China’s Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress comes into force on 1 July, coinciding with the anniversary of Hong Kong’s 1997 handover. The legislation mandates a shared Chinese identity, extends legal liability extraterritorially for acts deemed to undermine ethnic unity or create divisions, and requires schools to prioritise Mandarin and loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. Australian Uyghur and Tibetan organisations immediately urged Canberra to denounce the law, while the European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for its repeal and warning of repercussions for EU–China ties.

From Taipei, government-affiliated officials assess that the law could be used to prosecute Taiwanese who oppose unification or advocate the status quo, effectively eliminating space for political neutrality. The Australian Tibet Council argues the measures represent a direct threat to Tibetan identity and could be weaponised against exiled communities. Beijing’s Vice Minister of Justice, Hu Weilie, has rejected the criticism, describing the extraterritorial provision as a routine sovereign measure against separatist activity and accusing Western media of distortion.

Analysts in Asia note that the ethnic law is accompanied by parallel soft-power initiatives. Hainan province recently hosted a six-day international media tour showcasing its free-trade port and environmental projects, projecting an image of openness and development. Separately, Chinese state-linked organisers offered fully subsidised trips to young Taiwanese for a Sun Yat-sen forum in Guangdong, which critics in Taiwan depict as a united front tactic to build personal networks and promote narratives of shared national identity. Both efforts, according to regional observers, aim to cultivate allegiance through exchange rather than coercion.

In a distinct domestic context, the Indian state of West Bengal this week moves to introduce a Uniform Civil Code bill that seeks to replace religion-based personal laws with a common framework, while exempting constitutionally protected tribal groups. The Trinamool Congress has condemned the move as politically polarising and lacking broad consultation, foreshadowing a contentious legislative debate. Legal scholars note that such reforms, like Beijing’s identity-centred legislation, reflect a wider global dynamic in which governments deploy legal instruments to impose social uniformity and manage communal loyalties.

The extraterritorial application of China’s law is expected to be tested in the coming months, with diaspora groups lobbying host governments for protective measures. Meanwhile, the West Bengal bill faces a turbulent path through the state assembly. Both developments underscore a pattern of states using statute to define and police identity, often across borders and against a backdrop of intensifying political contention.