Over the past week, members of China’s ethnic Uyghur minority have provided moving testimony about their persecution to the Uyghur Tribunal, an unofficial, civil society-led investigation into possible genocide and crimes against humanity committed by Beijing. Although the “people’s tribunal” is not backed by any government and its findings will not be binding on any country, the hearings play an important role in providing recognition to victims’ suffering and in strengthening the legal argument for a U.N. Commission of Inquiry or other international accountability mechanisms. As such, the tribunal serves as an important tool for civil society to move atrocity prevention efforts forward when U.N. or international court action is blocked.

A Uyghur man heading to a mosque in Kashgar, Xinjiang, on Aug. 9, 2019. Thousands of mosques, shrines and other Islamic religious sites have been demolished in Xinjiang since 2017. (The New York Times)
A Uyghur man heading to a mosque in Kashgar, Xinjiang, on Aug. 9, 2019. Thousands of mosques, shrines and other Islamic religious sites have been demolished in Xinjiang since 2017. (The New York Times)

Since 2018, human rights researchers have documented evidence of an intensified Chinese campaign to forcibly assimilate the Uyghur people that hinges on several key pillars: a mass detention and forced labor program, a sophisticated mass surveillance system, restrictions on cultural and religious practice and population control measures. More than 1.3 million people — by China’s own admission, though researchers allege more — have been arbitrarily detained in internment camps in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Rights groups have also documented the use of forced sterilization and mandatory birth control to slash Uyghur birth rates, as well as strict controls on Islamic practice, and a campaign to destroy mosques and cultural heritage sites.

In the first round of hearings of the tribunal in London from June 4-7, survivors recounted experiences of torture, rape, sterilization and forced labor in internment camps to a nine-member panel of experts formed at the request of the exile World Uyghur Congress and chaired by British lawyer Sir Geoffrey Nice, who once led the war crimes prosecution of ex-Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic. The tribunal  will meet for a second round of hearings in September and issue a final determination in December.  China’s foreign ministry has dismissed the tribunal as a “farce” and sought to discredit expert and survivor witnesses and their testimony.  The tribunal seeks to apply “international legal standards” for reviewing evidence.

Formal Obstacles to Inquiry

The tribunal is considering a question that a number of countries around the world have raised concern about, but that has yet to be taken up by an international court. The United States, alongside the parliaments of Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Lithuania, have designated China’s actions genocide. However, the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor said in December she would not initiate an investigation into potential atrocity crimes against the Uyghurs on the grounds that China is not party to the court. China is certain to veto any Security Council effort to refer the situation to the ICC, as was done related to atrocities committed in Libya. While China is a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, it has submitted a reservation rejecting the International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction to consider claims of genocide made against it.

In the absence of action by the U.N. and the likely inaccessibility of international courts, the Uyghur Tribunal offers an important alternative, by providing an opportunity to give voice to victims’ suffering and to consolidate a body of evidence. Allowing victims’ stories to be heard is an important first step toward providing justice to the community. Moreover, as Uyghur survivors come forward to make their stories public, their testimony is likely to elicit further evidence from victims and other sources to bolster the claims. Equally importantly, their testimony and that of expert witnesses at the tribunal will become part of a collection of evidence — a civil society analogue to the U.N. investigative mechanisms established in Syria, South Sudan, Iraq and Burma — that researchers, lawyers and members of the public can access, preserve and analyze over the years to come.

A key limitation of the people’s tribunal format, however, is that while it showcases survivor testimony so far it has been scant on Chinese government documents, testimony by Chinese officials or other evidence that can provide insight into Beijing’s policymaking processes, which are important for establishing legal intent behind China’s actions. While genocidal intent can be inferred from a pattern of conduct, and recently issued reports suggest it can be inferred from China’s treatment of the Uyghurs, further evidence of Chinese policies can strengthen or refute a claim of genocide. To be sure, such evidence is hard to come by given China’s tight control of information, but the expert witnesses in the tribunal play an important role in filling this gap. For more formal international accountability mechanisms to move forward, more work may be needed to connect the lived experiences that survivors describe to explicit policies in Xinjiang and to the decisions made by the leaders responsible.   

What Could Come Out of the Tribunal?

The findings of past people’s tribunals have strengthened awareness of ongoing human rights violations and the need to pursue accountability for crimes committed. People’s tribunals have been at the forefront of considering the presence of genocide and crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia to Burma, and have evaluated allegations of human rights violations in China and Indian-administered Kashmir. In addition to legal findings, tribunal determinations have made recommendations for the establishment of international tribunals to try perpetrators and informed public debate, including in the U.N. Human Rights Council and the European Parliament.

