HUMAN RIGHTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

NGIHROs share five characteristics that commonly define nongovernmental organizations (NGOs): (1) some type of institutional existence, (2) institutional separation from the government, (3) nonprofit-making, (4) self-governing, and (5) voluntary (Salamon et al. Reference Salamon1999). They have additional features similar to those of local human rights NGOs, including assuming the protection and promotion of human rights as their primary concern, advocating on the basis of international laws, and aiming to secure the rights for everyone in a society (Wiseberg Reference Wiseberg, Pierre Claude and Weston1992).

In general, the roles and functions of NGIHROs, like those of local human rights NGOs, include raising awareness and public education, information sharing, monitoring human rights violations, lobbying and advocacy, mobilizing collective action, networking and liaison, promoting and monitoring the implementation of international covenants, offering political and humanitarian help to those in need, and vindicating human rights in litigation (Claude Reference Claude, Pierre Claude and Weston2006). Previous studies pointed out that the roles of NGIHROs are particularly strong in public education, setting and monitoring compliance with international human rights standards, and liaison with international governmental organizations on monitoring human rights violations (Steiner Reference Steiner1991).They also may have special roles in transitional societies, where changes in conflict patterns, number of players involved, and who is abusing whom may warrant special attention (Bell and Keenan Reference Bell and Keenan2004).

Nevertheless, there is an ongoing debate about the definition of human rights that also pertains to the classification of NGIHROs. The term, human rights, is commonly understood as the equal, universal, and inalienable rights of human beings. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948, the general concept of human rights refers to the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of people. As broadly defined, the specific human rights listed in the Declaration include security rights that protect people against crimes, due process rights against abuses of the legal system, liberty rights that protect freedoms, political rights that protect the freedom to participate in politics through action, equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law and nondiscrimination, and social rights that protect against severe poverty and guarantee the provision of education (Nickel Reference Nickel2010). Another classification of human rights categorizes them by four different generations: (1) political and civil rights (including security rights); (2) social, economic, and cultural rights (including subsistence rights); (3) solidarity rights (including environmental rights and the right to self-determination); and (4) the rights of indigenous people (including the rights of migrants and minorities) (Vasak Reference Vasak1977).

It is obvious that the various generations of rights—embedded with the respective conceptions of a good society and the means to achieve it—are not equally appealing or important to everyone. The first-generation defenders tend to exclude other generations from their definition of human rights or consider them to be only derivatives. Similarly, proponents of other generations of rights regard the first generation as insufficiently attentive to human needs and inadequate as instruments to correct unjust social orders. Therefore, they tend to treat these rights as long-term goals after achieving protection of social and economic rights. The underlying assumption is that the scope of human rights is determined by local, national, or regional customs and traditions. The consequence of these debates, therefore, is a sharp disagreement about the legitimate scope of human rights and the priorities among them (Weston Reference Weston, Pierre Claude and Weston2006).

NGIHROs are classified as “First World” and “Third World” NGOs, which signifies their different physical bases, sizes, ideological concerns, types of human rights in focus, and strategies. For comparison, First World human rights NGOs are committed to the liberal tradition with an emphasis on the protection of civil and political rights (i.e., the first generation of rights), whereas Third World NGOs give priority to economic and social rights (i.e., the second generation of rights) (Steiner Reference Steiner1991). In other terminologies, “ideal” human rights NGOs, which focus on political and civil rights and include Amnesty International, are distinguished from “operational” human rights NGOs, which emphasize social, economic, and cultural rights, such as Oxfam and Green Peace (Wiseberg Reference Wiseberg, Pierre Claude and Weston1992). The end of the Cold War marked the turn of the debate to a Global North–Global South divide. Similarly, Northern human rights NGOs are distinguished from their Southern counterparts in that the former have been urged to broaden their missions to include promoting social, economic, and cultural rights, not limiting them to only advocating liberal ideals and norms. In contrast, Southern NGOs were more likely than their Northern counterparts to pursue a wider range of goals, advance new human rights standards, strengthen citizens’ organizing capacities, and transform national institutions (Smith, Pagnucco, and Lopez Reference Smith, Pagnucco and Lopez1998).

