Claire Roncallo, Associate Member, Immigration and Human Rights Law Review
I. Introduction
Since 2014, the Chinese government has targeted the Uyghur population in Xinjiang through mass detention, forced assimilation, and cultural erasure.[1] Human rights groups have condemned these actions as part of a broader effort to suppress the cultural and religious identity of the region’s twelve million mostly Muslim Uyghurs.[2] China’s government has also allegedly orchestrated a mass migration of Han Chinese, China’s ethnic majority, into Xinjiang in an attempt to dilute the Uyghur population.[3] For over a decade, the Uyghur people have endured one of the most extensive state campaigns of repression in the modern era, defined by its sheer scale, its sophisticated use of artificial intelligence-driven surveillance, and the systemic effort to suppress religious and cultural identity.[4]
This Blog examines the historical and political background of China’s campaign against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, including its use of mass detention, forced labor, and pervasive surveillance. It analyzes the legal allegations raised by international bodies—violations of fundamental human rights such as freedom from torture, protection from arbitrary detention, and the rights to religion and cultural identity—alongside China’s responses. Finally, this Blog discusses potential legal reforms and accountability mechanisms that could help prevent similar abuses in the future.
II. Background
Xinjiang, located in northwest China, is the country’s only region with a majority Muslim population.[5] The Uyghurs, who make up approximately forty-six percent of the region, are ethnically Turkic and have their own distinct language and culture.[6] In May 2014, the Chinese government launched the “Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism,” a campaign targeting the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims by linking religious practice with extremism and terrorism.[7] Since 2017, the Chinese government has significantly curtailed the Uyghurs’ religious freedoms, imposing strict bans on long beards, headscarves, fasting during Ramadan, and religious gatherings outside state-approved mosques.[8] These peaceful practices were redefined as signs of extremism, providing a pretext for the mass detention and re-education of Uyghurs in indoctrination camps across Xinjiang.[9]
Since Xi Jinping’s rise to power in 2013, the Chinese government has aggressively pursued assimilationist policies in ethnic minority regions, emphasizing “Sinicization” of religion and culture.[10] This policy reflects the increase in nationalism and Islamophobia and the government’s view that the presence of the Uyghurs is a threat to national security.[11] As Shohrat Zakir, then chairman of the Xinjiang regional government, declared in 2020, China had “effectively contained” religious extremism and “laid a good foundation for completely solving the deeply rooted problems that affect the region’s long-term stability,” reflecting China’s framing of the issue as one of counter-extremism rather than oppression.[12]
Multiple human rights groups report that the Chinese government’s actions against the Uyghur people constitute crimes against humanity.[13] Uyghurs face arbitrary imprisonment, restrictions on religious practices, forced labor in cotton and textile industries, and population control measures, including forced sterilization of women.[14] The Chinese government has imprisoned more than one million Uyghurs since 2017 and those who are not detained have been subjects of intense surveillance and other human rights violations.[15] These acts implicate several fundamental human rights protected under international law, including freedom from torture and cruel treatment, protection against arbitrary detention, and rights to religion, cultural identity, and equality, as recognized in core human rights instruments such as the Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.[16]
Further, economic incentives appear to contribute to this repression. Xinjiang produces about one-fifth of the world’s cotton, making it a critical hub for textile exports and giving China strong economic invectives to maintain control over the region’s workforce.[17] International brands have sourced materials from factories in or near Xinjiang, which has made it difficult to separate ethical supply chains from those tainted by forced labor.[18] To put it in perspective, this data means that 1 in 5 cotton garments in the global market are at risk of being tainted from the forced labor practices that the Uyghur people are subjected to.[19] China tightly controls media coverage in Xinjiang and restricts access for foreign journalists and international observers, making independent verification difficult and limiting global awareness of the scope of these abuses.[20]
Ultimately, China’s campaign against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang constitutes a systemic assault on fundamental rights. Allegations of mass detention, forced labor, cultural erasure, and coercive birth control suggest violations of China’s obligations under the Convention Against Torture, the Genocide Convention, and other core human rights treaties.[21]
III. Discussion
A. China’s Violations
China’s mass detention of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang implicates core protections under international law.[22] The Convention Against Torture (CAT), which China ratified in 1988, prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[23] CAT makes clear that no exceptional circumstances justify torture.[24] However, credible reports of physical abuse, sexual violence, and psychological coercion in so-called “re-education centers” fall squarely within CAT’s prohibitions.[25] These centers, officially referred to by the Chinese government as “vocational training” or “political education” facilities, function as highly secure detention sites where Uyghur people are confined without trial and subjected to ideological indoctrination, forced Mandarin instruction, and surveillance, with the aim of eroding Uyghur cultural and religious identity and promoting assimilation into Han-centric national identity.[26] According to Human Rights Watch, these facilities operate like prisons, enforcing strict discipline, constant monitoring, and punishment for expressing cultural or religious identity.[27]
Beyond the prohibition of torture, China’s arbitrary detention of Uyghurs also violates international protections against unlawful imprisonment. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits arbitrary detention.[28] Although China has not ratified the ICCPR, its signature binds it to refrain from acts that would defeat the treaty’s purpose.[29] The widespread imprisonment of Uyghurs without charge or due process constitutes such a breach.
