In recent years, China has repeatedly pressured its neighbours to return Chinese asylum seekers, even when those individuals merit protection under the Refugee Convention. The implications of such pressure are serious, both for the individuals involved, who have in many cases been imprisoned or executed upon repatriation, and for the refugee systems of China's neighbours, which struggle to follow the rule of law in the face of political influence. While this Chinese pressure has often been condemned by human rights groups, there has so far been little attention given to the permissibility of such pressure under international law. This article addresses this question by analysing five possible legal theories for the illegality of Chinese pressure: namely that it violates the specific prohibition on treating a grant of asylum as an unfriendly act; that it violates the general principle of non-intervention in another State's domestic affairs; that it violates the principle of good faith fulfilment of treaty obligations; that it invokes indirect responsibility for violation of refugee law norms; and that it violates international human rights law, specifically the right to leave any country and the right to seek asylum. The article finds that there is a strong argument that Chinese pressure violates the principle of good faith fulfilment of treaty obligations, but that it is difficult to convincingly argue the illegality of Chinese pressure under the other four legal theories - although they may provide ammunition for activists to condemn the political hypocrisy of China's actions. © The Author (2017). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

[No Keywords available]

China political participation refugee international law neighborhood human rights asylum seeker