First World human rights NGOs are often criticized by their Third World counterparts for overemphasizing individual human rights violations; neglecting the underlying social, economic, and structural problems that lead to loss of protection and dignity in the Third World; ignoring the interrelatedness between Third World problems and First World policies; and neglecting human rights problems in their own First World countries. For instance, it has been observed that Amnesty International perceives itself to be an impartial organization concerned with human rights violations in individual cases, rather than the advancement of political ideologies that may draw it into political struggle and risk its public credibility. Third World human rights NGOs, conversely, are criticized for their neglect of developing human rights laws to hold their governments accountable and for the lack of their uniqueness among other NGOs (Steiner Reference Steiner1991).

It is beyond the scope of this article to examine in detail the controversies about what should be counted as human rights and the criticisms that human rights NGOs have about one another. However, it is obvious that these classifications of NGIHROs, (i.e., physical bases, places of origin, and priorities) have not considered the variations in regime nature across the globe and the invalid or inaccurate classification of countries as belonging to either the First World (or the Global North) or the Third World (or the Global South). Whereas the First World and Third World classifications became invalid with the collapse of the communist bloc, the classification of countries as belonging to either the Global North or the Global South is also imprecise. In fact, many regimes today, despite their well-developed social policies and economy, are defined by what comparativists call hybrid regimes, semi-democracies, semi-authoritarianism, competitive or electoral authoritarianism, and transitional societies. Although these regimes, including Hong Kong, Singapore, and Russia, constitute a wide spectrum of governance styles, ranging from more repressive (e.g., Russia) to more liberal (e.g., Hong Kong), what they have in common is that protection of civil and political rights is far from ideal. Furthermore, these regimes often lag behind in environmental protection. These countries or territories therefore deserve attention with respect to their human rights conditions that may have been neglected by NGIHROs due to their relatively advanced social and economic development, the respective priorities of the NGIHROs, and the elusive nature of the authoritarian governance in such regimes. In the following discussion, these concerns are further analyzed using the case of Hong Kong.

List of Abbreviations

The previous discussion sheds light on the classification of NGIHROs. Assuming a broad classification, this study selected AIHK, GPHK, and OHK as cases for further analysis among the different types of human rights organizations.

THE CONTRADICTORY DEVELOPMENTS OF HONG KONG

As elaborated in previous studies about liberal democracy and authoritarianism, various forms of hybrid regimes have emerged in recent decades. Despite different labels, these regimes are often said to be transitioning to democracy or regressing to authoritarianism, but not without controversies. The distinction between a hybrid regime and a democracy varies in the lesser degrees of political rights and freedoms enjoyed by the people, and of government fairness, accountability, and inclusiveness in the former. Elections occur in the regimes but are manipulated by the state and other political stakeholders. As such, they are not completely free and fair, particularly in terms of the right and ability of opposition-party candidates to campaign in the elections and in the counting of the votes. Therefore, although the hybrid regimes are not authoritarian, neither are they democratic. The future of their political development is ambiguous and uncertain because the ruling strategies of the state and other political stakeholders are typically opaque.

Hong Kong is a good example of a hybrid regime, commonly perceived as a partial democracy. In 1991, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, a local adaptation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), was enacted by the British colonial government in Hong Kong. With the 1997 return of Hong Kong to China, the Basic Law (i.e., the “mini-constitution” of Hong Kong) was put into effect which guarantees that the ICCPR, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the international labor conventions as applied to Hong Kong will remain in force. Under this framework, the people of Hong Kong are perceived to enjoy a wide spectrum of civil and political liberties.

