

The word ‘force’ has a very wide meaning under Article 23. It not only includes physical or legal force but also recognizes economic circumstances which compel a person to work against his will on less than minimum wage.

 2. Sanjit Roy vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1983 SC 328 [vi]

In this case, the state had employed people for the construction of roads. Their work was allowed under the famine relief act. These workers were paid way less than the minimum wages.  It was contended that this payment of wages lower than minimum wages was violative of Article 23. 

Court held that the state is not allowed to take undue advantage of the helplessness of people with an excuse of helping them to meet the situation of famine or drought.

 The court observed that they must be paid fairly for the work into which they put in effort and sweat, and which provides benefits to the state.

3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 [vii]

Bandhua Mukti Morcha is an organization that works against the prevalent system of bonded labours in India.

This case is special in the sense that the court for the first time accepted and treated a letter written to J.Bhagwati as a petition for PIL. The letter described the ordeal of a large number of workers in the Faridabad district of UP who were working in inhuman and intolerable conditions.

The court laid down guidelines for the determination of bonded labourers and pointed out that it was the duty of the state government to identify, release, and rehabilitate the bonded labourers.

Article 24- Prohibition of Employment of Children in Factories, etc

Article 24 must be read with A. 39(e) and A. 39(f) of DPSP which provides for the protection of health and strength of children and that the tender age of children should not be abused.

Article 24 prohibits employment of children below 14 years of age in any factory, mine or any other hazardous employment.

The Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 1473) [viii] held that building construction work was such hazardous employment where children below the age of fourteen years should not be employed. The court also pointed out the horizontal nature of Article 24. Prohibition of Article 24 could be enforced against everyone, whether State or private individual.

In MC Mehta Vs State of Tamil Nadu [ix] – MC Mehta brought before the court the plight of children engaged in Sivakasi cracker factories. In this case, the Supreme Court directed setting up of Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund and asked the employer to pay Rs. 20,000 as compensation to each child.

India is also a signatory of the Convention on the rights of child, 1989[x] Article 32 of the convention requires that each state party to the Convention shall protect the children from economic exploitation and any hazardous work. India ratified the convention in 1999. In pursuance of the obligation under Article 24 and international instruments, parliament has enacted various laws against child labour –

Factories Act 1948; Mines Act, 1952; The Bidi and Cigar Workers(Conditions of employment act),1966; the apprentices’ act,1961; the employment of children act 1938 ; and other similar acts.

Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016 [xi] amended the child labour (prohibition and regulation) Act, 1986.

The amendment act prohibited the employment of children below 14 years of age in all occupation and industries except those run by the child’s own family. Before the amendment employment of children below 14 years in domestic work was completely legal.

 A complete prohibition has been imposed on the employment of child labour (i.e. a person below the age of 14 years) in any establishment whether hazardous or not. A child is permitted to work only to help the family in family enterprise after school hours or during vacations.

India finally ratified convention number 182 of the International labour organization[xii] which deals with prohibition and elimination of worst forms of child labour and provides that no child shall be employed in a hazardous occupation. Interestingly, India is one of the last countries to ratify the convention. Nevertheless, the act introduced a new category called adolescents which cover person between14-18years of age. The amendment permits the employment of adolescent labour except in hazardous processes or occupation.

The number of hazardous occupations and processes has been reduced from 83 to only 3-mining, explosives, occupations mentioned in the factories act 1948. It leaves children open to employment in all other kinds of hazardous industries including construction, asbestos, brick kilns, glass factories and garbage picking .[xiii]

It provides for the setting up of the Child and Adolescent Labour Rehabilitation Fund[xiv] in which all the amounts of penalty have to be realized. This provision has been drawn from MC Mehta judgment.

The amendment has been widely criticized for being toothless and instead of eradicating child labour by its very root, it rather makes way for child labour to thrive.

The existence of practices like exploitation and child labour is a blot on a civilised society. The truth remains that despite numerous laws made in pursuance of article 23 and 24 we are still far from achieving a status of zero exploitation. Instead, India is home to 10 million child labourers and more than 42.7 million children are out of school [xv].

