How well is Fiji respecting people's human rights?
Use the tabs below to explore the scores.
Economic and Social Rights
(2023)
Summary score
82.0%
How well is Fiji doing compared to what is possible at its level of income?
Right to
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Summary score
80.1%
How well is Fiji doing compared to the best in the world?
Right to
0
% of global best benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Civil and Political Rights
(2025)
Summary score
8.7
How well is Fiji's government respecting each right?
Right to freedom from
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Civil and Political Rights
(2025)
Summary score
5.9
How well is Fiji's government respecting each right?
Right to
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Fiji scores 82.0% on Quality of Life when scored against the 'Income adjusted' benchmark.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Fiji is performing close to average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
Fiji scores 80.1% on Quality of Life when scored against the 'Global best' benchmark.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Fiji is performing close to average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Global best' benchmark).
Fiji's Safety from the State score of 8.7 out of 10 suggests that while most people are safe from government abuse, some may have experienced one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance or extrajudicial killing.
For civil and political rights, we don't have sufficient data across Pacific countries to allow for a regional comparison. However, when compared to the other countries in our sample, Fiji is performing better than average on the right to be safe from the state.
Fiji's Empowerment score of 5.9 out of 10 suggests that many people are not enjoying their civil liberties and political freedoms (freedom of speech, assembly and association, and democratic rights, and religion and belief).
For civil and political rights, we don't have sufficient data across Pacific countries to allow for a regional comparison. However, when compared to the other countries in our sample, Fiji is performing close to average on empowerment rights.
(2023)
How well is Fiji doing compared to what is possible at its level of income?
Summary score
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
How well is Fiji doing compared to the best in the world?
Summary score
0
% of global best benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Income adjusted benchmark
Global best benchmark
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Quality of Life rights (or 'economic and social rights') include the rights to food, health, education, housing, and work. HRMI gives two scores, measuring against two different benchmarks.
Fiji scores 82.0% on Quality of Life when scored against the 'Income adjusted' benchmark. This score takes into account Fiji's resources and how well it is using them to make sure its people's Quality of Life rights are fulfilled.
This score tells us that Fiji is only doing 82.0% of what should be possible right now with the resources it has. Since anything less than 100% indicates that a country is not meeting its current duty under international human rights law, our assessment is that Fiji has a long way to go to meet its immediate economic and social rights duty.
When measured against the Global best benchmark, comparing Fiji to the best performing countries in the world, Fiji's score is 80.1%, indicating that it has a long way to go to meet current Global best standards for ensuring all people have adequate food, education, healthcare, housing and work.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Fiji is performing close to average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, Fiji is performing close to average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Global best' benchmark).
See more detail on how Fiji performs on the
?Right to
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
How does Fiji perform by sex for
?By sex
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
To see how Fiji's performance by sex has changed over time for a specific indicator, use the Over time graph below and select the indicator from the menu.
How does Fiji perform over time for
using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark and 'Low and middle income' assessment standard?Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
(2025)
Which people in Fiji were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their
violated?Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
When asked to provide more context about who was particularly unlikely to enjoy their right to education in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
People who are homeless and street children, due to a lack of social welfare
People with low social or economic status, particularly Indigenous peoples, due to high educational costs
(2025)
How well is Fiji's government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom from
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Fiji's Safety from the State score of 8.7 out of 10 suggests that while most people are safe from government abuse, some may have experienced one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance or extrajudicial killing.
For civil and political rights, we don't have sufficient data across Pacific countries to allow for a regional comparison. However, when compared to the other countries in our sample, Fiji is performing better than average on the right to be safe from the state.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
(2025)
Which people in Fiji were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their Safety from the State violated?
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Right to freedom from arbitrary arrest
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to arbitrary or political arrest and detention by government agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
Senior politicians, especially members of the previous government
People suspected of being involved in drug dealing
People who criticise the government or public institutions
Journalists, particularly those that report on issues about public order or those deemed ‘politically sensitive’
People suspected of being affiliated with gangs involved in the drug crisis
Indigenous landowners protesting a proposed hydro dam project on their land
Right to freedom from forced disappearance
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to disappearance by government agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
Right to freedom from extrajudicial execution
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to extrajudicial killing by government agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
Right to freedom from torture and ill-treatment
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to torture and ill-treatment by government agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
Detainees, particularly men and boys, are subject to punishment by police officers during detention
Indigenous peoples, especially men and young Indo-Fijians
People living in squatter settlements
(2025)
How well is Fiji's government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Fiji's Empowerment score of 5.9 out of 10 suggests that many people are not enjoying their civil liberties and political freedoms (freedom of speech, assembly and association, and democratic rights, and religion and belief).