Despite the important civil and political liberties promised to the people, Hong Kong has remained a partial democracy, before and after its return to China in 1997. Having achieved the prerequisite socioeconomic conditions for democratization since the 1970s, demands for universal suffrage in the elections of the Legislative Council (LegCo) and the Chief Executive (CE) of Hong Kong have never waned. The Basic Law promises democracy but only gradually. In 2012, the CE was still elected by an Election Committee of 1,200 members (up from 800 members in the previous Committee) of which 1,044 members were elected from 38 sub-sectors, 60 members were nominated by the religious sub-sector, and 96 were ex officio members. For the LegCo, half of the 70 members would be elected by five geographical constituencies (GC) of approximately 3.4 million registered voters on universal suffrage; another five seats would be elected also by universal suffrage, but candidature is limited to elected District Councilors; and the remaining 30 members elected by 28 functional constituencies (FC) of only 240,000 registered voters. FC’s eligible voters are limited to designated individuals and legal entities such as organizations and corporations that represent predominantly business and professional interests.

In recent decades, the nonuniform election methods within the FC, the unfair nature of their representation, and the institutionalized constraints in the LegCo favoring FC and limiting the power and influence of the GC-elected legislators have spawned much criticism and demands for the FC’s abolition. Regarding the election of the CE, since 1997, the limited representation and eligibility of candidature have aroused a general suspicion of interference, if not manipulation, from China. Amid the political debate on all of these questions, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China ruled on Hong Kong’s constitutional development in 2004 that the LegCo shall be elected equally by GC and FC; this means that FC elections will not be abolished in the foreseeable future. In 2007, the Standing Committee again ruled on Hong Kong’s constitutional development that the electoral system will be further but not fully democratized in 2012, with the goal of attaining popular election of the CE in 2017 and of the entire LegCo in 2020. Endorsement from China seemed crucial in determining the democratic development in Hong Kong. Whether a consensus among the various political stakeholders can be reached in Hong Kong and the roadmap for implementing universal suffrage for the CE and the LegCo elections remain unclear.

The Hong Kong government, which is a Special Administrative Region government under Chinese rule, generally respects the rights of citizens. Nevertheless, the people of Hong Kong are deprived of the full spectrum of human rights, notably the political right to participate in and change their government. On the one hand, the LegCo is limited in its institutional power to truly monitor the government; on the other hand, it favors certain social sectors with disproportional political influence.

Regarding the protection of civil liberties, in recent years, there have been growing concerns about increasing press censorship, an increase in visa denials for political reasons, and alleged election fraud. The police have been accused of using heavy-handed tactics on nonviolent protesters, hampering media coverage, roughing up journalists, and violating the freedom of expression. Other major public concerns include the infringement of the right of privacy and covert surveillance.

The demand of human rights organizations for the establishment of an independent Human Rights Commission with statutory power in Hong Kong continues to be ignored by the government. The government’s work on human rights is dispersed among different bureaus and coordinated by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, but it does not have authority over the other bureaus (Chong, Kwok, and Law Reference Chong, Kwok and Law2010).

Between 1997 and 1998, the Beijing-appointed Hong Kong Provisional LegCo revived the Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance, which had been repealed by the colonial government before 1997, and it placed greater restriction on the freedom of assembly and association. According to the amended Public Order Ordinance, any public procession consisting of more than 30 people must be preapproved by the police commissioner, who may object on grounds of national security, public safety, and public order. Activities regarded as advocating for the independence of Hong Kong, Tibet, or Taiwan will be banned (Cap. 245, sections 13–15). Similarly, based on the amendments to the Societies Ordinance passed by the Provisional LegCo, associations in Hong Kong must register for government approval. The Ordinance introduced a new criterion of national security to decide whether an association should be approved. The Basic Law stipulates that NGOs in education, science, technology, culture, art, sports, medicine and health, labor, social welfare, and social work, as well as religious organizations, may maintain and develop relationships with their counterparts and relevant international organizations in foreign countries (Article 149). However, the amendments to the Societies Ordinance require that an association be banned if it is a political body connected with a foreign or Taiwanese political organization (Cap. 171, section 5A). With the absence of laws pertaining to political parties in Hong Kong, there is concern that an NGO could be arbitrarily categorized as a political body infringing on the Societies Ordinance.