Based on the evidence presented, the Uyghur tribunal will apply international legal standards to determine whether the Chinese government committed crimes against the Uyghurs and whether those crimes amount to genocide and/or crimes against humanity. Although the decision will have no binding legal effect, the findings may provide an important additional advocacy tool for multilateral and country-level action. The tribunal’s findings may strengthen a claim that genocide or crimes against humanity are occurring against the Uyghurs and/or illuminate areas for further investigation. Such findings could be used to press the U.N. to act and to overcome the ongoing split within the General Assembly over China’s treatment of the Uyghurs. U.N. action could include the establishment of a commission of inquiry or a fact-finding mission to conduct a U.N.-backed investigation. The decision could strengthen advocacy efforts at the country level as well, providing further evidence to inform decisions to impose sanctions and/or economic restrictions or the issuance of atrocities determinations. The decision may also be used by global corporations to inform their dealings with Chinese corporations and evaluate their supply chains to ensure they are free from forced labor.

The tribunal’s decision may also strengthen U.S. efforts to respond to ongoing atrocities against the Uyghurs. The decision could reinforce the genocide determination issued by the State Department on January 19, 2021. Reports indicate the determination was based on a split memorandum, in which State Department legal experts disagreed on whether the required elements of genocide had been proven. The tribunal may consider evidence not available at the time of the determination that may address some of the weaknesses identified in the argument that Beijing’s behavior constitutes genocide. By further illuminating the potential perpetrators and enablers of atrocities in Xinjiang, the tribunal’s decisions may also suggest additional targets for sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act or the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act. Broadening the reach of U.S. sanctions may improve their effectiveness in persuading Beijing to consider changing its policies toward the Uyghurs. The decision may also provide further support for pending legislation, including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.

While the outcomes of the tribunal’s work remain to be seen, it has provided an important platform for Uyghur victims of Beijing’s repressive policies to share their experiences and to work toward accountability for violations of their rights. The bravery of the victims — frequently at high personal costs to themselves and their families — is commendable and should be applauded. To recognize this bravery, and to work toward ending the ongoing atrocities, the international community should be prepared to act upon the tribunal’s findings.

Related Publications

Myanmar: China, the Coup and the Future

Myanmar: China, the Coup and the Future

Tuesday, June 8, 2021

By: Jason Tower; Priscilla A. Clapp

In making major deals with Myanmar’s military rulers, China seems to be violating its official guidance for investment abroad: Avoid conflict zones. Although Myanmar is in a state of collapse and widening rebellion, China continues to advance plans for a complex economic corridor in the country with the military unveiling steps to move ahead with big joint-venture projects. The generals’ bid to appear in control of things is obvious. China, on the other hand, seems to have fallen into a trap. Cozying up to the junta puts its investments at immediate and long-term risk and erodes its standing in regional organizations. To protect its interests, Beijing should press the junta to curb its rampant violence against the population and to restore the elected government.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment; Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Washington’s Allies and Partners Weigh in on U.S.-China Competition

Washington’s Allies and Partners Weigh in on U.S.-China Competition

Thursday, June 3, 2021

By: Patricia M. Kim

The Biden administration has adopted an overarching strategy of renewing relations with allies and partners to counter China where necessary, while also cooperating with Beijing when it is in the United States’ interest to so. As competition between Washington and Beijing heats up, however, avenues to resolve conflicts peacefully between the two major powers remain limited. A recent USIP report brought together U.S. and Chinese authors to offer recommendations on how the two powers can enhance strategic stability. But how do U.S. allies and partners factor in and what steps would they like Washington and Beijing to take to prevent conflict and manage crises? 

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy; Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Chaos in Myanmar Is China’s Nightmare

Chaos in Myanmar Is China’s Nightmare

Friday, May 28, 2021

By: Jason Tower; Priscilla A. Clapp

The suspicion that China approved the military coup against Myanmar’s elected government runs deep among Burmese resisting their new dictatorship. Perhaps proof of such meddling will emerge someday. For now, what seems clear is that China would not have chosen to knowingly embroil its interests in Myanmar in the chaos that has followed the army’s power grab. On virtually every front, from public health to national security, China now faces new threats created by the post-coup breakdown in governance and the rule of law. As these consequences come into focus, Beijing will have to decide whether to maintain its tacit acceptance of the generals’ regime or take a different policy tack to protect investments in its neighbor to the south.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment; Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Pakistan’s Growing Problem with its China Economic Corridor

Pakistan’s Growing Problem with its China Economic Corridor

Wednesday, May 26, 2021

By: Uzair Younus

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has deepened the decades-long strategic relationship between the two Asian nations. But it has also sparked criticism, including that it burdens Pakistan with mountains of debt, allowing China to use “debt-trap diplomacy” to gain access to strategic assets. While some of this criticism is valid, a closer look indicates that concerns around debt sustainability, tepid economic growth and overall economic and social instability in Pakistan predate CPEC. Moreover, it is the lack of long-term structural reforms that has stymied equitable socioeconomic progress in Pakistan.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment; Democracy & Governance

View All Publications