Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - China (Ratification: 2022)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

The Committee notes the report of the Government providing a detailed overview of the laws and regulations aimed at giving effect to the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Criminal Law. The Committee recalls that the underlying rationale of Article 1(a) of the Convention is to protect persons who, in the exercise of freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or other related civil liberties, express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, by establishing that they cannot be punished by sanctions involving an obligation to work. Situations where the expression of views opposed to the established system take place through specific acts of recourse to violence or incitement to violence fall outside the scope of the protection granted by the Convention.

The Committee notes that both the Prison Law of 1994 (Article 69) and the Criminal Law (Articles 39 (public surveillance), 43 (criminal detention) and 45 (fixed-term imprisonment)) make certain activities punishable by sentences involving an obligation to perform labour in circumstances which are covered by the Convention. The offences stipulated in the Criminal Law are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to an interpretation and application that could be incompatible with the Convention. The provisions as well as the laws connected to them are as follows:

• Article 105 addressing "incitement to subvert state power" and "overthrowing the socialist system";
• Article 111 addressing "espionage";
• Article 293 addressing "picking quarrels and provoking trouble";
• Article 246 addressing defamation (“openly insulting others or fabricating facts to slander others by violence or other means”);
• Article 296 addressing unlawful assembly, procession, or demonstration;
• Article 299 addressing “insulting the national flag, national emblem, or national anthem”;
• The Law on Assemblies, Processions, and Demonstrations (1989) imposes strict regulations on public gatherings, requiring prior approval from authorities and allowing for broad discretion in denying permits, while the Regulations on Assemblies, Processions, and Demonstrations (1998) grant broad discretion to public security authorities to deny permits for assemblies, processions, and demonstrations based on broad criteria such as "endangering public security" or "seriously undermining public order", imposing criminal and administrative penalties including imprisonment;
• The Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Heroes and Martyrs (2018) addressing “defamation and insult to heroes and martyrs”, and imposing criminal penalties including imprisonment;
• The Cybersecurity Law (2017), requiring persons using digital networks to “observe public order, and respect social morality; they must not endanger cybersecurity, and must not use the Internet to engage in activities endangering national security, national honour, and national interests; they must not incite subversion of national sovereignty, overturn the socialist system, incite separatism, break national unity, advocate terrorism or extremism, advocate ethnic hatred and ethnic discrimination, disseminate violent, obscene, or sexual information, create or disseminate false information to disrupt the economic or social order, or information that infringes on the reputation, privacy, intellectual property or other lawful rights and interests of others, and other such acts”, and rendering violations punishable in accordance with relevant law and administrative regulation (Article 70).

The Committee recalls that limitations may be imposed by law on the right to freedom of expression which must be accepted as normal safeguards against their abuse (for example the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others or meeting the just requirements of public order). However, these limitations must meet strict standards of scrutiny regarding their justification and scope. Moreover, the offences established in the legislation for that purpose should not be defined in such wide or general terms or applied by the judiciary in a way that they will lead to the imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for the expression of political or ideological views (see General Survey of 2012 on the Fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 302–304). The Committee recalls that, with a view to bringing the legislation into harmony with the Convention, measures can be taken either to redefine the punishable offences in order to ensure that no one can be punished for having expressed political opinions or indicated their ideological opposition to the established political, social or economic system, or by according a special status to prisoners convicted of certain offences, under which they are free from the obligation to perform compulsory prison labour, although they retain the right to work upon request. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to review the wording of the relevant articles in the Criminal Law and other laws relevant to the respect of civil liberties to ensure that both in law and practice they cannot be used to punish persons who peacefully express political views or views opposed to the established system, including opposition members and human rights defenders, with penal sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour.The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the relevant articles in the Criminal Law and other laws relevant to the respect of civil liberties (including examples of sentences and information on the facts that gave rise to the convictions and the sanctions imposed) in order for the Committee to better assess their scope and the manner in which they are applied in practice.

2. Martial Law. The Committee notes Article 13 of the Martial Law (1996) under the terms of which during the period of martial law, the authorities may prohibit or restrict assemblies, processions, demonstrations, and public speech as well as strikes, market strikes, and class strikes.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions or measures relevant to ensuring that recourse to restrictions of civil liberties under martial law are occasioned only by circumstances of extreme gravity constituting an emergency in the strict sense of the term, and that restrictions relevant to Article 1(a) are limited in time and scope to what is strictly required to meet the specific emergency situation.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Compulsory labour as a means of political coercion or education. Criminal Code. Vocational Education Law. The Committee notes that the Vocational Education Law (revised in 2022) requires core socialist values to be advocated and ideological and political education to be provided in the course of vocational education (Article 4). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any work performance required in the modules providing ideological and political education in the course of vocational education.