The exploitation of the weak by the stronger continues unabated. Forced labour, bonded labour, trafficking continues to exist. The thrust needs to be on education, awareness, concerted efforts on part of concerned authorities, generation of funds, creating employment opportunities in curbing the evil.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

I am a research analyst at LexForti Legal News & Journal.

Google vs. DRS Logistics: Case analysis

Rs 10 lakh imposed, defendant restrained from using ‘medilice’, essential things to look at before you sign a lease agreement.

Contact us for Legal Drafting and Reviewing

Right Against Exploitation, Article 23 & 24 of Indian Constitution

The Right against Exploitation is enshrined in Articles 23 & 24 of Indian Constitution. Read all about child rights under Articles 23 & 24 of the Indian Constitution for in this article for UPSC exam.

Table of Contents

Right Against Exploitation

The phrase Right Against Exploitation refers to freedom from all forms of exploitation. The Indian Constitution protects Fundamental Rights  against exploitation. Slavery, beggarism, child labour, bonded labour, and other kinds of forced labour are all forbidden under the Indian Constitution as examples of exploitation. Human dignity is guaranteed by Articles 23 and 24, which deal with the right against exploitation.

India is currently the biggest democracy in the world. Behind this path of advancement and growth comes a formidable effort. Since all of recorded history, slavery has affected India. Slavery was ultimately totally eradicated in India after the Indian Penal Code of 1860, was passed, a process that had taken several decades. Such practices were banned by the Indian Constitution’s drafters in Articles 23 and 24. There is no room for exploitation, enslavement, or cruel treatment because every individual is guaranteed liberty and dignity under the Indian Constitution.

What do you mean by Exploitation?

Exploitation is a fundamental violation of the Preamble of Indian Constitution  as well as the Directive Principle of State Policy outlined in Article 39, which promotes economic equality between persons. Utilizing another person’s services improperly through the use of force is known as exploitation.

Right Against Exploitation Constitutional Provisions

Indian constitution has specific safeguards to prevent the exploitation of weaker groups of society in order to protect against discrimination and foster personal liberty. It has been mentioned under Articles 23 and 24.

• Article 23 : This Article prohibits beggars, labour by force and other similar kinds of human trafficking. Any infringement of this clause will result in legal sanctions.
• Article 24 : This article states that no kid under the age of fourteen may be employed in a factory, mine, or in any other dangerous occupation.

Read More: Right to Equality

Article 23 of Indian Constitution

Human trafficking, forced labour, and other practices of similar nature are expressly forbidden by Article 23 of the Indian Constitution. Additionally, it specifies that anyone who violates this article will be prosecuted for their actions and subject to the appropriate legal penalties.

As per Article 35 of the constitution Parliament has enacted laws in pursuance of Article 23 for the protection of rights against exploitation.

• Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
• Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956

Read More: Right to Freedom

Article 24 of Indian Constitution

Children under the age of 14 are not permitted to work in mines, factories, or any other dangerous occupations, according to Article 24 of the Indian Constitution. The purpose of this article is to protect children’s welfare and to guarantee their safety and well-being. According to Article 39 of the Indian Constitution, the State has a responsibility to ensure that workers’ health and physical fitness are not neglected or compelled by economic necessity to engage in risky activities that are inappropriate for their age or physical capability.

Children are a country’s future. Every nation has a responsibility to ensure that its children have a bright future by ensuring their health, nutrition, and education. This will enable them to grow up to be capable citizens who will ultimately advance and develop the country as a whole. As a result, Article 24 is read in conjunction with Art. 39(e) and Art (f).

The employment of minors in benign and non-threatening jobs, such as those in grocery stores or on farms, is not, however, prohibited by this article.

