I don't find it clear the agreement is being violated, but I am not a legal expert. Anyways, the agreement is a matter between Britain and China, AFAIK. EDIT: I

I don't find it clear the agreement is being violated, but I am not a legal expert. Anyways, the agreement is a matter between Britain and China, AFAIK. EDIT: I read a bit more about this in the intervening minutes, and it seems like the Declaration is not really an agreement, and even if it is I could not find info about whether it is enforecable. If the two parties did not agree on a court that could resolve disputes, the Declaration means nothing. Blame that on the UK if you want. EDIT2: OK, my current (still amateur) position is that China did indeed violate the Declaration (if it is true that it imposed the law on Hong Kong), but the agreement is bilateral and defines no penalty for the violation. Here is the agreement on UN's site: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002800d4d6e&clang=_en https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000... https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201399/v1399.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201399/v... I am not saying that I like the authoritarianism in China, but would, say, Saudi Arabia not be an easier target for the "global police"?