Advance Questions to China (First Batch) Uruguay
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
28. Rights Defense and New Citizen's Movement
JOBNAME: EE10 Biddulph PAGE: 1 SESS: 3 OUTPUT: Fri May 10 14:09:18 2019 28. Rights defense and new citizen’s movement Teng Biao 28.1 THE RISE OF THE RIGHTS DEFENSE MOVEMENT The ‘Rights Defense Movement’ (weiquan yundong) emerged in the early 2000s as a new focus of the Chinese democracy movement, succeeding the Xidan Democracy Wall movement of the late 1970s and the Tiananmen Democracy movement of 1989. It is a social movement ‘involving all social strata throughout the country and covering every aspect of human rights’ (Feng Chongyi 2009, p. 151), one in which Chinese citizens assert their constitutional and legal rights through lawful means and within the legal framework of the country. As Benney (2013, p. 12) notes, the term ‘weiquan’is used by different people to refer to different things in different contexts. Although Chinese rights defense lawyers have played a key role in defining and providing leadership to this emerging weiquan movement (Carnes 2006; Pils 2016), numerous non-lawyer activists and organizations are also involved in it. The discourse and activities of ‘rights defense’ (weiquan) originated in the 1990s, when some citizens began using the law to defend consumer rights. The 1990s also saw the early development of rural anti-tax movements, labor rights campaigns, women’s rights campaigns and an environmental movement. However, in a narrow sense as well as from a historical perspective, the term weiquan movement only refers to the rights campaigns that emerged after the Sun Zhigang incident in 2003 (Zhu Han 2016, pp. 55, 60). The Sun Zhigang incident not only marks the beginning of the rights defense movement; it also can be seen as one of its few successes. -
Hu Jia on Behalf of the Silenced Voices of China and Tibet
Sakharov Prize 2008 Year for China Hu Jia On behalf of the silenced voices of China and Tibet Hu Jia and his wife, Zeng Jinyan, were nominated for last year's Sakharov Prize and were among the final three short-listed candidates. Hu Jia was consequently imprisoned and remains in prison to this day. Hu Jia is a prominent human rights activist who works on various issues including civil rights, environmental protection and AIDS advocacy. He was arrested shortly after his testimony on 26 November 2007 via conference call before the European Parliament's sub-committee on Human Rights. In his statement, he expressed his desire that 2008 be the “year of human rights in China”. He also pointed out that the Chinese national security department was creating a human rights disaster with one million people persecuted for fighting for human rights and many of them detained in prison, in camps or mental hospitals. He also said: "The irony is that one of the people in charge of organising the Olympics is the head of the Public Security Bureau in Beijing who is responsible for so many human rights violations. The promises of China are not being kept before the games." As a direct result of his address to members of the European Parliament, Hu Jia was arrested, charged with "inciting subversion of state power", and sentenced on 3 April 2008 to three-and-a-half years' in jail with one year denial of political rights. He was found guilty of writing articles about the human rights situation in the run-up to the Olympic Games. -
Congressional-Executive Commission on China Annual Report 2019
CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ANNUAL REPORT 2019 ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 18, 2019 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: https://www.cecc.gov VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:38 Nov 18, 2019 Jkt 036743 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 5011 G:\ANNUAL REPORT\ANNUAL REPORT 2019\2019 AR GPO FILES\FRONTMATTER.TXT CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ANNUAL REPORT 2019 ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 18, 2019 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: https://www.cecc.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 36–743 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:38 Nov 18, 2019 Jkt 036743 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 G:\ANNUAL REPORT\ANNUAL REPORT 2019\2019 AR GPO FILES\FRONTMATTER.TXT CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS House Senate JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts, MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Co-chair Chair JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio TOM COTTON, Arkansas THOMAS SUOZZI, New York STEVE DAINES, Montana TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TODD YOUNG, Indiana BEN MCADAMS, Utah DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon BRIAN MAST, Florida GARY PETERS, Michigan VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS Department of State, To Be Appointed Department of Labor, To Be Appointed Department of Commerce, To Be Appointed At-Large, To Be Appointed At-Large, To Be Appointed JONATHAN STIVERS, Staff Director PETER MATTIS, Deputy Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:38 Nov 18, 2019 Jkt 036743 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 G:\ANNUAL REPORT\ANNUAL REPORT 2019\2019 AR GPO FILES\FRONTMATTER.TXT C O N T E N T S Page I. -
1 Introduction Chinese Citizens Continued to Turn to the Legal System
1 ACCESS TO JUSTICE Introduction Chinese citizens continued to turn to the legal system for help when they were harmed by environmental hazards,1 unsafe food,2 discrimination,3 and other causes.4 Chinese law allows citizens to use the legal system to dispute unlawful government acts.5 Inter- national human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declara- tion of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, likewise call for the ability of citizens to obtain ef- fective legal remedies when their rights are violated.6 During the 2015 reporting year, however, the Commission observed a per- sistent gap between the Chinese government’s rhetoric regarding the importance of laws and the actual ability of citizens to use the legal system to protect their rights.7 Recent judicial reforms indi- cate recognition by the Chinese government that the current sys- tem is dysfunctional,8 and official media has touted that the re- vised PRC Administrative Litigation Law ‘‘will make it easier for citizens to take the government to court.’’ 9 It is too soon, however, to determine fully the impact of these developments. Teng Biao, a Chinese lawyer, explained that ‘‘[t]he major problem with rule of law in mainland China is not establishing legal provisions but rather implementing laws.’’ 10 The Fourth Plenum and Judicial Reforms In October 2014, the Chinese Communist Party’s leaders gath- ered for the Fourth Plenum of the 18th Party Congress Central Committee and issued the Decision on Several Major Issues in Comprehensively -