Read More: Article 14 of Indian Constitution

Article 24 of the Indian Constitution Features

• Under this Article, it is against the law to employ minors in dangerous jobs under the age of 14 when viewed in conjunction with Article 39(e) (f).
• It guarantees the well-being and protection of youngsters.
• Article 39, places a responsibility on the State to make sure that kids are not mistreated or made to work in dangerous jobs out of necessity.
• It does not forbid using kids for constructive work.

Read More: Article 15 of Indian Constitution 

Child Rights Acts Under Article 24 of Indian Constitution

The Indian Parliament passed a number of laws for the welfare and prosperity of children in order to fulfil the requirements imposed by Article 24 and by other international agreements like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Factories Act of 1948

The first law enacted after independence to establish a minimum age requirement for child labour in factories was this one. The Act established a 14-year-old minimum age. This Act was changed in 1954 to prohibit hiring children under the age of 17 for nighttime work.

Mines Act of 1952

This Act makes it clear that a mining worker cannot be younger than 18 years old. Consequently, it is forbidden to employ youngsters in mines.

Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986

This historic regulation was passed to combat the pervasive problem of child labour in India. It outlined the locations and procedures for both the legal and illegal employment of children. According to this Act, a person who has not reached the age of 14 is considered a kid. The 1986 Act forbids the use of children in 57 procedures and 13 occupations.

Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016

The employment of children under the age of 14 is been prohibited as per this Act. Additionally, it outlaws the use of minors (those between the ages of 14 and 18) in dangerous jobs and processes. With the passage of this amendment act, penalties for breaking this statute become more severe. This Act permits children to work as artists as well as in some household jobs.

Read More: Article 16 of Indian Constitution 

Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2017

In order to create a comprehensive and detailed framework for the prevention, prohibition, rescue, and rehabilitation of child and adolescent workers, the government published the aforementioned Rules in 2017. The Rules provide protection for artists by defining the working hours and conditions and clarifying concerns relating to the employment of family businesses.

National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR)

In accordance with the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) is a commission of the Indian government that was founded in 2007. This statutory body’s goal is to guarantee that all laws, policies, programmes, and administrative procedures adhere to the child rights protections outlined in the Indian Constitution and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Center and the State both have this commission in place. Additionally, it aids in the quick resolution of Children’s Court cases involving crimes against children or other rights violations.

Right Against Exploitation UPSC

The stronger has always controlled and taken advantage of the lesser since the dawn of civilisation. In such a situation, it is imperative to safeguard the weaker from such abuse and give them equal opportunity in every field so they can become self-sufficient. Additionally, child labour is a criminal that is pervasive in society and is a curse.

It is a barrier that prevents the nation’s growth and development. The future of a nation is bright when its children are healthy. The future of the children is being ruined, vandalised, and damaged by child labour, which ultimately proves to be a hindrance to the country’s prosperity. Consequently, it is imperative that the laws be applied correctly.

Read More: Article 21 of Indian Constitution

Sharing is caring!

Which article is right to exploitation?

Articles 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution discuss the right against exploitation, as well as the inviolability of a person's dignity and freedom. No one can be compelled to work against their will. This article also discusses other forms of forced labour and human trafficking victims.

What is right against exploitation in constitutional law?

Articles 23 and 24 of the Indian constitution enshrine the right against exploitation, which protects people from all forms of exploitation. Indian laws forbid any act that would jeopardise a person's freedom and dignity. Many people consider themselves to be superior to others.

What is Article 24 of Indian Constitution?

Article 24 states that no kid under the age of fourteen may be employed in a factory, mine, or in any other dangerous occupation.

Against whom Article 23 of Indian Constitution provide protection?

Article 23 States that it ensures the citizen protection both against the State and Private Individual

What is Article 35 of Indian Constitution?

