How have international courts or bodies classified China’s actions in Xinjiang—genocide, crimes against humanity, or something else?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple non-state "people’s tribunals," national governments, UN experts and legal scholars have concluded that Beijing’s campaign in Xinjiang meets at least the threshold for crimes against humanity and, in several determinations, genocide; however, no standing international court has issued a binding criminal conviction against China and formal prosecution faces structural and political obstacles [1] [2] [3] [4]. The International Criminal Court has so far declined to open an independent case and China’s reservations and Security Council power make an ICJ or ICC route practically blocked, leaving a patchwork of political findings, civil litigation and calls for universal-jurisdiction prosecutions [5] [6] [7].
1. People’s tribunals and national political determinations: genocide and crimes against humanity found
Independent tribunals and several national authorities have issued explicit findings that the acts in Xinjiang amount to genocide and crimes against humanity: the Uyghur Tribunal and related “people’s court” pronouncements confirmed counts including genocide, forced sterilisation, torture and cultural suppression [1] [2], and the United States government under Secretary Pompeo publicly declared that China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity [3].
2. United Nations and expert assessments: “may constitute” international crimes, emphasis on crimes against humanity
UN reporting and senior UN officials have framed the Xinjiang campaign as potentially amounting to international crimes, with the former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet stating that China’s counterterrorism policies “may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity,” language repeated in UN-related coverage and analysis [4] [8].
3. The International Criminal Court: prosecutor declined to proceed, jurisdictional gaps remain
The ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor has previously determined there was “no basis to proceed” against China on Xinjiang allegations, and the court’s capacity is constrained because China is not a party to the Rome Statute—meaning the ICC cannot unilaterally investigate or prosecute Chinese state actors absent a UN Security Council referral or other jurisdictional hooks [5] [7].
4. The International Court of Justice and legal formalities: treaty membership and reservations block easy routes
Even where the Genocide Convention exists, bringing the People’s Republic of China before the ICJ faces legal barriers: China ratified the Genocide Convention with reservations limiting ICJ jurisdiction, and political realities—especially China’s veto power on the UN Security Council—further impede referrals to international criminal fora [6] [7].
5. Alternative legal strategies: universal jurisdiction, civil claims, and evidentiary developments
Scholars and practitioners point to alternative avenues—universal jurisdiction prosecutions by national courts, civil litigation (including under statutes like the U.S. Alien Tort framework), and targeted national sanctions or import bans—as practical mechanisms to impose costs or secure accountability; researchers note successful precedents in other contexts and highlight mounting documentary evidence [9] [10] [11]. Activists and lawyers have repeatedly submitted dossiers to ICC prosecutors and urged investigations even as formal ICC action remains stalled [12].
6. The current legal landscape in plain terms: strong political and quasi-judicial findings, no binding international criminal judgment
The aggregate picture is clear in factual posture but fragmented in legal authority: credible tribunals, government determinations and UN experts have classified the Xinjiang abuses as crimes against humanity and, in several instances, genocide [1] [2] [3] [4], yet no standing international court has produced a binding criminal conviction of the Chinese state or its leaders because of jurisdictional limits, China’s non-membership at the ICC, treaty reservations, and Security Council politics [5] [6] [7]. Legal scholars therefore emphasize the role of national courts using universal jurisdiction, civil remedies, and continued evidence-building as the most realistic pathways for accountability in the near term [9] [10].