Dharamshala — UN human rights bodies have expressed serious concerns regarding the “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress" of PRC. They said, “we observe that the newly adopted Law risks restricting the freedom of expression, the right to take part in cultural life, freedom of religion and belief, the rights of persons belonging to various communities, particularly children, to use their own language and conduct their own cultural practices, the right of all persons to quality education and training that fully respect their cultural identity, academic and artistic freedoms, and the right to freedom of assembly and association, as protected under international human rights treaties.”
On April 16, 2026, United Nations special rapporteurs expressed serious concerns regarding the “Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress” recently adopted by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). These special rapporteurs are Nicolas Levrat, Special Rapporteur on minority issues; Alexandra Xanthaki, Special Rapporteur on cultural rights; Surya Deva, Special Rapporteur on the right to development; Farida Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the right to education; Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context; and Nazila Ghanea, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.
UN Special Rapporteurs wrote, “We would like to draw attention to risks that the Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress could entrench a uniform approach to ethnic relations across all regions of China, thereby potentially amplifying restrictions on minority rights. In this context, the Law, in its national application, could transform temporary or experimental regional measures into binding nationwide obligations, which could have serious implications for the linguistic, cultural, and religious autonomy of ethnic communities, including Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Mongols.
“Though the Law states in article 1 that it is drafted on the basis of the Constitution in order to promote ethnic unity and progress, we observe that a number of its provisions may contradict the Constitution, in particular its article 4, which guarantees all ethnic groups “the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and written languages”. While we acknowledge that certain provisions of the Law contain promising commitments, including article 5, which promotes all citizens’ equality before the law and prohibits discrimination against or oppression of any ethnicity, we observe that several other provisions raise questions regarding their compatibility with international human rights standards, as detailed below.
“We observe that the Law could unduly restrict the right to freedom of expression. Article 10 limits engagement on issues related to ethnic unity and progress by prohibiting perceived “foreign forces” from interfering, and it suggests that human rights cannot be invoked to challenge China’s efforts in this regard. We observe a risk that any human rights-based analysis of the Law could be negatively framed and mischaracterized as foreign interference.
“Article 14 requires citizens to “respect the history of the formation and development of the Chinese people” and prohibits their “insult, belittlement, or desecration.” We note that this provision could be applied to penalize scholarly work documenting historical discrimination against ethnic minorities; laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
“We observe that the Law could restrict minority language education. Article 15 requires the State to “fully promote the spread of the nation’s common language and script,” while “[s]chools and other educational institutions are to use the nation’s common language and script as the basic language and script for education and teaching.” This provision appears to contradict the rights set forth in article 37 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Regional National Autonomy, which provides for the use of textbooks in minority languages in schools and that such languages can be used as a medium of instruction. The requirement in the newly adopted Law that minority languages be subordinate to Mandarin “in position, order, and so forth” in public settings reinforces linguistic hierarchy. Additionally, we observe a risk that the prohibition on any organization or individual “obstructing” citizens from learning Mandarin could be turned against educators, parents, or advocates who prioritize minority language instruction.
“We observe a risk that the Law could restrict the right to freedom of religion and belief. Article 46 requires religion and belief groups, religious schools and religious activity sites to “persist in the direction of Sinicization of [China’s] religions” while guiding “religions to adapt to socialist society”. It would appear to undermine freedom of religion or belief as it conditions religion or belief practice on State-mandated ideological alignment, while interfering with the autonomy of religious doctrine, the independence of religious and belief institutions, and the right of individuals and communities to manifest their beliefs free from State coercion. The Law also appears to contradict article 11 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Regional National Autonomy in which the State shall “protect normal religious activities.”
“We observe a risk that the Law could impede the rights to freedom of assembly and of association. Article 53 prohibits organizations and individuals from intentionally causing or escalating conflicts or disrupting public order for reasons such as ethnic identity, customs, or religious beliefs. Given that the article does not define what it means to “cause” or “escalate” a conflict, it is possible that any collective action—cultural events, community organizing, advocacy, protests, meetings, festivals, or religious gatherings—could be treated as a threat to public order. This vagueness could enable arbitrary enforcement, allowing the restriction of freedom of assembly or association whenever it is connected to expressions of ethnic or cultural identity that are not favoured. The article could also create a chilling effect in the sense that minority communities may refrain from exercising their rights to assemble or form associations out of fear that their activities will be deemed unlawful or provocative.
“We observe a risk that the Law may incite transnational repression. Article 63 states that organizations and individuals outside of mainland China can be pursued for “legal responsibility in accordance with law” for any acts that “undermine ethnic unity and progress or create ethnic division”. Again, as acts that “undermine ethnic unity and progress or create ethnic division” are not clearly defined, the Law could position any external criticism or minority advocacy as hostile acts against the State.
“As discussed above, we observe that the newly adopted Law risks restricting the freedom of expression, the right to take part in cultural life, freedom of religion and belief, the rights of persons belonging to various communities, particularly children, to use their own language and conduct their own cultural practices, the right of all persons to quality education and training that fully respect their cultural identity, academic and artistic freedoms, the right to development (economic, social, political and cultural development), the right to adequate housing, and the right to freedom of assembly and association, as protected under international human rights treaties.
“In particular, we observe that the Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress risk imposing limitations on a range of human rights in ways that would run counter to China’s obligations under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), ratified by China on 27 March 2001, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), ratified by China on 2 March 1992; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), signed by China on 5 October 199811.
“We further recall the provisions of the 1992 Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, in particular article 1, which affirms that States shall protect the existence and the national, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their territories and encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity. We also recall article 2 of the Declaration, which provides that persons belonging to minorities have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or discrimination.
“In addition, article 4(2) provides that States should take measures to create favourable conditions enabling persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards. Additionally, we recall the provisions of the 1981 Declaration on the elimination of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, which emphasizes, in article 2, that “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.”
“We also recall that in accordance with the 2001 UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, all persons have the right to express themselves and to create and disseminate their work in the language of their choice, and particularly in their mother tongue; all persons are entitled to quality education and training that fully respect their cultural identity; and all persons have the right to participate in the cultural life of their choice and conduct their own cultural practices, subject to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms (art. 5).
UN Special Rapporteurs explained, “We also recall the provisions of the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development, in particular article 1, which establishes participation as a core component of the right to development: “every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.” We also recall article 2 of the Declaration, which provides that development is people-centered: the “human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of development.” Furthermore, article 2(3) provides that “States have the right and the duty to formulate appropriate national development policies that aim at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals, on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development”.