In addition to these political and legal changes, there is a constitutional requirement of the Hong Kong government to enact Article 23 of the Basic Law against subversion, sedition, and secession, which—as widely perceived—would threaten the rule of law and the human rights situation in Hong Kong. With specific relevance to NGIHROs, Article 23 stipulates that foreign political organizations are prohibited from conducting political activities in Hong Kong, and political organizations in Hong Kong are prohibited from establishing ties with foreign political organizations.

It is obvious that both the Hong Kong and the Chinese governments are sensitive to “foreign intervention” in Hong Kong; therefore, NGIHROs would inevitably garner significant political attention or even scrutiny. Although as yet there is no concrete evidence showing that organizations suffered from increasing political pressure after 1997, the obvious changes in the local political and legal conditions may have affected their position on the local human rights situation and thus the focus of their work.

Beyond the political arena, Hong Kong has kept pace with developed countries in economic advancement. A well-developed economic system, uncorrupt civil service, established anticorruption measures, excellent banking system, low taxation rates, rule of law, abundant foreign reserves, and ties with China have made Hong Kong a competitive global city. In 2013, gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing-power parity was US$381.7 billion, ranking 36th globally. The GDP per capita (PPP) was US$52,700, which placed Hong Kong 14th globally (CIA 2014).

Nevertheless, prevalent social problems—which include the provision for basic housing; educational, welfare, and health reforms; and the widening gap between rich and poor—are yet to be resolved in Hong Kong. The result of these social problems is that Hong Kong is a “contradictory mix of growing prosperity and increasing unhappiness” (Keatley Reference Keatley2011) and they restrict the people’s right to a decent standard of living. For instance, relative to the focus of this article, the Gini coefficient measured the income gap in Hong Kong at 0.537 in 2011. The low-income population reached 110,000 in a city of 7 million, with half living below the poverty line (Oxfam Hong Kong 2012). Hong Kong’s elderly people are particularly impoverished among the low-income population. There are neither unemployment benefits nor government pension plans (except for civil servants). Laws passed in 2011 set the minimum hourly-wage rate at approximately US$3.85 effective as of 2013; yet, many employers have found ways to evade this legal responsibility. Collective-bargaining rights for laborers are yet to be negotiated among the different stakeholders, and workers’ rights are restricted. For example, under the Trade Union Ordinance, the registrar has the power to monitor trade-union activities. Employees are allowed to participate in a strike; if they are dismissed for such action, they have the right to take their employer to court; however, there is no legal entitlement to reinstatement.

Regarding environmental protection, when environmental policy first began to evolve in Hong Kong in the 1970s, the scope of concern was limited, including air and noise pollution and the use of legal measures for regulatory purposes. It was not until the 1980s that the British colonial government became increasingly involved in environmental protection and that the scope of environmental concerns expanded. After the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997, Hong Kong’s CE repeatedly promulgated the importance of sustainable development in making Hong Kong an ideal place to live. Fostering partnerships in environmental policies and cultivating community awareness about the importance of sustainable development were the two major policy themes in the early 2000s. Critics, however, point out that the environmental quality in Hong Kong has not improved significantly since 1997. In general, Hong Kong still suffers from harmfully high levels of air pollution and poor marine and drinking water quality. In addition, no specific legislation governs the sale and labeling of genetically modified food. Rights to an alternative lifestyle as well as community and identity are hampered. A series of government town planning, urban renewal, and harbor-reclamation projects triggered criticism and protests on the grounds of conservation of heritage and communities, environmental protection, and freedom of lifestyle.

Overall, whereas Hong Kong may have excelled in other areas of protecting freedom and liberties, it is far from satisfactory in the protection of human rights—notably political rights—which is a result of the hybrid nature of the regime. Although often placed on a par with other cosmopolitan cities with regard to economic and commercial development, Hong Kong is clearly trailing others in terms of social and cultural development. The same observation applies to environmental quality and protection. In a broad sense, all of these examples illustrate the contradictory nature of Hong Kong’s development regarding the different dimensions of human rights protection and promotion. It is wrong to consider the city as part of the developed world, which may have resulted in the neglect of the human rights situation by nongovernmental international human rights organizations.