Article 1(b) of the Convention. Mobilization of rural workers for rural development projects. The Committee notes the State Council Regulations on the Administration of Farmers’ Expenses and Labour Services (1991) which governs the mobilization and utilization of rural labour for various forms of rural development projects. The Committee understands from the Opinions on Actively Promoting the Cash-for-Work Method in the Field of Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Construction Development and Reform and Revitalization (2020) that local authorities may mobilize rural workers for the development of infrastructure improving rural housing, transport, tourism and water conservancy in return for reasonable cash compensation while the conditions of recruitment for such work remain unspecified. The Committee requests the Government to indicate if the Regulations are still in force; if so, if they provide a legal basis for national or local authorities to mobilize farmers for purposes of economic development or for organizing minor communal services; and to provide any relevant provincial or local regulations on this matter.

Article 1(d) of the Convention. Compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In examining the conformity of the national legislation with Article 1(d) of the Convention, the Committee undertakes a review of labour as well as criminal legislation to determine whether participation in strikes regardless of their legality is punishable by sanctions involving compulsory labour. In this regard, the Committee has requested governments to review legal provisions which expressly prohibit organization and participation in strikes when that prohibition is enforced with sanctions involving compulsory labour. Situations where participation in strikes implies recourse or incitement to violence fall outside the scope of the Convention. The Convention does not regulate strikes, as such, and applies solely to the exaction of compulsory labour, including prison labour, community work or correctional work, imposed as a sanction for having organized or participated in strikes.

In this regard, the Committee understands that while the “freedom of strike” was removed from the Constitution of China in 1982, there is no legal prohibition of workers taking strike action. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has expressed concern at the absence of legal recognition of the right to strike (E/C.12/CHN/CO/3). The legal uncertainty raises questions in respect of the extent to which broadly worded provisions in the Criminal Law might be used to punish workers if their peaceful strike actions are considered to disturb public order. These provisions include:

• Article 276 addressing the crime of "sabotage of production or business operations";
• Article 290 addressing the crime of "assembling a crowd to disrupt order in a public place or traffic order";
• Article 291 addressing the crime of "gathering a crowd to disturb order at a public place";
• Article 293 addressing the crime of "picking quarrels and provoking trouble".

The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure, both in law and in practice, that no sanction involving compulsory labour can be imposed for the peaceful participation in strikes. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the relevant sections of the Criminal Law and on relevant court decisions, specifying the criminal or administrative penalties applied.

Article 1(e) of the Convention. Forced or compulsory labour as a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination. The Committee notes the extensive legal framework laid out in the Government’s report aimed at ensuring that Chinese citizens of all ethnic groups enjoy equal rights and freedom of religious belief; that Chinese citizens are equal before the law; and that Chinese workers have the right to equal employment without discrimination. It notes the Government’s statement that no forced labour within the scope of Article 1(e) of the Convention exists. The Committee requests the Government to indicate if the legal protections against forced labour are equally and readily available to regular and irregular migrant workers who do not have Chinese citizenship.

The Committee notes the adoption in 2015 of the Counter-Terrorism Law and Amendment IX to Article 120 of the Criminal Law, thereby introducing crimes such as preparing for terrorist activities, advocating terrorism and extremism, inciting terrorism, and using extremism to undermine law enforcement. These laws, when read in conjunction, render acts of terrorism punishable with compulsory labour and, in situations where acts do not give rise to criminal liability, various forms of administrative detention involving compulsory labour (see the Committee’s present direct request on Convention No. 29). The overly broadly worded and ill-defined references in these laws to terrorism and the discriminatory indicators of extremism in the Xinjiang Regulation on Deradicalization (XRD) can be used to criminalize and make punishable with compulsory labour a wide range of activities, including peaceful religious practices and expressions of dissent while justifying extensive surveillance, political education in detention and programmes for the involuntary labour transfer of ethnic and religious minorities within and outside Xinjiang.