Article 35 Empowers the Parliament to make laws for punishing one who violates Article 23 and Article 24 of Indian Constitution

• indian polity

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• UPSC Online Coaching
• UPSC Exam 2024
• UPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Mains Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPSC Age Limit 2024
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• UPSC Syllabus in Hindi
• UPSC Full Form

Recent Posts

• UPPSC Exam 2024
• UPPSC Calendar
• UPPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPPSC Application Form 2024
• UPPSC Eligibility Criteria 2024
• UPPSC Admit card 2024
• UPPSC Salary And Posts
• UPPSC Cut Off
• UPPSC Previous Year Paper

BPSC Exam 2024

• BPSC 70th Notification
• BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
• BPSC Admit Card
• BPSC Syllabus
• BPSC Exam Pattern
• BPSC Cut Off
• BPSC Question Papers

IB ACIO Exam

• IB ACIO Salary
• IB ACIO Syllabus

CSIR SO ASO Exam

• CSIR SO ASO Exam 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Result 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Exam Date
• CSIR SO ASO Question Paper
• CSIR SO ASO Answer key 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Exam Date 2024
• CSIR SO ASO Syllabus 2024

Study Material Categories

• Daily The Hindu Analysis
• Daily Practice Quiz for Prelims
• Daily Answer Writing
• Daily Current Affairs
• Indian Polity
• Environment and Ecology
• Art and Culture
• General Knowledge
• Biographies

IMPORTANT EXAMS

• Terms & Conditions
• Return & Refund Policy
• Privacy Policy

Trying to devise a structure for your essay can be one of the most difficult parts of the writing process. Making a detailed outline before you begin writing is a good way to make sure your ideas come across in a clear and logical order. A good outline will also save you time in the revision process, reducing the possibility that your ideas will need to be rearranged once you've written them.

The First Steps

Before you can begin outlining, you need to have a sense of what you will argue in the essay. From your analysis and close readings of primary and/or secondary sources you should have notes, ideas, and possible quotes to cite as evidence. Let's say you are writing about the 1999 Republican Primary and you want to prove that each candidate's financial resources were the most important element in the race. At this point, your notes probably lack much coherent order. Most likely, your ideas are still in the order in which they occurred to you; your notes and possible quotes probably still adhere to the chronology of the sources you've examined. Your goal is to rearrange your ideas, notes, and quotes—the raw material of your essay—into an order that best supports your argument, not the arguments you've read in other people's works. To do this, you have to group your notes into categories and then arrange these categories in a logical order.

Generalizing

The first step is to look over each individual piece of information that you've written and assign it to a general category. Ask yourself, "If I were to file this in a database, what would I file it under?" If, using the example of the Republican Primary, you wrote down an observation about John McCain's views on health care, you might list it under the general category of  "Health care policy." As you go through your notes, try to reuse categories whenever possible. Your goal is to reduce your notes to no more than a page of category listings.

Now examine your category headings. Do any seem repetitive? Do any go together? "McCain's expenditure on ads" and "Bush's expenditure on ads," while not exactly repetitive, could easily combine into a more general category like "Candidates' expenditures on ads." Also, keep an eye out for categories that no longer seem to relate to your argument. Individual pieces of information that at first seemed important can begin to appear irrelevant when grouped into a general category.

Now it's time to generalize again. Examine all your categories and look for common themes. Go through each category and ask yourself, "If I were to place this piece of information in a file cabinet, what would I label that cabinet?" Again, try to reuse labels as often as possible: "Health Care," "Foreign Policy," and "Immigration" can all be contained under "Policy Initiatives." Make these larger categories as general as possible so that there are no more than three or four for a 7-10 page paper.

With your notes grouped into generalized categories, the process of ordering them should be easier. To begin, look at your most general categories. With your thesis in mind, try to find a way that the labels might be arranged in a sentence or two that supports your argument. Let's say your thesis is that financial resources played the most important role in the 1999 Republican Primary. Your four most general categories are "Policy Initiatives," "Financial Resources," "Voters' Concerns," and "Voters' Loyalty." You might come up with the following sentence: ÒAlthough McCain's policy initiatives were closest to the voters' concerns, Bush's financial resources won the voters' loyalty.Ó This sentence should reveal the order of your most general categories. You will begin with an examination of McCain's and Bush's views on important issues and compare them to the voters' top concerns. Then you'll look at both candidates' financial resources and show how Bush could win voters' loyalty through effective use of his resources, despite his less popular policy ideas.