For civil and political rights, we don't have sufficient data across Pacific countries to allow for a regional comparison. However, when compared to the other countries in our sample, Fiji is performing close to average on empowerment rights.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
(2025)
Which people in Fiji were identified by human rights experts to be particularly at risk of having their Empowerment violated?
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
Right to assembly and association
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to restrictions on their rights to assembly and association by the government or its agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
Members of the previous ruling party, particularly those who have been prosecuted
Members of trade unions, especially those representing public-sector workers
Environmental activists, due to the government regularly denying permits for protests without adequate reasoning
Right to opinion and expression
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to restrictions on their rights to opinion and expression by government agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
Protesters that advocate about the Israel-Palestine conflict
People from the previous ruling party, particularly those who have been prosecuted
Women who work in the media, due to harassment and online abuse
People expressing views on governance, gender, sexuality, or public accountability, due to fear of retaliation, pressure, or abuse
Right to participate in government
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to restrictions on their political participation by the government or its agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
People with criminal records
Supporters of political opposition parties, particularly small or new political grouping
Right to freedom of religion and belief
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to restrictions on their freedom of religion and belief by the government or its agents in 2025, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
We asked human rights experts to choose from a list of options for which people were particularly at risk of having this right violated. The images below show their answers.
Highlight
in the word clouds below.People at risk for
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
(2025)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2026 rightstracker.org
On this tab you can find data collected only in Pacific countries, on five themes.
Jump to:
(2025)
How much has the climate crisis worsened human rights conditions in Fiji?
4.7
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Greatly (5)
Extremely (6)
When asked to provide more context about how the climate crisis has worsened rights conditions in 2025, respondents mentioned the following:
The climate crisis exacerbates existing vulnerabilities, especially for women and girls, members of the LGBTQIA+ community, and people with disabilities
The climate crisis leads to environmental destruction and displacement, including loss of property
Displacement caused by the climate crisis impacts access to education, food, water, health, housing, and income, leading to increased poverty and crime
People are displaced from their ancestral lands due to the climate crisis, and risk losing their family properties and the ability to pass down the land and its heritage to future generations
Relocation due to the climate crisis has led to overcrowding in settlements
Communities affected by the climate crisis face difficulties participating in government, particularly Indigenous peoples, especially in relation to disaster management, environmental policies, and relocation efforts
Violence against women and girls is exacerbated in areas affected by the climate crisis, extreme weather events, and disruptions to crucial health and justice services
The climate crisis exacerbates discrimination against minority groups, particularly members of the LGBTQIA+ community, religious groups, and migrant workers
Cyclone damage destroyed schools, interrupting children's right to education, particularly in rural and coastal communities
Flooding has increased in communities near rivers, streams, and coastal areas
(2025)
To what extent are Indigenous and/or native communities in Fiji able to exercise self-determination?
4.1
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Highly (5)
Completely (6)
When asked to provide more context about Indigenous self-determination in 2025, respondents mentioned the following:
Women and girls lack access to decision-making and governance, due to a lack of significant consultation and chiefs and village counsels mainly being men
Indigenous communities face pressures to adapt to National Development Plans and government objectives, including resource exploitation, without meaningful consultation or benefit
There is significant criticism and disagreement of the iTaukei Land Trust Board’s management of Fijian land, including by Indigenous peoples and landowners
Indigenous peoples who live in rural or coastal communities are under-resourced, making it difficult to support their self-determination
(2025)
To what extent do Indigenous and/or native communities in Fiji have possession and enjoyment of their traditional lands?
