The United States Department of State maintains the Chinese travel alert: the risk of arbitrary enforcement and exit bans remains under concern

The travel alert page of the United States Department of State shows that the level of “alert” is maintained for mainland China, for reasons including arbitrary enforcement of local laws and the risk of an exit ban. The Hong Kong and Macao pages also suggest that travel to Hong Kong SAR is subject to increased vigilance because of the risk of arbitrary law enforcement.

Organisation

The State Council has suggested that China may arbitrarily enforce local laws, which may lead to a ban on detention, arrest or exit. The State Council also stated that the Chinese authorities may impose an exit ban on any grounds in the absence of clear and transparent judicial procedures.

Hong Kong and Macao

The Hong Kong and Macao pages of the United States Department of State also include mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao in their respective summary, alerting mainland China to the risk of arbitrary enforcement and exit bans and to the need for increased vigilance in travelling to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Meaning of human rights and the rule of law

The ban on exit essentially restricts the freedom of movement of individuals and may affect business persons, foreigners, dual nationals or persons with Chinese family ties. In the absence of transparent procedures, effective remedies and independent judicial review, the ban on exit is easily used as a tool for administrative pressure, commercial disputes or political cases.

Factual boundary

Travel alerts are a risk alert for United States citizens by the United States Department of State, are not court decisions and are not the same as the associated risks for every passenger. The determination of a particular case still requires cross-checking of the facts of the case, official documents, statements of the parties and independent media investigations.

Edit Observation

The official Chinese Communist Party usually refers to the measures as legal regulation of entry, exit or mutual legal assistance, but such statements cannot be a substitute for independent verification. In cases of arbitrary law enforcement, political cases or transnational commercial disputes, the tracing of court materials, consular assistance records and public testimony of the parties should continue.