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003: China (Includes Tibet, Hong Kong and Macau)
Page 1 of 66 China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003 Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor February 25, 2004 (Note: Also see the section for Tibet, the report for Hong Kong, and the report for Macau.) The People's Republic of China (PRC) is an authoritarian state in which, as directed by the Constitution, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP or Party) is the paramount source of power. Party members hold almost all top government, police, and military positions. Ultimate authority rests with the 24-member political bureau (Politburo) of the CCP and its 9-member standing committee. Leaders made a top priority of maintaining stability and social order and were committed to perpetuating the rule of the CCP and its hierarchy. Citizens lacked both the freedom peacefully to express opposition to the Party-led political system and the right to change their national leaders or form of government. Socialism continued to provide the theoretical underpinning of national politics, but Marxist economic planning has given way to pragmatism, and economic decentralization increased the authority of local officials. The Party's authority rested primarily on the Government's ability to maintain social stability; appeals to nationalism and patriotism; Party control of personnel, media, and the security apparatus; and continued improvement in the living standards of most of the country's 1.3 billion citizens. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, in practice, the Government and the CCP, at both the central and local levels, frequently interfered in the judicial process and directed verdicts in many high-profile cases. -
Gagging the Lawyers: China’S Crackdown on Human Rights Lawyers and Implica- Tions for U.S.-China Relations
GAGGING THE LAWYERS: CHINA’S CRACKDOWN ON HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERS AND IMPLICA- TIONS FOR U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS HEARING BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JUNE 28, 2017 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 26–342 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:36 Jan 29, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 U:\26342.TXT PAT CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS Senate House MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Chairman CHRIS SMITH, New Jersey, Cochairman TOM COTTON, Arkansas ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina STEVE DAINES, Montana TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois TODD YOUNG, Indiana MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California TIM WALZ, Minnesota JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TED LIEU, California GARY PETERS, Michigan ANGUS KING, Maine EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS Not yet appointed ELYSE B. ANDERSON, Staff Director PAUL B. PROTIC, Deputy Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 08:36 Jan 29, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 U:\26342.TXT PAT CO N T E N T S STATEMENTS Page Opening Statement of Hon. Christopher Smith, a U.S. Representative From New Jersey; Cochairman, Congressional-Executive Commission on China .... 1 Statement of Hon. -
International PEN NGO in Consultative Status with ECOSOC
International PEN NGO in Consultative Status with ECOSOC Appendix to the Contribution to the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism 4th Session of the Working Group of the UPR (2 – 13 February 2009) Submission on the People’s Republic of China 1 September 2008 Case samples International PEN has been monitoring repression of writers and journalists in China, and concludes, as evidenced by the case samples, that rather than improving, freedom of expression in China continues to be disregarded by the authorities. The following are a list of International PEN’s main cases of writers imprisoned in China as of 29 August 2008 CHEN Daojun: Dissident writer and journalist, arrested on 9 May 2008, and charged with ‘inciting splittism’, apparently for an article he published following the Tibetan democracy protests in March 2008 which condemned the Chinese government’s violent crackdown on protesters that month. Chen is currently being held at the Detention Centre of the Public Security Bureau of Jintang County. CHEN Shuqing: Dissident writer and leading member of Zhejiang Branch of the banned Chinese Democratic Party (CDP), arrested on 14 September 2006 and sentenced to 4 years in prison for ‘inciting subversion of state power’ The conviction is reportedly based on sentences quoted from various articles published and posted on the banned magazine of the Chinese Democratic Party, and overseas Chinese websites including Boxun, Epoch Times, China Affairs Forum, China E Weekly and Duowei News. His appeal was rejected by the Zhejiang High People’s Court DU Daobin: Dissident writer and member of the Independent Chinese PEN Centre, arrested on 21 July 2008, at his workplace by National Security police who also searched Du's home and confiscated two computers and some letters. -
Background Information on the Edelstam Prize Laureate 2018: Li Wenzu
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE EDELSTAM PRIZE LAUREATE 2018: LI WENZU Li Wenzu was born on April 5, 1985, in Badong, Hubei Province, where she completed her secondary school education. At the age of 24, she moved to Beijing to look for work. There she met her husband, and they got married after a year. Her husband, Wang Quanzhang, is a Chinese human rights lawyer, who has defended activists and victims of land seizures, as well as persecuted and who once defended practitioners of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. Wenzu was content with her life as a housewife until the fateful day when Wang Quanzhang disappeared. For several days beginning on July 9, 2015, more than 200 Chinese human rights lawyers and activists were detained or questioned in the largest clampdown on the legal profession in recent history known as the “709 Crackdown.” The China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group estimates that 319 lawyers, activists, and people associated with them were interrogated, taken into custody or “disappeared” in the crackdown. During the initial period of their detention, many of the arrested lawyers and activists were held without contact with the outside world and their families received no information regarding their well-being or whereabouts. The majority of them were subsequently released on bail, while a few have been convicted of various crimes and sentenced to up to seven years in prison. However, Wang Quanzhang situation is different since no trial dates have been announced. He is therefore the last prisoner in the “709 Crackdown” who is in legal limbo. The Chinese regime has charged him with “subversion of state power,” a catch- all “crime,” it has long used to persecute individuals and organizations it deems as a threat to the one-party state it maintains with an iron hand. -
