Solomon Islands
How well is the Solomon Islands respecting people's human rights?
Use the tabs below to explore the scores.
Solomon Islands at a glance
Quality of Life
Economic and Social Rights
(2022)
Summary score
67.8%
How well is the Solomon Islands 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
52.4%
How well is the Solomon Islands doing compared to the best in the world?
Right to
0
% of global best benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Safety from the State
Civil and Political Rights
(2021)
Summary score
8.9
How well is the Solomon Islands' government respecting each right?
Right to freedom from
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Empowerment
Civil and Political Rights
(2021)
Summary score
4.5
How well is the Solomon Islands' government respecting each right?
Right to
0
Score
10
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
Quality of Life
The Solomon Islands scores 67.8% on Quality of Life when scored against the 'Income adjusted' benchmark.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, the Solomon Islands is performing lower than average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
The Solomon Islands scores 52.4% on Quality of Life when scored against the 'Global best' benchmark.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, the Solomon Islands is performing lower than average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Global best' benchmark).
Safety from the State
The Solomon Islands' Safety from the State score of 8.9 out of 10 suggests that some people are not safe from one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, death penalty or extrajudicial killing.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, the Solomon Islands is performing better than average on the right to be safe from the state.
Empowerment
The Solomon Islands' Empowerment score of 4.5 out of 10 suggests that a great many people are not enjoying their civil liberties and political freedoms (freedom of speech, assembly and association, democratic rights, and religion and belief).
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, the Solomon Islands is performing lower than average on empowerment rights.
Quality of Life - overview
(2022)
How well is the Solomon Islands 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 the Solomon Islands 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
Source: HRMI 2025 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.
The Solomon Islands scores 67.8% on Quality of Life when scored against the 'Income adjusted' benchmark. This score takes into account Solomon Islands' 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 the Solomon Islands is only doing 67.8% 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 the Solomon Islands has a very long way to go to meet its immediate economic and social rights duty.
When measured against the Global best benchmark, comparing the Solomon Islands to the best performing countries in the world, The Solomon Islands' score is 52.4%, indicating that it has a very 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, the Solomon Islands is performing lower than average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Income adjusted' benchmark).
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, the Solomon Islands is performing lower than average on Quality of Life rights (this comparison is calculated using the 'Global best' benchmark).
Quality of Life - full details
See more detail on how the Solomon Islands performs on the
?Right to
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
By sex
How does the Solomon Islands perform by sex for
?By sex
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
Over time
How does the Solomon Islands perform over time for
?Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2021)
Which people in the Solomon Islands 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 2025 rightstracker.org
When asked to provide more context about who was particularly unlikely to enjoy their right to education in 2024, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
- People facing economic hardship
Safety from the State - overview
(2021)
How well is the Solomon Islands' government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom from
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
The Solomon Islands' Safety from the State score of 8.9 out of 10 suggests that some people are not safe from one or more of the following: arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment, forced disappearance, death penalty or extrajudicial killing.
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, the Solomon Islands is performing better than average on the right to be safe from the state.
Over time
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2021)
Which people in the Solomon Islands 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 2025 rightstracker.org
When asked to provide more context about who was especially vulnerable to arbitrary or political arrest and detention by government agents in 2024, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
- People are at risk of trafficking, both citizens and foreigners, due to the Solomon Islands being a port for human trafficking
- People who politically oppose the government
Empowerment - overview
(2021)
How well is the Solomon Islands' government respecting each right?
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to
Very bad
Bad
Fair
Good
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
The Solomon Islands' Empowerment score of 4.5 out of 10 suggests that a great many people are not enjoying their civil liberties and political freedoms (freedom of speech, assembly and association, democratic rights, and religion and belief).
Compared with the other countries in the Pacific, the Solomon Islands is performing lower than average on empowerment rights.
Over time
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk
(2021)
Which people in the Solomon Islands 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 2025 rightstracker.org
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 2024, our respondents mentioned all of the following:
- People participating in the Malaita forum
- People with criminal backgrounds and people associated with them
Which people are most at risk?
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.Quality of Life
People at risk for
Right to education
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to food
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to health
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to housing
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to work
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
Safety from the State
People at risk for
Right to freedom from arbitrary arrest
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from forced disappearance
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from the death penalty
Expert respondents didn’t select any group of people for this right.
People at risk for
Right to freedom from extrajudicial execution
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to freedom from torture and ill-treatment
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
Empowerment
People at risk for
Right to assembly and association
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to opinion and expression
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
People at risk for
Right to participate in government
(2021)
Interpretation: Larger text = more human rights experts identified this group as being at risk.
Source: HRMI 2025 rightstracker.org
On this tab you can find data collected only in Pacific countries, on five themes.