While these abuses alone constitute grave violations of international law, mounting evidence suggests an even more alarming dimension to China’s campaign. China’s treatment of the Uyghur people raises serious concerns under the Genocide Convention. Article II(d) defines genocide to include “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”[30] Researchers have documented that Chinese authorities disproportionately target Uyghur women with sterilization procedures and other coercive birth control measures, suggesting a deliberate policy of population suppression.[31] National population growth in the largest Uyghur regions declined by 84% between 2015 and 2018, and one region set a near-zero birth rate target (1.05 per mile) for 2020, down from 19.66 per mile just two years before.[32] In order for these acts to amount to genocide, proof of specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part is necessary, which is a high bar under international law.[33] Traditionally, courts have required either explicit statements of intent or clear evidence that state actions are designed to bring about the physical or biological destruction of the group.[34] International courts have emphasized that genocidal intent must be proven through “fully conclusive” evidence, often including documents expressly articulating the goal of destroying a protected group.[35]
Despite this high bar, several countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and the Netherlands, have accused China of committing genocide.[36] In doing so, these countries rely on a diverse body of evidence, including internal Chinese policies, statistical data on labor and births, and witness testimony.[37] These findings underscore both the gravity of China’s actions and the difficulty of enforcing genocide prohibitions against a powerful state.
Beyond arbitrary detention and cultural repression, economic exploitation adds another layer to these abuses and further illustrates the gap between established human rights principles and the difficulty of enforcing them against powerful states. Forced labor in Xinjiang’s cotton and textile industries represents yet another violation of international obligations.[38] Reports indicate that Uyghurs are compelled to work under coercive conditions in cotton fields, spinning mills, and garment factories.[39] Many are transferred directly from “re-education centers” into factory jobs under state-mandated labor programs; refusal to participate can lead to renewed detention or punishment.[40] Article 8 of the ICCPR prohibits slavery and servitude, while the International Labor Organization’s Forced Labor Conventions (No. 29 and No. 105), both ratified by China, explicitly ban compulsory labor.[41] In response to these abuses, the United States enacted the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which prohibits the import of goods produced through forced labor in Xinjiang.[42] This measure demonstrates how trade and economic leverage can serve as indirect mechanisms to enforce compliance with international human rights norms when direct accountability is unavailable.[43]
Beyond forced labor, China’s extensive surveillance system in Xinjiang presents further violations.[44] Authorities have deployed facial recognition cameras, biometric data collection, and phone-tracking technologies to continuously monitor Uyghur communities.[45] Human Rights Watch reports that Xinjiang’s surveillance uses algorithms to flag Uyghurs for questioning or detention based on ordinary activities, such as attending religious services, using certain phone apps, or communicating with family members abroad.[46] Such surveillance practices violate rights to privacy, freedom of movement, and freedom of religion guaranteed under instruments such as the ICCPR and CERD.[47]
Finally, China’s campaign to erase Uyghur cultural and religious identity directly contravenes its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which China ratified in 1981.[48] CERD requires states to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination and guarantee equality in the enjoyment of civil, political, and cultural rights.[49] The destruction of mosques, suppression of Uyghur language, and prohibition of religious practices all constitute clear violations of China’s obligations under CERD.[50]
Taken together, these abuses reveal the gap between international law in principle and enforcement in practice. Although established treaties prohibit torture, forced labor, and genocide, the international community still lacks effective mechanisms to hold powerful states like China accountable.
B. Possible Remedies
Holding China accountable for the abuses occurring in Xinjiang presents legal and political challenges. China is not a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC), meaning the ICC cannot independently investigate or prosecute Chinese officials for genocide, torture, or other crimes against humanity unless the UN Security Council refers the situation.[51] [52] However, because China holds veto power on the Council, such a referral is highly unlikely.[53]
Despite these barriers, several alternative mechanisms can still promote accountability. One option is universal jurisdiction, which allows national courts to prosecute individuals for grave international crimes—such as torture or crimes against humanity—regardless of where those crimes occurred.[54] For example, Germany successfully prosecuted Syrian officials under universal jurisdiction, and a similar approach could apply if Chinese officials responsible for the abuses in Xinjiang were to travel abroad.[55] If such officials entered a country that recognizes universal jurisdiction, prosecutors could open investigations or issue arrest warrants based on evidence of international crimes gathered by non-governmental organizations, survivor testimony, or UN reports.[56] Although difficult in reality, these cases can serve as powerful symbols of international condemnation and create tangible legal risks for perpetrators.