The Committee further recalls that Article 1(e) of the Convention requires the abolition of any discriminatory distinctions made on racial (including ethnic), social, national or religious grounds in exacting labour for the purpose of production or service. Thus, whenever forced or compulsory labour is imposed particularly or more severely to certain groups defined in racial, social, national or religious terms, all such situations fall within the scope of the Convention regardless of their intent, including as to whether the objective of the obligation to work is delivering criminal justice, countering terrorism or mobilising labour for purposes of economic development. It should be kept in mind, however, that the Convention does not deal with the substance of the problem of discrimination on the above grounds as its purpose is limited to the suppression of forced or compulsory labour as a means of discrimination.

In this regard, the Committee refers to its previous comments, the conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in respect of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) by China, its present comments in respect of the free choice of employment in accordance with the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122) as well as the present ITUC allegations in respect of forced labour of ethnic and religious minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (Xinjiang) and the Tibet Autonomous Region (Tibet) in its present observation on Convention No. 29. In its comments on Convention No. 111, the Committee had expressed deep concern deep concern in respect of the serious allegations of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities in the XUAR, based on policy directions expressed in numerous national and regional policy and regulatory documents. It had noted the extensive digital and personal surveillance apparatus in Xinjiang and the regulatory potential for administrative detention of suspected extremists, whether for the purpose of re-education or correction of minor offences that do not constitute a crime. It had also noted the broadly worded definition of extremism in the XRD, supported by indicators (“primary expressions of radicalization”) that might otherwise be construed as matters of personal choice and legitimate religious practice.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged, both in law and in practice, to amend national and regional regulatory provisions with a view to reorienting its counter-terrorism and deradicalization policy based on ethnic and religious stereotypes and ideological education and to ensure that compulsory labour in any of its forms is not used as a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2025 .]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

The Committee welcomes the timely first report presented by the Government and the detailed information on its legal and regulatory framework relevant to the abolition of forced labour in the circumstances envisaged in the Convention.

The Committee recalls its consistent practice of requesting governments to review legal provisions which enforce the prohibition of the expression of views or opposition to the established political, social or economic system not involving incitement to violence, civil strife or racial hatred, by means of forced or compulsory labour, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative or judicial decision. It has particularly done so in respect of legal provisions aimed at establishing legitimate restrictions to the right to freedom of expression or assembly, but which are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to an interpretation and application that could be incompatible with the Convention. This is the case of provisions aimed at protecting public order by prohibiting the publication and dissemination of “fake news” or information that is “likely” to prejudice national interests or disturb the constitutional order, as well as provisions prohibiting acts of subversion or engagement in agitation or propaganda with a view to “weakening” the authority of the State. In these cases, the Committee requests the Governments concerned to review the wording of the provisions to limit their scope to effective and concrete threats to public order, or the use or threatened use of violence (see the Committee’s general observation of 2023 on the Convention).

The Committee further notes that the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 2023 expressed its concern about reports that human rights defenders and lawyers working on human rights issues are systematically subjected to prosecution, reprisals and intimidation for their legitimate activities, including by being arbitrarily sentenced to long terms in prison or house arrest, tortured and subjected to enforced disappearance, and recommended that the Government refrain from persecuting and prosecuting human rights defenders and lawyers working on human rights issues for broadly defined offences (E/C.12/CHN/CO/3, paragraphs 15 and 16).

In this regard, the Committee notes the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 18 September 2024, drawing attention to the recent convictions of labour activists and human rights defenders for the crime of subversion of state power in accordance with article 105(2) of the Criminal Law of China. According to the ITUC, on 14 June 2024, Mr Wang Jianbing (王建兵) was convicted by the Intermediate Court of Guangzhou Municipality and sentenced to imprisonment to three years and six months on charges of overseas anti-China networking, posting false statements on social media to slander the government and the socio-political system in China, and organizing private gatherings to discuss social topics in China. Ms Huang Xueqin (黃雪琴), a women’s rights activist, was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Both activists have appealed their sentences and remain in detention at Guangzhou No. 1 Detention Center, in the case of Mr Wang allegedly without access to adequate medical treatment. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in reply to these observations from the ITUC.

The Committee is raising further questions in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2025.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee requests the Government to communicate a detailed report on the application of the Convention in accordance with the report form approved by the Governing Body. Please supply information in particular about the present merchant shipping legislation applicable to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, bearing in mind the provisions of Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.