Jump to:
Climate crisis
(2024)
How much has the climate crisis worsened human rights conditions in the Solomon Islands?
5.3
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 2024, respondents mentioned the following:
- The climate crisis threatens food security, which in turn limits the capacity for traditional governance
- The climate crisis is eroding the coastline where the majority of the population lives
- Extreme weather is increasingly common, such as heavy rainfall, flooding, landslides, and hurricanes
- Extreme flooding is leading to water contamination and crop failure, which impacts people’s rights to water, health, and food
Indigenous sovereignty
(2024)
To what extent are Indigenous and/or native communities in the Solomon Islands able to exercise self-determination?
3.8
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 2024, respondents mentioned the following:
- Indigenous self-determination is protected by the Constitution, however this is not always the case in practice
- Indigenous communities do not have full control over decision-making processes
- Traditional community structures govern daily life and conflict-resolution methods
- The climate crisis threatens food security, which in turn limits the capacity for traditional governance
- The majority of land is owned by Indigenous people, but the government controls resource extraction such as mining and logging
Indigenous lands
(2024)
To what extent do Indigenous and/or native communities in the Solomon Islands have possession and enjoyment of their traditional lands?
4.8
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 2024, respondents mentioned the following:
- The majority of land is owned by tribes or families who have full control over their land
- The majority of land is owned by Indigenous people, but the government controls resource extraction such as mining and logging
- Resource extraction projects pose a threat to Indigenous sovereignty and land rights
Cultural rights
(2024)
To what extent do people in the Solomon Islands enjoy their cultural rights?
5.3
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 2024, respondents mentioned the following:
- Cultural rights are protected by the Constitution and are exercised to a high degree
- There is a high variety of languages and cultures in the Solomon Islands
- The commercialisation of culture and tradition impacts the protection and survival of cultural knowledge
- Formal education is in English
Violence
(2024)
To what extent are people in the Solomon Islands free from violence in the community?
Violence against
0
Score
10
Less safe
More safe
Violence against children
When asked to provide more context about violence against children in 2024, respondents mentioned the following:
- Children are unlikely to speak out about violence due to fear of retaliation
- Alcohol, unemployment, and high levels of poverty increase the risk of violence against children, especially due to rising inflation in urban areas
Violence against people with disabilities
When asked to provide more context about violence against people with disabilities in 2024, respondents mentioned the following:
- People with disabilities face social stigma and difficulties accessing public spaces
- There is a significant lack of infrastructure for people with disabilities, including education, facilities, and accessibility
- Women and girls with disabilities are extremely likely to face violence, including physical and sexual abuse
Violence against MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+
When asked to provide more context about violence against MVPFAFF+ and LGBTQIA+ people in 2024, respondents mentioned the following:
- MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ people are not able to freely express their identities or orientations in public, due to stigma
- There has been some improvement in the acceptance of MVPFAFF+/LGBTQIA+ people in society
Violence against women and girls
When asked to provide more context about violence against women in 2024, respondents mentioned the following:
- Violence against women and girls is commonplace in the Solomon Islands
- Violence against women and girls includes intimate partner violence, and family, sexual, and/or physical violence
- Alcohol plays a significant role in the likelihood of women and girls experiencing violence
- There has been some improvement in the acceptance of women and girls speaking out about violence
Behind the numbers
Quality of Life
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which China has signed, all countries agree to devote their maximum available resources to making things progressively better 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 100% means it is doing as well as it possibly can, given its current level of income. To further improve, and make sure more people in China are fully enjoying their right to work, China would need to increase its income.
China also has good scores for the right to health (97.9%), the right to food (96.6%) and the right to housing (94.6%). For these rights, China is doing nearly as well as it possibly can, given its level of income. China could still afford to make some gains now, but then would need to increase its income to make further improvements.
Of the quality of life rights we measure, China needs to improve the most in the right to quality education, where it scores 66.6%, which falls in the ‘very bad’ range. Among 17 East Asian countries, this score puts China in the bottom half for quality education, just below Mongolia and Myanmar, and just above Malaysia and Thailand.
Right to Quality Education in East and Southeast Asia
Score
0
% of income adjusted benchmark achieved
HRMI score
100%
We further break the right to housing down into scores for the right to sanitation and the right to water.
With a GDP per capita of US$12,614 we calculate that China has the resources to ensure all of its people have running water and toilets in their homes.
However, China’s right to sanitation score of 92.7% shows that many people are missing out, even though China could afford to do better. If China efficiently used its available resources, it could achieve a score of 100%, which would mean that 58 million additional people living in China would gain access to basic sanitation in their homes.
If China improved its performance for the right to water from 96.5% to 100%, 38 million more people would have water on their premises.