With your most general categories in order, you now must order the smaller categories. To do so, arrange each smaller category into a sentence or two that will support the more general sentence you've just devised. Under the category of "Financial Resources," for instance, you might have the smaller categories of "Ad Expenditure," "Campaign Contributions" and "Fundraising." A sentence that supports your general argument might read: "Bush's early emphasis on fundraising led to greater campaign contributions, allowing him to have a greater ad expenditure than McCain."

The final step of the outlining process is to repeat this procedure on the smallest level, with the original notes that you took for your essay. To order what probably was an unwieldy and disorganized set of information at the beginning of this process, you need now only think of a sentence or two to support your general argument. Under the category "Fundraising," for example, you might have quotes about each candidate's estimation of its importance, statistics about the amount of time each candidate spent fundraising, and an idea about how the importance of fundraising never can be overestimated. Sentences to support your general argument might read: "No candidate has ever raised too much money [your idea]. While both McCain and Bush acknowledged the importance of fundraising [your quotes], the numbers clearly point to Bush as the superior fundraiser [your statistics]." The arrangement of your ideas, quotes, and statistics now should come naturally.

Putting It All Together

With these sentences, you have essentially constructed an outline for your essay. The most general ideas, which you organized in your first sentence, constitute the essay's sections. They follow the order in which you placed them in your sentence. The order of the smaller categories within each larger category (determined by your secondary sentences) indicates the order of the paragraphs within each section. Finally, your last set of sentences about your specific notes should show the order of the sentences within each paragraph. An outline for the essay about the 1999 Republican Primary (showing only the sections worked out here) would look something like this:

I. POLICY INITIATIVES

II.  VOTERS' CONCERNS

III.  FINANCIAL RESOURCES

            A.  Fundraising

                        a.  Original Idea

                        b.  McCain Quote/Bush Quote

                        c.  McCain Statistics/Bush Statistics

            B.  Campaign Contributions

            C.  Ad Expenditure

IV.  VOTERS' LOYALTY

Copyright 2000, David Kornhaber, for the Writing Center at Harvard University

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Article 23: China hits back at criticism of Hong Kong’s hardline new security law

Beijing dismisses chorus of concern from western governments over punitive new law as slander

China has accused western governments and the United Nations of slander after they criticised Hong Kong’s new national security law , which was rushed through the city’s pro-Beijing parliament this week.

The law, known as Article 23 , covers newly defined acts of treason, espionage, theft of state secrets, sedition and foreign interference. Critics said it was ushering in a “new era of authoritarianism”, would further erode the rights and freedoms of residents, and would scare off international business and investment.

US state department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said on Tuesday the US believes the law has the potential to accelerate the closing of a once open society. Patel said the crimes outlined in the legislation are poorly defined and that Washington was analysing the potential risks to US citizens and American interests.

The UK, Australia, Japan, Canada and the UN also lodged concerns, while the EU said in a statement the new law had the potential to “significantly” affect the work of its office in the city, as well other organisations and companies.

But the criticisms were dismissed by Beijing’s diplomats. Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in the US, said the new law was “legitimate, lawful and beyond reproach”.

Liu said it was aimed only at “a tiny minority of individuals that are involved in offences seriously jeopardising national security”.

“Foreign institutions, enterprises and personnel’s normal activities will be fully protected,” he said, saying the US criticism was unfair because it too has many domestic national security laws.

At a regular ministry of foreign affairs press briefing on Wednesday, spokesperson Lin Jian said China’s leadership “strongly deplore and firmly oppose individual countries and organisations’ slandering and smears against the safeguarding national security bill of Hong Kong”.

Lin said the law “upholds the fundamental principle of respecting and protecting human rights and protects in accordance with the law the rights and freedoms which the residents of Hong Kong enjoy”.