NONGOVERNMENTAL INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS IN HONG KONG

In terms of geographical focus, NGIHROs based in Hong Kong can be categorized in two main types: (1) those with a focus on China or selected Asian countries (e.g., Human Rights in China); and (2) those with a regional focus that includes Hong Kong. In terms of the types of human rights, there are NGIRHOs that focus on (1) civil and political rights (e.g., AIHK and the International Commission of Jurists); (2) social, economic, and cultural rights (e.g., Asia Monitor Resource Centre, Asian Migrant Center, and OHK); and (3) environmental rights (e.g., GPHK).

A study about the NGOs of Hong Kong conducted by the Central Policy Unit of the government—the most comprehensive work on the subject to date—found approximately 120 international organizations, 70 of which focus on development assistance, five on disaster relief, 30 on friendship/cultural exchange, and 15 on human rights and peace. Many of these organizations focus on overseas activities, particularly in the rest of Asia and China, and they function primarily as regional organizations. Some allocate a significant percentage of resources to providing services to Hong Kong, such as the creation of societal norms, promotion of volunteerism, and emergency services, which reflect the priorities of Hong Kong donors. Furthermore, the organizations maintain regular interactions with the government, the private sector, and other NGOs (Hutton Reference Hutton2004).

International organizations have different reasons for locating their offices in Hong Kong but few do so because of local needs. Rather, they are based in Hong Kong for the comparative advantages of an operating environment for NGOs, including the availability of technology and professional expertise, easy access and circulation of information, minimal government interference, and access to other parts of Asia, notably China (Hutton Reference Hutton2004).

A cursory reading of the programs and activities of various international NGOs in Hong Kong reveals that, indeed, almost all consider Hong Kong to be part of the developed world. Most of the resources are directed to human rights services in China and coordination of related activities throughout Asia. In Hong Kong, the NGIHROs concentrate their work on public education, promotion of volunteerism, and fund-raising. However, worthy of note is their active involvement in the 2003 mass mobilizations in Hong Kong to protest the government’s intent to pass the national security bill under Article 23 of the Basic Law. The organizations participated in the protests and forcefully propagated the importance of preserving the freedom of Hong Kong’s people and its status as a cosmopolitan city. It is interesting that these efforts were less emphasized after 2003, with the focus resuming on public education about human rights, environmental quality, and social issues.

The following statistics about the work of the organizations, which were drawn from published sources of information (e.g., annual reports and Internet news), may not be all inclusive. However, it is believed that the activities reported in the sources were perceived as important or at least representative, and they shed light on the focus and direction of the organizations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR UNDERSTANDING HUMAN RIGHTS

The relatively low priority of Hong Kong in the related human rights endeavors of these three organizations not only reflects an organizational choice or misplaced definition of Hong Kong as a member of the developed world; it also illustrates the potential limitation of their understanding of the specific human rights situation in a hybrid regime such as Hong Kong. This neglect is still obvious even with the inclusion of the work of OHK and GPHK, which promotes socioeconomic and environmental rights, in the analysis. Why?

There have been two prominent types of massive political mobilization in Hong Kong since the sovereignty change in 1997. The first type involves fundamental human rights concerns invoked by the change of sovereignty and the subsequent changes in laws, political institutions, and governing style. For instance, the absence of universal suffrage in elections, the Public Order Ordinance, Article 23 of the Basic Law, and the abuse of police power all illustrate human rights problems as discussed previously, and they fueled different protest actions, such as the half-million-strong anti-Article 23 demonstration in 2003 and the local democracy movement. The second type of massive political mobilization is not explicitly related to the human rights concerns of the nongovernmental international human rights organizations. Rather, it concerns the protection of the local Hong Kong identity and alternative lifestyles vis-à-vis the government attempts to cultivate state patriotism and escalate political integration with the mainland. In the discussion that follows, two illustrations of political mobilization are provided.