The good news is that China’s scores for the right to housing have been steadily improving since 2001, when the nation scored 69.8%. The progress from 2021 to 2022 suggests that around 21 million people gained access to basic sanitation over that period, and around 12 million people gained access to water in their homes. China’s scores on the right to water is higher than that for basic sanitation—96.5% versus 92.7%— but the gains in its score for the right to sanitation over the past five years have been more marked—9.1 versus 4.6 percentage points.
When it comes to the right to food, if China lifted its score from 96.6% to 100%, around 1.4 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 96.6%, China has improved in respecting people’s right to food over the last 20 years, with its score increasing markedly from 84.6% 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 $3.65 per day, measured in 2017 PPP$), has risen from 42.5% in 2002 to 100% in 2021, effectively 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 so can enjoy a decent life. China’s score on a fair (relative) income stood at only 37.6% in 2018 (the most recent year with data). Projecting the relative poverty rate forward to 2022, this means that while 1,115 million people have enough money to enjoy decent lives, 210 million are unnecessarily denied this right.
China comes in second in the world in ensuring people’s right to health is fulfilled, with a score of 98.2%, when using the low and middle income assessment standard. When using the high- income assessment standard and the income adjusted benchmark, China still comes in 11th in the world. Among the four rights for which China has complete data using the low and middle income assessment standard, this is the right where China is most constrained by resources. An increase in income will be necessary to make significant further improvements.
As to where gains are most needed, for the right to health, expert respondents noted inequities in access to healthcare, including regional differences, and differences in access according to wealth and political influence.
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 as assessed by the low and middle income standard.
People at risk
While China has room for improvement in all the rights we measure, a further consideration is inequity. There are several groups of people who experts identified as being at higher risk of missing out. These include:
- People with lower social or economic status, including farmers and people in rural areas,remote,mountainous or underdeveloped areas
- Human rights advocates, protesters, activists, and anyone who criticises the government; and their family members
- People from ethnic minorities
- People in Xinjiang, especially Uyghurs
- People in Tibet
- Disabled people
- Older people
- People in prison
- People from religious minorities
- People who are stateless or are not in the household registration system
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.
Room for improvement
China has made outstanding progress in ensuring all people enjoy at least a subsistence income. However, all of China’s other Quality of Life scores show that China could still make significant improvements to its people’s lives, even without more resources.
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 reaches that gold — 100% on right to a subsistence income — its worst score using the low and middle income country assessment standard — 66.6% 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, even without income growth. For example, if China 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 1.37 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 30,000 newborn babies to survive until their fifth birthday.
-
If China were to operate at its full potential given its current resources, we would expect an additional 99,000 newborns to be born at a healthy birth weight.
-
If China were reaching its full potential, given its income constraints, an extra 447,000 15-year-olds could eventually reach the age of 60.
-
If China used its resources efficiently, an additional 58 million people could have a toilet at home, and an extra 38 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 210 million people out of relative poverty.
Safety from the State
China scores 2.3 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 37 countries.
China’s worst score in this category is 1.0 out of 10 for freedom from the death penalty, the lowest score among all the countries we measure.
The human rights experts we surveyed said that people protesting against or criticising the government, and people from ethnic and religious minorities, were at extra risk of being executed.
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that human rights advocates, protesters, journalists, and people who criticised the Chinese Commumist 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.
Detainees, human rights defenders, and people who protest or engage in non-violent political activity were at extra risk for all five Safety from the State rights.
Other vulnerable groups include:
- Detainees and those accused of crimes, especially people suspected of terrorism
- Anyone criticising the government
- Journalists
- People in Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong
- Muslims, Christians, and people following other religions such as Falun Gong
Among other East and Southeast Asian countries and territories where we measure these rights, China has the lowest scores for all five Safety from the State rights.
Right to Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Detention in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Forced Disappearance in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Death Penalty in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Extrajudicial Execution in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Freedom from Torture and Ill-treatment in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Empowerment
The Chinese government limits civil liberties and political freedom, with China scoring a very low 1.9 out of 10 in empowerment rights. This is one of the lowest scores in our sample of 37 countries.
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. For all four rights, the human rights experts we surveyed agreed overwhelmingly that ‘all people’ were at risk of violations of these rights.
When it comes to the right to assembly and association, China scores 2.1 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 2.4 out of 10, with no improvement over the four years we have measured this right. Respondents noted that online expression is also restricted.
China also scores in the ‘very bad’ range for the right to participate in government, with a score of 2.2 out of 10. Respondents noted that pro-democracy supporters, including those in the New Citizens' Movement, the China Democracy Party, and independent candidates were not free to participate in goverment.