The most effective tools to date have been trade and economic measures.[57] As mentioned earlier, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States bans products tied to forced labor in Xinjiang from entering U.S. markets.[58] While these measures do not directly punish the Chinese government, they restrict the ability of corporations to profit from forced labor.[59] Other states are following suit: the European Union is developing regulations to ban all goods produced through forced labor from its markets.[60]
Human Rights Watch has proposed additional remedies to strengthen accountability. These include establishing a U.N. commission of inquiry to investigate abuses, identify responsible officials, and propose reparations for victims.[61] Governments are also urged to coordinate the use of targeted sanctions, such as travel bans and asset freezes, to pressure those responsible.[62] Further, strengthening corporate accountability could reduce complicity in forced labor, for example through mandatory human rights due diligence and supply-chain transparency laws requiring companies to investigate and address forced-labor risks.[63] States also have a humanitarian duty to protect those fleeing persecution in Xinjiang by ensuring fair asylum procedures and preventing the forced return of refugees to China.[64]
Taken together, these possible strategies suggest a multi-faceted approach to accountability; one that combines legal enforcement, economic leverage, and humanitarian protection to fulfill the international community’s obligation to defend a population facing repression.
IV. Conclusion
The mass detention, forced labor, and cultural repression of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang expose the weaknesses of the international legal system. While international law clearly prohibits genocide, torture, and forced labor, enforcing these norms against powerful states like China remains a major challenge due to political influence and the limited reach of existing enforcement mechanisms. Expanding universal jurisdiction, strengthening human rights monitoring, and leveraging trade laws and economic pressure may represent the most realistic paths forward to hold China accountable and deter future violations. If the international community fails to respond to the systematic persecution of the Uyghurs, it risks signaling that power, not principle, governs the scope of human rights protections in the twenty-first century.
[1] Lindsay Maizland, China’s Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Council on Foreign Rel. (Oct. 3, 2025), https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-xinjiang-uyghurs-muslims-repression-genocide-human-rights [https://perma.cc/C4YL-LLNH].
[2] Who are the Uyghurs and why is China being accused of genocide?, BBC News (Sep. 23, 2021), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037 [https://perma.cc/A3ED-5K8A] [hereinafter Who are the Uyghurs].
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] “Break Their Lineage, Break Their Roots”: China’s Crimes against Humanity Targeting Uyghurs and Other Turkic Muslims, Hum. Rts. Watch (Apr. 19, 2021), https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/19/break-their-lineage-break-their-roots/chinas-crimes-against-humanity-targeting [https://perma.cc/VP6G-XUES] [hereinafter Break Their Lineage].
[6] Id.
[7] Norwegian Uyghur Committee, Uyghur Human Rights Project & World Uyghur Congress, Submission to the United Nations General Assembly on Eliminating Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief and the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16), 2 (June 1, 2020), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Religion/Submissions/CSOs/53.nuc-uhrp-wuc.pdf [https://perma.cc/9536-RXMJ].
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Break Their Lineage, supra note 5.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Adrian Zense, Sterilizations, IUDs, and Mandatory Birth Control: The CCP’s Campaign to Suppress Uyghur Birthrates in Xinjiang, The Jamestown Foundation 1, 2 (June 2020), https://jamestown.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Zenz-Internment-Sterilizations-and-IUDs-REVISED-March-17-2021.pdf [https://perma.cc/8WGF-3XMX]; Who are the Uyghurs, supra note 2.
[15] Maizland, supra note 1.
[16] G.A. Res. 39/46, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/46 (Dec. 10, 1984); G.A. Res. 260 A (III), Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, U.N. Doc. A/RES/260 A (Dec. 9, 1948); G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2200A (Dec. 16, 1966).
[17] Who are the Uyghurs, supra note 2.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] China’s Weak Excuse to Block Investigations in Xinjiang, Hum. Rts. Watch (Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/03/25/chinas-weak-excuse-block-investigations-xinjiang [https://perma.cc/36PS-AGCC].
[21] G.A. Res. 39/46; G.A. Res. 260 A (III); G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), supra note 16.
[22] Id.
[23] G.A. Res. 39/46, supra note 16.
[24] Id.
[25] Break Their Lineage, supra note 5.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Bret I. Parker, Letter to Chinese State Leadership Regarding Human Rights Violations Against Muslim and Turkic Peoples in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, N.Y.C. Bar Ass’n (Aug. 28, 2020), https://www.nycbar.org/reports/letter-to-chinese-state-leadership-regarding-human-rights-violations-against-muslim-and-turkic-peoples-in-the-xinjiang-uyghur-autonomous-region/ [https://perma.cc/TM58-Q6WR].