4.0
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Highly (5)
Completely (6)
When asked to provide more context about Indigenous land rights in 2025, respondents mentioned the following:
There is significant criticism and disagreement of the iTaukei Land Trust Board’s management of Fijian land, including by Indigenous peoples and landowners
People are displaced from their ancestral lands due to the climate crisis, and risk losing their family properties and the ability to pass the land and its heritage down to future generations
Native land is protected by the government, but many landowners don’t have access to the land to use it and end up selling it to overseas investors
There is a lack of meaningful community participation in decision-making about lands and resources, which are largely made by village heads
Women and girls lack access to decision-making and governance, due to a lack of significant consultation and chiefs and village counsels mainly being men
Development projects encroach on land rights and cause conflicts, including projects in the public and private sectors
(2025)
To what extent do people in Fiji enjoy their cultural rights?
4.7
Not at All (1)
Slightly (2)
Somewhat (3)
Moderately (4)
Highly (5)
Completely (6)
When asked to provide more context about the extent to which communities can practise their cultural rights in 2025, respondents mentioned the following:
Indigenous peoples can freely practice their cultures and traditions, with strong institutions set up to protect culture and language
English continues to be the primary language in use, especially in schools and in the media, as opposed to Indigenous languages - There is increasing recognition that Indigenous Fijian languages and the Rotuman language are endangered
People are displaced from their ancestral lands due to the climate crisis, and risk losing their properties and the ability to pass the land and its heritage down to future generations
There is a lack of teaching Indigenous knowledge systems in education curriculums, due to a lack of meaningful consultation of local communities in education decisions
Traditions are exploited or appropriated, especially in performance arts, including songs and dances, and imagery, including Indigenous emblems or icons
Indigenous Fijian music is being exploited, especially by outsiders using AI to repackage the music and profit from it
Modernisation, development, and urbanisation lead to loss of cultural identity
Members of all races have freedom to exercise their cultural rights and traditional norms
(2025)
To what extent are people in Fiji free from violence in the community?
Violence against
0
Score
10
Less safe
More safe
When asked to provide more context about violence against children in 2025, respondents mentioned the following:
Child abuse is common, including violent discipline, neglect, and physical and sexual abuse, sometimes resulting in death
Violence against children is often perpetrated by relatives
Girls and children under the age of 12 are especially likely to be victims of violence
Drug use plays a significant role in violence against children
Children who are left alone at home are especially at risk
Local religious and educational leaders are advocating to bring corporal punishment back, which is currently outlawed under the 2013 Constitution
There has been an increase in missing children and inadequate investigation by the government
There are cases of sexual violence perpetrated by children against younger children
When asked to provide more context about violence against people with disabilities in 2025, respondents mentioned the following:
Violence against people with disabilities remains very under-reported in the country
People with disabilities are especially at risk of violence from their caregivers, including verbal abuse and physical violence
People with disabilities face difficulties seeking help due to a lack of education and resourcing for disability access and services
People with disabilities are often verbally abused, sometimes leading to physical violence
People with disabilities face intersecting discrimination of disability and poverty, which creates significant barriers to reporting violence, especially for women
Women and girls with disabilities are especially at risk of violence, including from caregivers, due to often being isolated or dependent
When asked to provide more context about violence against MVPFAFF+ and LGBTQIA+ people in 2025, respondents mentioned the following:
Members of the MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ community continue to experience harassment and violence in their communities, homes, at school, at work and in their intimate relationships
Discrimination and violence occur in both rural and urban areas
There is a lack of state intervention to counter violence against the MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ community, including regarding online hate speech
There are reports of members of the MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ community being murdered, such as Leli Darling, a prominent Fijian transgender doctor and social media influencer
There has been an increase in the weaponisation of religion to justify violence against members of the MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ community
Victims are afraid to report violence due to family pressure or fear of backlash
Intimate partner violence occurs in MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ relationships
When asked to provide more context about violence against women in 2025, respondents mentioned the following:
Majority of women and girls have experienced violence, including physical and sexual violence
Violence includes rape, incest, and intimate partner violence
Violence against women and girls occurs at home, in workplaces, and on public transport
Women still do not speak out due to concerns over family reputation and lack of safe reporting options
A large majority of victims are girls, and a significant portion of cases involve a ‘trusted individual’
Violence has increased due to prevalent drug use
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which China has signed, all countries commit to using the maximum of their available resources to progressively improve rights for their people in these areas.
HRMI has calculated what China could be achieving at its current level of income. The scores are given as a percentage of that realistic potential achievement. China’s best score is for the right to work, where its score of 99.2% means it is doing 99.2% of what it possibly can, given its current level of income.