For the right to freedom of religion and belief, China scored 2.5. 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:
- Human rights advocates, protesters, and anyone who criticises the government;and their families, including children
- Pro-democracy supporters
- Journalists
- People from ethnic and religious minorities
- Detainees and those accused of crimes
- Women's rights and labour rights activists
Right to Assembly and Association in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Opinion and Expression in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to Participate in Government in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Right to freedom of religion and belief in East and Southeast Asia
Summary score
0
Score
10
Transnational repression
The Chinese government engaged in transnational repression in a number of ways in 2024.
Transnational repression is activity that violates the human rights of people outside a government’s own territories.
Where is China engaging in transnational repression?
According to 90 human rights expert respondents whose work focuses on China and Hong Kong, in 2024 the Chinese government or its agents targeted people for transnational repression in the following places:
In which countries were people targeted?
Graph shows how many respondents identified each country.
0
Percentage of respondents
100%
0
20
40
60
80
100
How many people were targeted?
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 where the Chinese government or its agents engaged in transnational repression in 2024:
- Anywhere there is opposition to the Chinese government
- Anywhere that has Chinese immigrants, diaspora communities, and/or people in exile from China
- Any country that has signed onto the Belt and Road Initiative
- Specific regions, including Central and South America, Africa, Europe, Tibet, Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Ocean Rim countries
People at risk
According to human rights expert respondents, in 2024 the Chinese government or its agents targeted the following kinds of people for transnational repression:
Who was targeted?
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 2024:
- People from China or Hong Kong who are in exile
- Chinese citizens who are seeking political asylum in other countries
- Relatives of Hong Kongers living in China or Hong Kong
- Hong Kongers who are ethnic Chinese living abroad, particularly activists
- Tibetans, Falun Gong followers, and Uyghurs
- Chinese citizens acting abroad who promote democracy
- Chinese citizens who criticise the Chinese government, especially those living in non-democratic countries that have close ties to China
- Hong Kong activists and dissidents
- Tibetans advocating abroad for Tibetan independence
- Uyghurs advocating abroad for Uyghur independence
- Human rights activists
- Members of the Safeguard Defenders organisation “保护卫士”
- Family members of political dissidents
Human rights violations
According to human rights expert respondents, in 2024 the Chinese government or its agents targeted people for transnational repression in the following ways:
Killing, physical harm, and coercion
- Assassinations
- Physical attacks
- Arrest warrants with bounties
- Secret arrests
- Public beatings and assault
- Beatings
- Harassment and intimidation
- Stalking
- Bribery
- Threats
- Intimidation
- Attacking people participating in protests in support of Hong Kong and Taiwan
Repatriation and overseas law enforcement activity
- Attempted repatriation, including when Chinese citizens renew their passports at embassies
- Overseas ‘police stations’, including concerted operations such as ‘Skynet’ or ‘Fox Hunting Operations’ in the United States and elsewhere, with reports that Chinese police arrest and attempt to forcibly repatriate Chinese nationals
- Reports of kidnapping
- Local authorities overseas working with Chinese state agents to arrest and detain targets
- Chinese police training local police forces in other countries
- Reports of establishing overseas procuratorates
- Threatening harm or imprisonment to individuals speaking out against the Chinese government in other countries
- Risk of extradition from Hong Kong to mainland China
Surveillance and digital activity
- Spying
- Monitoring individuals through digital surveillance and on social media
- Monitoring social media activities, phones, and emails of Chinese nationals living abroad
- Chinese soldiers attending anti-Chinese Communist Party protests in the United States to surveil protest attendees, including soldiers who illegally enter the United States
- Infiltration, such as Chinese government spies contacting and collecting data on overseas activists
- Remote data harvesting
- Pressuring foreign companies to compile data on targets and to engage in censorship
- Cyberattacks
- Creating generative AI images and videos of targets
- Online doxxing
- Digital repression
- Propaganda from the United Front Work of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party
- Economic coercion to divest and intimidate
- Manipulating property sales in China, where people overseas are prevented from obtaining the required documentation or where property prices are modified to the detriment of victims or their families
- Causing self-censorship
- Harassment of targets and their relatives in China
- Online threats
- Threatening relatives of targets, including targeting their pensions, medical insurance, jobs, and ability to start businesses
- Coercing family members to pressure targets to return or to stop criticising the government, including by saying that the family members will be in danger otherwise
- Confiscating passports of Chinese citizens who have criticised the government while overseas
- Online smear campaigns
- Online intimidation
- Intelligence gathering
- Surveillance and tracking
- Using pro-communist groups to track and target Chinese dissidents
Country details
Population
800k (2023)
GDP/capita
$2,042 (2023)
current US dollars
$2,534 (2023)
2021 PPP dollars