Changing China Published by Oxford University Press, Inc
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Oxford University Press, In c., publishes works that further Oxford University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. ~~~ c Auckla nd Cape Town Dares Salaam Hong Kong Karachi 0 n t e fl ts Ku ala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switze rl and Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyrig ht © 2on by Susan L. Shirk Changing Media, Changing China Published by Oxford University Press, In c. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York Joo16 Susan L. Shirk www.oup.com 2. China's Emerging Public Sphere: The Impact of Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press Media Commercialization, Professionalism, and the All rights reserved. No part of thi s publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, Internet in an Era of Transition 38 electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, Qj_an Gang and David Bandurski without the prior perm iss ion of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Catalogin g-in-Publicati on Data 3· The Rise of the Business Media in China 77 Changing media, changing China / edited by Susan L. Shirk. Hu Shuli p. em. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-o-19-975198-3; 978-o-19-975 197-6 (pbk.) 4· Between Propaganda and Commercials: 1. Mass media-China. 2. Mass media and culrure-Chin a. Chinese Television Today 91 I. Shirk, Susan L. -
Weiquan Online 2006
WEIQUAN ONLINE 2006 . 3, NO RIGHTS FORUM AN HRIC BACKGROUNDER1 CHINA This excerpt from a forthcoming HRIC White explores the development and use of the term weiquan in a vari- 17 Paper on the Internet in China examines how ety of different contexts online, to develop a more comprehen- sive picture of the growing rights defense phenomenon. China’s rights defense movement is adopting increasingly sophisticated communications What is weiquan? ONTLINE technology to educate people on their basic Weiquan can be translated as “rights defense,” or the activity of lawfully defending one’s legal rights. However, HRIC’s prelimi- rights and to rally support for the domestic nary survey of online usage reveals that there is no one defini- rights defense movement and its activists. tion of what this entails.The term can be used in any of the following ways: AKES THE FR Since 1994, the Internet in China has grown in coverage, a verb sophistication and accessibility.With more than 111 million “to defend one’s right” weihu quanli users,2 China is now second only to the U.S. in numbers of people connected,3 and it is estimated that 300 million users a professional title will be online in China by 2008.4 Chinese Internet users are “rights defense activist” weiquan doushi RIGHTS DEFENSE T blogging, chatting, creating Web sites and in some cases using “rights defense lawyer” weiquan lüshi the Internet as an advocacy tool for a variety of issues, includ- “rights defense professional services” weiquan fuwu ing exposing corruption, pushing for a clean environment and “rights defense investigator” dajia weiquan protesting land grabs. -
Access to Justice Excerpted Congressional-Executive
ACCESS TO JUSTICE EXCERPTED FROM THE 2015 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 8, 2015 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.cecc.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 98–306 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:47 Jan 19, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 U:\DOCS\AR15 SECTIONS\AR15 A2J.TXT DEIDRE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS House Senate CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Cochairman Chairman JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina TOM COTTON, Arkansas TRENT FRANKS, Arizona STEVE DAINES, Montana RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois BEN SASSE, Nebraska TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota SHERROD BROWN, Ohio MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MICHAEL M. HONDA, California JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon TED LIEU, California GARY PETERS, Michigan EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS CHRISTOPHER P. LU, Department of Labor SARAH SEWALL, Department of State STEFAN M. SELIG, Department of Commerce DANIEL R. RUSSEL, Department of State TOM MALINOWSKI, Department of State PAUL B. PROTIC, Staff Director ELYSE B. ANDERSON, Deputy Staff Director (II) VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:47 Jan 19, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt -
Huang Qi (China)
A/HRC/WGAD/2018/22 Advance edited version Distr.: General 27 June 2018 Original: English Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eighty-first session, 17–26 April 2018 Opinion No. 22/2018 concerning Liu Feiyue and Huang Qi (China) 1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of the Commission on Human Rights, which extended and clarified the Working Group’s mandate in its resolution 1997/50. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251 and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a three-year period in its resolution 33/30. 2. In accordance with its methods of work (A/HRC/36/38), on 8 December 2017, the Working Group transmitted to the Government of China a communication concerning Liu Feiyue and Huang Qi. The Government replied to the communication on 19 January 2018. The State is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 3. The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases: (a) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I); (b) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles 7,