Hong Kong’s National Security Law: Implications for Companies and their Human Rights Responsibilities

by Vanessa Lau

Companies operating in Hong Kong and their employees face significant uncertainties about their obligations and potential liabilities under Hong Kong’s National Security Law (NSL), which came into force on 1 July 2020. Apart from concerns related to broad and ambiguous definition of four NSL crimes (i.e., secession, subversion, terrorism activities, and collusion with foreign country or external elements) and the extraterritoriality principle, companies might find it difficult to comply with the NSL on the one hand and legislation of other countries as well as international soft standards such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) on the other hand. Failure to operate in accordance with all applicable standards may expose companies to legal sanctions, market risks and reputational damage.

To discuss some of these issues, on 30 July 2020, the Public Law and Human Rights Forum (CPLR) at the School of Law of City University of Hong Kong hosted its first webinar as part of a roundtable series on the NSL, with a specific focus on its implications for companies and their human rights responsibilities. The panelists included following experts representing different stakeholders (academia, chambers of commerce, trade unions and non-governmental organizations): Tara Van Ho, Lecturer, School of Law, University of Essex; Rebecca MacKinnon, Director, Ranking Digital Rights; William Nee, Business and Human Rights Strategy Advisor, Amnesty International Hong Kong; Carol Ng, Chairperson, Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions; and Kristian Odebjer, Chairman, Swedish Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. The webinar was moderated by Surya Deva, Associate Professor and CPLR Associate Director, School of Law, City University of Hong Kong.

All the panelists agreed that there are a “lot of unknowns” about the NSL and that the resultant uncertainty about the scope of this law is not desirable from the perspective of companies and Hong Kong’s status as an international financial status. Lack of adequate guidance on the part of the Hong Kong Government imposes greater responsibilities on part of foreign and local corporations in doing their own due diligence and continual risk assessment of their compliance with the requests made by authorities under the NSL, as noted by Kristian Odebjer. He also wondered whether companies should their own red lines while operating globally. Rebecca MacKinnon pointed out that privacy and data safety in cyberspace have turned out to be some of the key issues, as several major corporations have already suspended requests from the Hong Kong Government for information about their users. Some companies could also potentially seek to relocate their data storage servers to another jurisdiction. 

Tara Van Ho highlighted that the UNGPs expect companies to respect human rights at all times wherever they operate. Companies will now face a dilemma as to how far they should comply with the NSL’s broad requirements, as they might face legal and reputational risks elsewhere for ignoring their human rights responsibilities. Carol Ng expressed concern whether the NSL would impact trade unions’ role to call for strike or raise other concerns of their members to the government. She also feared that companies may be pressured by authorities to curtail the right of their employees to express their political opinion. William Nee observed that all four offences under the NSL are so broadly defined that they could easily become “catch all” provisions, and that the sweeping nature of this law is causing uncertainties to businesses because they might unknowingly step on to landmines.

On behalf of the CPLR, Surya Deva thanked all invited panelists and participants for contributing to discussion on this important issue.

Screenshot from 2020-11-25 15-52-12.png
Photo: A screenshot of our Panelists who contributed to the roundtable discussion on 30 July 2020


Chinese Title
香港國安法: 對企業與人權義務所構成的影響
News Date
2020年7月30日
Chinese Body

因應於2020年7月1日生效的香港國家安全法(“國安法”),在香港運營的企業及其員工在人權義務的範疇上正面臨重大及不明確的潛在風險。除了國安法内列明的“分裂國家,顛覆,恐怖主義活動以及與外國或外部因素的勾結”以及域外原則外,一眾企業亦面臨難以平衡同時滿足香港國安法及其他國家與國際法規要求的局面。個別國家的法規更有可能與《聯合國企業與人權指導原則》(UNGP)的原意背道而馳。企業一旦被發現觸犯其法規,將會面臨法律制裁,市場風險和聲譽損失的風險。

為了討論當中的問題,香港城市大學法學院的公法和人權論壇(CPLR)於2020年7月30日舉行了舉辦了首次國安法圓桌研討會系列的網絡研討會,並重點關注國安法對企業所構成的人權義務及影響。研討會小組成員包括以下代表不同相關利益的專家(包括學術界,商會,工會和非政府組織):Tara Van Ho 女士,University of Essex 法學院講師;Rebecca MacKinnon女士;Ranking Digital Rights 總監;William Nee先生,國際特赦組織香港分會商業與人權策略顧問;Carol Ng女士,香港職工會聯盟主席;及Kristian Odebjer先生,香港瑞典商會主席。今次的網絡研討會由香港城市大學法學院副教授兼CPLR副主任Surya Deva主持。

所有小組成員都同意,國安法存在許多的“未知數”,因此從公司和香港作為國際金融地位的角度來看,這法律範圍的不確定性帶有負面的影響。正如Kristian Odebjer先生指出,香港政府並沒有詳細的發布對國安法內文的解釋,使到外國和本地公司在履行其盡職調查和持續風險評估時難以全面預計及遵循當局的要求。Rebecca MacKinnon女士指出,網絡空間的隱私和數據安全已成為一些關鍵問題,因此幾家大公司已經暫停了香港政府對用戶信息的要求。她提到,一些公司還可能將其數據存儲服務器重新定位到另一個司法管轄區。Tara Van Ho女士強調,聯合國的UNGP要求企業無論在任何地方開展業務,都需要尊重企業持有的人權義務。因此,企業將需要謹慎地審察國安法會否與它們在其他國家或國際法規的法律義務造成衝突。Carol Ng女士則對國安法與公務員罷工或工聯會權益所帶來的影響表示關注。她亦擔心政府可能會受到當局的壓力而限制其員工表達其政治意見的權利。William Nee先生指出,國安法四項罪行的定義過於廣泛,並造成一定的籠統性,因此帶給企業的不確定性將會有可能導致許多的地雷事件。

Surya Deva教授代表CPLR感謝所有受邀的研討成員和與參加者為今次的國安法討論做出了重要的貢獻。

Screenshot from 2020-11-25 15-52-12.png
照片:研討會小组人員為2020年7月30日的圓桌研討會做出了重要的貢獻。