China also has good scores for the right to health (97.8%), and the right to food (96.5%). For these rights, China is doing nearly as well as it possibly can, given its income. Its right to housing score of 94.6% is at the top of HRMI’s ‘fair’ range.
One of China’s lowest scores is for the right to quality education, where it scores 66.2%, which falls in the ‘very bad’ range. Among 6 East Asian countries and territories with data, this score puts China at the bottom for quality education, just below Mongolia.
Score
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
The right to housing includes scores for the right to sanitation and the right to water.
With a GDP per capita of US$12,951 in 2023, China has the resources to ensure all its people have running water and toilets in their homes.
However, China’s right to sanitation score of 94.9% shows that it could afford to do better. If China efficiently used its available resources, it could achieve a score of 100%, which would mean that 39.2 million more people could have access to basic sanitation.
When it comes to the higher standard of safely managed sanitation, China’s score of 73.6% means that if China effectively and efficiently used its available resources an additional 350 million people could have access to safe sanitation.
If China improved its performance on the right to water from its current score of 94.3% to 100%, 59.8 million more people would have water on their premises.
The good news is that China’s scores for the right to housing have improved steadily over the past decade. China’s score on the right to basic sanitation increased by 20.5 percentage points and that of the right to water by over 9.2 percentage points. The gains have been even greater for safe sanitation. Here China’s score rose from 50.8% to 73.6%, an increase of nearly 23 percentage points. China’s improvements in income adjusted scores show that country’s policies have become more effective at turning resources into good human rights outcomes.
When it comes to the right to food, if China lifted its current score of 96.5% to 100%, around 1.2 million more children under five years old would have enough nutritious food to grow well – that would mean all children in China under five would have enough nutritious food to grow well. This is an achievable goal.
With a current score of 96.5%, China has improved in respecting people’s right to food over the last 20 years, with its score increasing markedly from 84.1% in 2000.
On the right to work, China has made dramatic progress in eliminating absolute poverty. Its score on ensuring people enjoy at least a subsistence income (that is, income above the absolute poverty line of $4.20 per day, measured in 2021 PPP$), has risen from 37.4% in 2002 to 99.2% in 2022, nearly eliminating absolute poverty.
The bigger challenge China currently faces, however, is eliminating relative poverty. That is, ensuring people enjoy at least half the median income and can therefore enjoy a decent life. China’s score on a fair (relative) income stood at only 37.5% in 2018 (the most recent year with data). Projecting the relative poverty rate forward to 2023, this means that while nearly 1,124 million people have enough money to enjoy decent lives, over 213 million are unnecessarily denied this right.
China comes second in the world in using its available resources to ensure people’s right to health is fulfilled, with a score of 97.8%. This is the right where China is most constrained by resources. An increase in income will be necessary to make significant further improvements.
However, at its current income level, China should already be able to do as well as any country in the world in meeting the rights to food, housing, and work.
While China has room for improvement in all the rights we measure, a further consideration is inequity. There are several groups of people whom experts identified as being at higher risk of missing out. These include:
See the people at risk tab on the Rights Tracker for the full lists. The data also show a strong connection between political activity, especially criticism of the government, and lack of enjoyment of economic and social rights.
China has made outstanding progress in ensuring people enjoy their basic economic and social rights. However, all of China’s Quality of Life scores show that the country could still make significant improvements to its people’s lives by using its existing resources more effectively.
If China were using its resources more efficiently to ensure its people’s wellbeing, it could achieve 100% for all the rights we measure. Yet, while its best score nearly reaches that goal – 99.2% on right to a subsistence income – its worst score using the low and middle income country assessment standard – 66.2% on the right to quality education – is far from that level.
If China better upheld its rights obligations and achieved a full 100% score on all the rights we measure, we would see millions more Chinese people living lives of dignity. For example, if China’s scores reached 100% we would see the following number of extra people benefitting:
If China were to operate at its full potential given its current resources, we would expect an additional nearly 1.2 million children under five to grow well and not be stunted.
If China were operating at best practice, each year we would expect an extra 12,600 newborn baby girls and 13,400 newborn baby boys to survive until their fifth birthday.
If China were to operate at its full potential given its current resources, we would expect 92,300 more newborns to be born at a healthy birth weight.
If China were reaching its full potential, given its income constraints, an extra 159,000 15-year-old girls and 419,000 15-year-old boys could eventually reach the age of at least 60.
