Exit regulation in the People's Republic of China: Law, policy and practice

In the past 20 years, there have been increasing media reports of individuals being banned from exiting the People's Republic of China (PRC). This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current PRC mechanisms for regulating the exit of PRC and foreign citizens. It proposes that...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International migration Jg. 63; H. 1
1. Verfasser: Song, Lili
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Oxford Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.01.2025
Schlagworte:
Citizens
Criminalization
Decentralization
Inconsistency
Legislation
Passports
Passports & visas
Punishment
Regulation
Transparency
Unauthorized
China
ISSN:0020-7985, 1468-2435
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In the past 20 years, there have been increasing media reports of individuals being banned from exiting the People's Republic of China (PRC). This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current PRC mechanisms for regulating the exit of PRC and foreign citizens. It proposes that the PRC uses three types of exit regulation mechanisms. First, restrictions on access to passports serve to preclude targeted PRC citizens from obtaining the document necessary for international travel. Second, PRC and foreign citizens with valid passports could be prohibited from exiting the PRC on extensive grounds. Third, the criminalization of unauthorized departure serves to punish and deter the clandestine exit of PRC citizens. In relation to each mechanism, it outlines the legal grounds for imposing restrictions or punishment and provides illustration with recent cases. It also identifies a number of shortcomings of the PRC exit regulation system, including fragmented and overly broad legislation in some aspects, inconsistency of legislation, overly decentralized distribution of power among institutions and insufficient safeguard for procedural transparency.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:0020-7985
1468-2435
DOI:10.1111/imig.13058