The law was passed unanimously in Hong Kong’s opposition-free parliament on Tuesday, after an unusually short 12-day legislative process and a limited public consultation period of just one month. Hong Kong’s chief executive, John Lee, had called for the law to be processed “at full speed”.

Authorities said the vast majority of responses from the public were positive, and dismissed many of the negative submissions as coming from “overseas anti-China organisations” or fugitives.

Emily Lau, a veteran pro-democracy politician and former legislator, told the Guardian on Thursday she felt the low number of negative responses were likely due to “self-censorship” in the city, after a years-long crackdown on opposition. “My feeling is there are people who have other views but dare not speak out,” she said.

Jeffrey Wasserstrom, a professor of Chinese history at the University of California, said the new law seemed to be the government adding “more levers” to their crackdown.

Reuters contributed to this report

• Asia Pacific
• Freedom of speech

Most viewed

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

FIFA sets date for first Women’s Club World Cup. Tournament due to launch in January 2026

Barcelona’s Ingrid Engen, center, applauds after the Women’s Champions League, semi final second leg, soccer match between FC Chelsea and FC Barcelona in London, England, Saturday, April 27, 2024. (Kieran Cleeves/PA via AP)

Barcelona’s Aitana Bonmati, right, vies for the ball with Chelsea’s Niamh Charles during the women’s Champions League semifinals, first leg, soccer match between FC Barcelona and Chelsea FC at the Olympic Stadium, in Barcelona, Spain, Saturday, April 20, 2024. (AP Photo/Jose Breton)

• Copy Link copied

BANGKOK (AP) — FIFA finally set a date Wednesday to play the first Women’s Club World Cup tournament in January and February 2026.

The first edition should involve 16 teams though FIFA’s ruling council did not specify how they would qualify or where they could play.

Barcelona and Lyon are the top-ranked European teams and have combined to win 10 Champions League titles since 2011. They will meet in the next final on May 25 in Bilbao, Spain.

A 32-team men’s Club World Cup will debut in June-July next year in the United States with teams qualifying by winning or getting consistently good results in four years of continental championships through 2024. The inaugural men’s edition will have 12 European teams and six from South America.

FIFA has made launching a global club tournament a key part of its strategy to develop women’s soccer since the soccer body’s current president Gianni Infantino was elected in 2016.

The tournament should be held every four years, like the men’s edition. In other years, an “additional FIFA women’s club competition” was proposed to be organized, again like the men.

FIFA plans to launch an annual “Intercontinental Cup” in December featuring just the champions of the six men’s continental competitions, such as the Champions League in Europe.

AP soccer: https://apnews.com/hub/soccer

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

• SI SWIMSUIT
• SI SPORTSBOOK

Caitlin Clark's Debut Drew Largest TV Audience for WNBA Game in 23 Years

Madison williams | 6 hours ago.

• Indiana Fever
• Connecticut Sun

Caitlin Clark once again helped make television ratings history Tuesday night during her WNBA debut for the Indiana Fever.

The Fever lost 92–71 to the Connecticut Sun in front of a sellout crowd at Mohegan Sun Arena. Even though it wasn't broadcast on ESPN's main channel—it was aired on ESPN2—the Fever-Sun clash brought in 2.13 million television viewers.

That is the WNBA's highest single-game ratings since the Los Angeles Sparks and Houston Comets matched up on NBC in 2001. That game brought in 2.44 million viewers. This means, though, that the Fever–Sun game brought in the biggest audience for a WNBA cable game in history.

Clark's teams have been breaking ratings numbers for months now. Iowa's Final Four game vs. UConn in April was the most-watched NCAA women's basketball game ever with 14.2 million viewers. That matchup beat out the Hawkeyes' Elite Eight game vs. LSU , which had just reset the record with 12.3 million viewers the week prior.

The 2024 WNBA draft also saw a 307% increase in viewership as Clark was selected No. 1 by the Fever in April. A record 2.45 million viewers watched Clark and other NCAA stars be drafted on ESPN.

Clark and the Fever might continue to break viewership records as 36 of the team's 40 regular season games this season will be broadcast on national television.