[29] Devastating Blows: Religious Repression of Uyghur in Xinjiang, Hum. Rts. Watch (Apr. 11, 2005), https://www.hrw.org/report/2005/04/11/devastating-blows/religious-repression-uighurs-xinjiang [https://perma.cc/UK7U-LUAH].
[30] G.A. Res. 260 A (III), supra note 16.
[31] Zense, supra note 14.
[32] Id.
[33] Definitions of Genocide and Related Crimes, U.N. Off. on Genocide Prevention and the Resp. to Protect, https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition [https://perma.cc/VQ25-BYY3] (last visited Nov. 5, 2025).
[34] Julian Borger, Question of intent makes genocide hardest crime to prove, The Guardian (Dec. 19, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/dec/19/question-of-intent-makes-genocide-hardest-to-prove [https://perma.cc/RW66-47B7].
[35] Id.
[36] Who are the Uyghurs, supra note 2.
[37] Dr. Azeem Ibrahim, The Uyghur Genocide: An Examination of China’s Breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention, New Lines Inst. for Strategy and Pol’y 1, 10 (Mar. 2021), https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Chinas-Breaches-of-the-GC3-2.pdf [https://perma.cc/4G49-85FT].
[38] Who are the Uyghurs, supra note 2.
[39] Break Their Lineage, supra note 5.
[40] Vicky Xiuzhong Xu, Danielle Cave, Dr. James Leibold et al., Uyghurs for sale, Austrian Strategic Pol’y Inst. (Mar. 1, 2020), https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale/ [https://perma.cc/F6AD-B3Y6].
[41] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 8, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, S. Treaty Doc. 95-20, 6 I.L.M. 368 (1967) [hereinafter ICCPR]; Int’l Labour Org., Forced Labour Convention (No. 29) (June 28, 1930), https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/forced-labour-convention-1930-no-29 [https://perma.cc/H9CE-WLKZ].
[42] Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, H.R. 1155, 117th Cong. (2021) (enacted Dec. 23, 2021).
[43] Dr. Sofia Gonzalez De Aguinaga, Forced Labour Import Bans in 2025: A Global Review of Policies and Enforcement, Mod. Slavery Pol’y & Evidence Ctr. (Feb. 2025), https://www.modernslaverypec.org/resources/forced-labour-import-bans-2025 [https://perma.cc/C6XF-WVPU].
[44] Maya Wang, China’s Algorithms of Repression: Reverse Engineering a Xinjiang Police Mass Surveillance App, Hum. Rts. Watch (May 1, 2019), https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/05/01/chinas-algorithms-repression/reverse-engineering-xinjiang-police-mass [https://perma.cc/TR5E-AZ4H].
[45] Id.
[46] Id.
[47]ICCPR, supra note 41; General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX), International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2106 (Feb. 21, 1965) [hereinafter ICERD].
[48] Id.
[49] ICERD, supra note 47.
[50] Break Their Lineage, supra note 5.
[51] How the Court works, Int’l Crim. Ct., https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works [https://perma.cc/VH4B-FQX4] (last visited Nov. 5, 2025); Fact sheet: China and the International Criminal Court, Amnesty Int’l, 2 (July 2007), https://www.amnesty.org/ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/asa170232007en.pdf [https://perma.cc/7EWL-8XCJ].
[52] The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent tribunal established in 2002 under the Rome Statute to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. The court is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems and therefore only prosecutes cases when States are unwilling or unable to do so. How the Court Works, supra note 51.
[53] Break Their Lineage, supra note 5.
[54] Universal Jurisdiction, Ctr. for Glob. Just., Ne. Univ. Sch. of L., https://cglj.org/human-rights-oversight/national-systems/domestic-exercise-of-universal-jurisdiction/ [https://perma.cc/ADJ8-2X5A] (last visited Nov. 5, 2025).
[55] Madeline Chambers, German police arrest Syrian man suspected of crimes against humanity, Reuters (Sep. 30, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/german-police-arrest-syrian-man-suspected-crimes-against-humanity-2025-09-30/ [https://perma.cc/YE4V-BH2W].
[56] Id.
[57] Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, supra note 42.
[58] Id.
[59] Id.
[60] European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Prohibiting Products Made with Forced Labour on the Union Market, EUR-Lex (Sep. 14, 2022), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0453 [https://perma.cc/B85L-WRNN].
[61] Break Their Lineage, supra note 5, at 49.
[62] Id.
[63] Id. at 51.
[64] Id. at 52.