If China used its resources efficiently, an additional 39.25 million people could have access to basic sanitation at home, 350 million could have access to safe sanitation at home, and an extra 60 million people could have access to water in their homes.
If China were operating at its full potential given its current resources, it could lift 213 million people out of relative poverty.
China scores 3.1 out of 10 for our overall Safety from the State category, telling us that a great many people are at risk of arbitrary or political arrest or detention, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, execution, or extrajudicial killing. This is one of the lowest scores in our sample of 40 countries.
One of China’s lowest scores in this category is 2.1 out of 10 for freedom from torture and ill-treatment.
The human rights experts we surveyed said that people protesting against or criticising the government, people from ethnic and religious minorities, and people in prisons or being questioned by police were at extra risk of being tortured or ill-treated.
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that human rights advocates, protesters, journalists, and people who criticised the Chinese Communist Party were at particular risk of a wide range of rights violations, especially arbitrary arrest and detention, forced disappearance, and torture and ill-treatment. Respondents particularly noted risks to political dissidents, detainees, and people supporting democracy.
Other vulnerable groups include:
Among other East Asian countries and territories where we measure these rights, China has among the lowest scores for all five Safety from the State rights, generally equal with North Korea.
Summary score
0
Score
10
Summary score
0
Score
10
Summary score
0
Score
10
Summary score
0
Score
10
Summary score
0
Score
10
The Chinese government limits civil liberties and political freedom, with China scoring a very low 2.5 out of 10 in empowerment rights. This is one of the lowest scores in our sample of 39 countries, with only North Korea doing worse.
For the rights to assembly and association, opinion and expression, participation in government, and freedom of religion and belief all of China’s scores fall into the ‘very bad’ range.
When it comes to the right to assembly and association, China scores 2.2 out of 10, and human rights experts identified a wide range of people not enjoying their rights, including human rights advocates, protesters, and people criticising or opposing the government, as well as those from ethnic and religious minorities.
China’s score for the right to opinion and expression is a very low 3.1 out of 10. Respondents highlighted restrictions on political expression. They also noted that online expression is also restricted and reported widespread surveillance and censorship.
China also scores in the ‘very bad’ range for the right to participate in government, with a score of 2.4 out of 10. Respondents noted that pro-democracy supporters, including those in the New Citizens’ Movement, the Southern Street Movement, the China Democracy Party, the White Paper Movement, and independent candidates were not free to participate in government. They also said that people from religious or ethnic minorities could not exercise their democratic rights freely.
For the right to freedom of religion and belief, China scored 2.9. Respondents noted that the government restricts all religious practices, and is particularly repressive towards people following unregistered minority religions such as Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong members, and people who attend house churches.
Groups that are particularly vulnerable to empowerment rights violations include:
Among other East Asian countries and territories where we measure these rights, only North Korea scores worse than China.
Summary score
0
Score
10
Summary score
0
Score
10
Summary score
0
Score
10
Summary score
0
Score
10
The Chinese government engaged in transnational repression in a number of ways in 2025.
Transnational repression is activity that violates the human rights of people outside a government’s own territories.
According to77 human rights expert respondents whose work focuses on China and Hong Kong, in 2025 the Chinese government or its agents targeted people for transnational repression in the following places:
Graph shows how many respondents identified each country.
0
Percentage of respondents
100%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Graph shows how many people were targeted in each country, from ‘none’ to ‘a very large number'.
< Less people
Number of people targeted
More people >
None
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
Very large
Experts also gave the following additional information on specific regions where the Chinese government or its agents engaged in transnational repression in 2025:
According to human rights expert respondents, in 2025 the Chinese government or its agents targeted the following kinds of people for transnational repression:
Graph shows how many respondents identified each group of people.
0
Percentage of respondents
100%
Experts gave the following additional information on some of the groups the Chinese government or its agents targeted for transnational repression in 2025:
According to human rights expert respondents, in 2025 the Chinese government or its agents targeted people for transnational repression in the following ways:
Physical harm, harassment, and coercion
Repatriation and overseas law enforcement activity
Surveillance, digital activity, and suppression of free speech
Population
928.8k (2024)
GDP/capita
$6,426 (2024)
current US dollars
$13,592 (2024)
2021 PPP dollars