MADISON WILLIAMS

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Simple Math That Could Swing the Election to Biden

By Mark Penn

Mr. Penn was a pollster and an adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton from 1995 to 2008. He is chairman of the Harris Poll and chief executive of Stagwell Inc.

President Biden appears behind in all the swing states, and his campaign appears all too focused on firming up his political base on the left with his new shift on Israel , a $7 trillion budget and massive tax increases and is failing to connect on the basic issues of inflation , immigration and energy . By pitching too much to the base, he is leaving behind the centrist voters who shift between parties from election to election and, I believe, will be the key factor deciding the 2024 race.

I’ve spent decades looking at the behavior of swing voters and how candidates appeal to them, including for Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign in 1996. If Mr. Biden wants to serve another four years, he has to stop being dragged to the left and chart a different course closer to the center that appeals to those voters who favor bipartisan compromises to our core issues, fiscal discipline and a strong America.

People usually assume that turning out so-called base voters in an election matters most, since swing voters are fewer in number. And it’s true that in today’s polarized environment, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump have about 40 percent of voters each and nothing will change those people’s minds. But in that remaining 20 percent of the electorate, voters have disproportionate power because of their potential to switch. It’s simple math: Take a race tied in the run-up 5 to 5. If one voter swings, the tally becomes 6 to 4. Two voters would then need to be turned out just to tie it up, and a third one would be needed to win.

The simple power of this math — which drove the campaigns of Mr. Clinton (with his message about “building a bridge to the 21st century”), George W. Bush (“compassionate conservatism”) and Barack Obama (“hope and change”) — has been obscured, undoubtedly by base groups like unions or PACs that have a vested interest in maintaining their sway and power. Take Michigan, a battleground state where Mr. Trump has led Mr. Biden by as many as three percentage points in the past month. To overcome that gap, Mr. Biden would need to bring out nearly 250,000 additional voters (3 percent of more than eight million registered voters) just to tie it up in a state that has already achieved a record of over 70 percent turnout in a presidential year. Or Mr. Biden could switch just 125,000 swing voters and win.

Despite this math, scared candidates are, in my experience, easily sold the idea that the Democratic base or Republican base is going to stay home in November unless they are constantly fed what they want to hear. One call from the head of a religious group, a civil rights group, a labor group and others (often called the groups), and fear runs through a campaign. A New York Times article this winter about Black pastors warning the Biden White House that his Gaza war policy could imperil re-election is a good example. Maybe if Mr. Biden were running against a well-liked centrist opponent, concern could be justified. But during a fall election against Mr. Trump, the final month of this campaign is going to see a frenzy of get-out-the-vote efforts, and I doubt the Democratic base is going to sit idly by at the thought of the Trump limo cruising up Pennsylvania Avenue. The reality is that swing voters in battleground states who are upset about immigration, inflation and what they see as extreme climate policies and weakness in foreign affairs are likely to put Mr. Trump back in office if they are not blunted.

Consider some Democratic electoral history. Mr. Biden got 81 percent of the vote in the Michigan Democratic presidential primary in February. He got roughly similar percentages in the Colorado, Texas and Massachusetts primaries — not too far below other incumbent presidents with a weak job rating. And yet for months, liberal commentators and activists pointed to the Michigan protest vote as proof that he is doomed in November over his Israel stance. But Michigan was hardly a repeat of the 1968 New Hampshire primary that effectively ended Lyndon Johnson’s re-election bid; Eugene McCarthy got 42 percent, and that was a truly sizable protest.

I believe most of the 101,000 uncommitted votes that Mr. Biden lost in Michigan will come home in the end because they have nowhere else to go and the threat Mr. Trump poses will become clearer and scarier in the next six months. But regardless, there’s a much bigger opportunity for Mr. Biden if he looks in the other direction. Mr. Trump lost nearly 300,000 votes to Nikki Haley in the Michigan Republican primary. These people are in the moderate center, and many of them could be persuaded to vote for Mr. Biden if he fine-tuned his message to bring them in. And remember to multiply by two: Persuading those 300,000 Republicans to cross party lines would have the equivalent force of turning out 600,000 Democrats. The same math applies to other battleground states, like Pennsylvania, where 158,000 people voted for Ms. Haley instead of Mr. Trump in the Republican primary, even though she dropped out seven weeks earlier.

Unfortunately, Mr. Biden is not reaching out to moderate voters with policy ideas or a strong campaign message. He is not showing clear evidence of bringing in large numbers of swing voters in the battleground states at this point. Those swing voters look for fiscal restraint without tax increases, climate policies that still give people a choice of cars and fuels and immigration policies that are compassionate to those who are here but close the borders. The balanced budget remains one of the single strongest measures that swing and other voters want. Mr. Clinton’s efforts to balance the budget set off the revolution that resulted in an eight-point win, even with third-party candidates in 1996, and catapulted his job approval ratings to above 70 percent. Instead of pivoting to the center when talking to 32 million people tuned in to his State of the Union address, Mr. Biden doubled down on his base strategy with hits like class warfare attacks on the rich and big corporations, big tax increases, student loan giveaways and further expansions of social programs despite a deficit of more than $1.1 trillion. The results quickly dissipated.

Mr. Biden’s campaign has fundamentally miscalculated on Israel. Those Haley voters are strong defense voters who would back our ally Israel unreservedly and, I believe, want to see a president who would put maximum pressure on Hamas to release hostages. By pandering to base voters with no choice, Biden is pushing the Haley vote to Mr. Trump, and so his first instincts on Israel were both good policy and good politics. Eighty-four percent of independents surveyed said they supported Israel more than Hamas in the conflict, and 63 percent said they believed a cease-fire should occur only after the hostages have been released. The more Mr. Biden has pandered to the left by softening his support of Israel, the weaker he looks, and the more his foreign policy ratings have declined. Rather than pull decisively away from Israel, Mr. Biden should instead find a plan that enables Israel to go into Rafah and that has enough precautions for Rafah’s civilians so the American president can back it.

At this point, Mr. Biden also needs to give a serious speech on the issues of crime and immigration and what they are doing to our inner cities. He has to combine policies of fair policing and treatment of DACA recipients with tougher crime and immigration policies. Seventy-eight percent of independents polled said they wanted the Biden administration to make it tougher to get into the United States illegally, but 63 percent said they ultimately wanted compromise legislation that strengthens the border while giving DACA recipients a path to citizenship. On crime, despite many violent crime metrics returning to their pre-Covid levels last year, voters have been more worried than ever. Eighty-three percent of voters said they wanted shoplifting laws to be enforced strictly , and 69 percent said they supported Justice Department intervention against city district attorneys who are pulling back prosecution of violent offenders. Mr. Biden has to be more responsive to these concerns.

Mr. Biden’s energy policies, especially his push for more electric vehicles, are not popular, either. Fifty-nine percent of Americans said they opposed the mandate that half of cars sold in the United States by 2030 be electric. In Michigan, Mr. Trump has identified a potentially killer strategy by going around telling autoworkers that electric vehicles will destroy their jobs. Unlike foreign policy issues, threats concerning the loss of auto industry jobs could directly affect hundreds of thousands of voters in Michigan.

The 2024 election is a rematch, but Mr. Biden should not assume that he will get the same result as he did in 2020 in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia and other battleground states by running the same playbook. This time around, he is seen as older, and the assessment of the job that he has done is in negative territory. While he won’t get any younger, he could still move more to the center, vacuum up swing voters who desperately want to reject Mr. Trump, strengthen his image as a leader by destroying Hamas and rally the base at the end. But that means first pushing back against the base rather than pandering to it and remembering that when it comes to the math of elections, swing is king.

Mark Penn was a pollster and an adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton from 1995 to 2008. He is chairman of the Harris Poll and chief executive of Stagwell Inc.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .