China Human Rights Defenders: Interpretation of China’s Policies, Laws and Regulations (June 2026) (Issue 22)

Editor’s note:The ongoing supplementation and revision of laws and regulations is a routine measure in advancing the rule of law. Improving legal texts does not mean that rule-of-law practices have been fully implemented; there is often an objective gap between rules on paper and their implementation in reality. The eight recently issued and implemented institutional documents reviewed in this issue cover a range of areas, including human rights planning, ethnic rule of law, the business environment, food safety, traffic enforcement, mineral resources, the employment of over-age workers, and regulation of the accounting and finance sector, outlining the overall current approach to addressing institutional shortcomings.

The National Human Rights Action Plan (2026–2030) sets out the top-level framework for protecting rights over the next five years and establishes objectives for various livelihood-protection efforts; the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress has entered its implementation phase, using specialized legislation to institutionalize principles of ethnic governance. The two top-level designs establish a framework of values, but whether that framework can be translated into tangible results perceptible at the grassroots level will also depend on supporting implementation rules and the strength of oversight over implementation.

Rules targeting market entities have likewise been updated intensively: a self-regulatory convention aimed at addressing information infringing on enterprises seeks to repair the online public-opinion environment for doing business; online food-delivery food-safety regulations reinforce merchants’ primary responsibility; and the revised Law on Certified Public Accountants tightens regulation of the accounting and finance sector. All are intended to regulate market order. It must nevertheless be acknowledged that although industry-regulation provisions are updated year after year, problems repeatedly recur. How legal provisions can penetrate every layer of the process and prevent regulation from becoming a mere formality remains a long-standing practical issue.

Meanwhile, the rules for determining fatigued driving, the implementing regulations for the Mineral Resources Law, and provisions on protecting the rights and interests of over-age workers directly address such public concerns as travel safety, resource development, and protection for older workers. These laws and regulations precisely target shortcomings in people’s livelihoods and fill institutional gaps, but it must also be acknowledged that in many disputes concerning the vital interests of ordinary people, the difficulty has never been a lack of legal provisions. Rather, it lies in whether channels for protecting rights are smooth after a dispute arises, whether enforcement standards are consistent, and whether substantive remedies can be obtained after rights and interests have been harmed.

Legislation is the starting point of the rule of law, not the endpoint. The continued expansion of the vast body of legal provisions represents the ongoing repair and improvement of the institutional system, but completeness on paper cannot be equated directly with the rule-of-law-based nature of governance. Understanding the boundaries of each new rule, recognizing the distance between legislative intent and implementation in reality, and taking a rational view of both the strengths of the rules and the room for improvement that remains at the implementation level—this is the perspective that should be applied when examining this batch of new rules.

Contents

I. The National Human Rights Action Plan (2026–2030) is released

II. The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress is advanced for implementation

III. The Cyberspace Administration of China issues the Self-Regulatory Convention on Addressing Information Infringing on Enterprises and Optimizing the Online Business Environment

IV. The Provisions on the Supervision and Administration of Online Food and Beverage Service Operators’ Fulfillment of Primary Food-Safety Responsibilitiesformally take effect

V. The Ministry of Public Security issues the Rules for Determining Fatigued Driving by Motor-Vehicle Drivers

VI. The Implementing Regulations of the Mineral Resources Law of the People’s Republic of China formally take effect

VII. Five departments jointly issue the Interim Provisions on the Protection of the Basic Rights and Interests of Over-Age Workers

VIII. The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress publishes the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Certified Public Accountants (Decision on Amendments)

I. The National Human Rights Action Plan (2026–2030) is released

The document was prepared under the leadership of the State Council Information Office and approved through the joint-meeting mechanism for the National Human Rights Action Plan. It was officially released to the public on June 11, 2026, and is China’s fifth national medium- and long-term human rights plan. Formulated strictly in accordance with the constitutional principle of respecting and protecting human rights, the document systematically divides safeguards into four major areas: economic, social and cultural rights; civil and political rights; environmental rights; and the rights and interests of special groups. For the first time, it lists environmental rights as an independent area of protection, while focusing on improving systems for wage protection for workers in new forms of employment, personal-information protection, judicial compensation, and the protection of minors’ rights and interests. The plan specifies quantitative indicators for protecting various human rights over the next five years and the implementation responsibilities of each department. It takes into account both ordinary people’s rights to subsistence and development and the construction of enterprises’ human-rights responsibilities, while also coordinating with global human-rights governance cooperation. After its release, administrative organs at all levels will break down the tasks item by item and implement them, comprehensively strengthening the foundation of the rule-of-law protection of human rights throughout society. (For details, see: https://www.humanrights.cn/2026/06/11/8448a8d0cfaf435ea27fdd898d8a8215.html)

Analysis: The purpose of introducing this action plan is to implement the statutory constitutional principle of respecting and protecting human rights and coordinate nationwide human-rights development in the form of a five-year top-level program, addressing the previous problems of scattered human-rights protection policies and inconsistent implementation standards among departments. Based on the basic position that the rights to subsistence and development are the primary human rights, the plan incorporates new areas of protection—including environmental rights and digital personal-information rights—in light of current social changes. It covers the various rights and interests of ordinary people, flexible-employment workers, vulnerable groups, and market entities. It is intended both to guide localities and ministries in carrying out routine livelihood-protection work and to establish a systematic domestic human-rights governance system.

The plan’s positive impact is clear. Its biggest highlight is that it lists environmental rights as an independent area of protection for the first time, correcting the longstanding old approach in which economic development took priority and people’s ecological and health rights were sacrificed. It also sets out directions for addressing chronic problems such as wage arrears and the lack of social security among workers in new forms of employment, including ride-hailing drivers and food-delivery couriers; refines assistance policies for groups including women, older people, and persons with disabilities; continues to deepen human-rights protections in the judicial field; and improves the implementation of rules such as state compensation and the presumption of innocence in cases of doubt. At the macro level, it builds a framework for protecting everyone’s rights and interests, making human-rights development no longer a temporary work arrangement.

But its shortcomings at the design and implementation levels are also particularly prominent. Its language tends toward broad initiatives, its quantitatively binding provisions are insufficient, and it lacks performance-assessment plans linked to official achievements and mechanisms for holding officials accountable for dereliction of duty. This can directly cause breaks in policy transmission. Some local governments may easily treat the plan as a document on paper, responding perfunctorily on core matters such as the distribution of subsistence allowances, pollution control, and protection of workers’ rights, while having no corresponding means of punishment. In addition, the document draws relatively vague boundaries around corporate human-rights responsibilities and does not distinguish between the capacity of large enterprises and that of small, medium-sized, and micro enterprises. During grassroots implementation, this can easily lead to excessive layers of requirements, forcibly linking operating performance with human-rights assessments and increasing the survival pressure on small and micro enterprises. Emerging rights such as digital human rights are addressed only in principle, while supporting judicial rules are lagging behind, making frontline enforcement standards prone to confusion.

To improve the plan’s implementation, annual implementation manuals should be prepared to refine each human-rights indicator into verifiable data, incorporate implementation results into local performance-assessment systems, and conduct interviews and accountability procedures for departments and personnel that fail to act. Guidelines on the division of responsibilities between government and enterprises should also be issued, with differentiated compliance standards for small, medium-sized, and micro enterprises to prevent one-size-fits-all regulation. Legislation concerning digital personality rights and privacy rights should be supplemented more quickly, and online channels for public feedback should be established so that all sectors of society can monitor the progress of local human-rights work in real time.

II. The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress is advanced for implementation

The law was adopted by vote at the fourth session of the 14th National People’s Congress on March 12, 2026, and promulgated by order of the president of the People’s Republic of China. It stipulates that it will formally take effect on July 1, 2026. On June 24, 2026, the State Council Information Office held a special press conference to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the law’s provisions. The law consists of seven chapters and 65 articles. With forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation as its central thread, it establishes in law the principle that all ethnic groups are equal and strictly prohibits ethnic discrimination in such areas as employment, education, and public services. The provisions fully protect the rights of people of all ethnic groups to vote, to economic development, and to inherit their languages and cultures; properly protect the rights and interests of ethnic-minority migrant workers moving across regions, including their social security and children’s school enrollment; expressly prohibit interference with citizens’ freedom of marriage in the name of ethnic customs or religion; and improve supporting oversight and accountability mechanisms. They thereby strengthen, at the legislative level, the safeguards for the basic human rights of ethnic minorities. (For details, see: https://www.neac.gov.cn/seac/xwzx/202603/1187637.shtml)

Analysis: The purpose of introducing this law is to fill the gap in specialized legislation on ethnic unity, fix the forging of a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation in legal form, and transform the constitutional principle of equality among all ethnic groups into enforceable legal provisions, addressing the previous situation in which ethnic affairs relied heavily on policy documents and had relatively weak legal force. The legislative process fully considered the practical demands of people of all ethnic groups. It seeks both to protect the lawful rights of ethnic minorities to economic development and cultural inheritance and to prevent interference with citizens’ freedom of marriage and personal dignity in the name of customs or religion. It also accommodates the reality of cross-regional population movement, protects the education and social-security rights of ethnic-minority people who leave their hometowns to work or do business, and uses the rule of law to prevent ethnic estrangement and conflict from developing.

The law’s positive value is evident. At the institutional level, it eliminates explicit ethnic discrimination in employment, education, and public services, grants ethnic minorities the statutory right to participate equally in social governance and share the benefits of development, and has a strong constraining and guiding role in preserving the outstanding traditional cultures of all ethnic groups and promoting interaction, exchange, and integration among them. The interpretation press conference held by the State Council Information Office unified the understanding of grassroots enforcement personnel nationwide, ending the previous situation in which the standards for handling ethnic affairs varied widely from place to place, and provided a clear legal basis for resolving everyday ethnic disputes.

The practical shortcomings in the legal provisions, however, cannot be overlooked. The central problem is that “promoting commonality while respecting differences” lacks quantitative criteria for determination, directly causing grassroots implementation to move toward two extremes. Some officials pursue homogeneity single-mindedly, weakening protection for the distinctive cultures of ethnic minorities; some localities, meanwhile, overemphasize ethnic particularity, resulting in imbalances in the allocation of public resources. In addition, the legal criteria for determining “ethnic discrimination” are overly general. Obtaining evidence of implicit workplace discrimination and fragmented online expressions of prejudice is difficult, and the cost of protecting rights is high for ordinary victims. Most of the provisions focus on positive incentives; penalties for minor violations deliberately inciting ethnic antagonism or creating divisions are relatively weak, with insufficient deterrent effect. The connection of rights for cross-provincial migrants is addressed only in principle. Government-service data have not been connected across regions, and rights to enroll in schools in another locality and transfer social security, granted by the provisions, often become stalled in procedural steps.

Subsequent improvements could include urging the Supreme People’s Court to issue supporting judicial interpretations specifying the circumstances for determining ethnic discrimination, rules of evidence, and levels of punishment. A unified national government-services platform for ethnic affairs should be established, breaking down data barriers in cross-provincial education, medical care, and social security and enabling migrant residents to handle their rights-related affairs across localities. Regular training on the legal provisions should be provided for grassroots officials to clarify the boundaries between commonality and difference in implementation. Grassroots conflict-mediation mechanisms should also be improved so that all types of ethnic-related conflicts can be resolved at an early stage and public-opinion risks reduced.

III. The Cyberspace Administration of China issues the Self-Regulatory Convention on Addressing Information Infringing on Enterprises and Optimizing the Online Business Environment

Under the full guidance of the Cyberspace Administration of China, the convention was jointly formulated and signed by major domestic mainstream news, social-media, short-video, and search platforms. It was first unveiled at a forum on optimizing the online business environment on May 19, 2026, and published in full by China Cyberspace on June 12, 2026. The convention consists of 10 articles. It principally protects enterprises’ rights to business reputation, entrepreneurs’ privacy and personal dignity, and the property rights and interests of market entities. It requires platforms to clean up in batches harmful information involving rumors, defamation, and disclosure of natural persons’ privacy; crack down severely on the industrial chain of online trolls, black public-relations operators, extortion, and blackmail; tighten control over the review of negative enterprise-related content on trending lists; optimize algorithmic recommendations to avoid amplifying malicious public opinion; establish green channels for enterprises to refute rumors; and cancel the eligibility of accounts that maliciously smear others to monetize traffic. A coordinated “Clear and Bright” special campaign will be carried out at the same time. Through industry self-regulation, the convention seeks to regulate the order of online public opinion and protect market entities’ right to develop through fair operations. (For details, see: https://www.cac.gov.cn/2026-06/12/c_1782920139647563.htm)

Analysis: The purpose of introducing this convention is for the Cyberspace Administration of China to guide major mainstream platforms in jointly formulating industry self-regulatory rules targeting online black public-relations operations, trolls spreading rumors and smearing enterprises, extortion of enterprises through paid negative public opinion, and the illegal disclosure of entrepreneurs’ privacy. In conjunction with the “Clear and Bright” special campaign, it seeks to balance protection of market entities’ business reputations with the normal order of online public opinion, address the difficulties small and medium-sized enterprises face in protecting their rights after malicious online attacks and the high cost of removing or controlling false information, curb the industry’s chronic problem of competitors using online public opinion to engage in unfair competition, and create a stable and healthy online business environment.

The convention’s positive effects have strong practical applicability. Its 10 self-regulatory provisions precisely target bulk troll operations and the industrial chain of extortion by self-media accounts, establish a green channel for enterprises to refute rumors, cut off the channels for malicious negative accounts to monetize traffic, and strictly constrain the arbitrary promotion of enterprise-related negative topics without a factual basis on trending lists. These measures can genuinely protect enterprises’ business reputations and property rights, as well as entrepreneurs’ privacy and personal dignity, substantially easing the predicament in which enterprises have long been forced to bear malicious online smears and shrinking the space in which black public-relations operators can survive.

But the document’s inherent shortcomings are particularly sharp. It is merely an industry self-regulatory document and does not have the compulsory force of laws and regulations. The greatest hidden danger is that platforms possess full discretion over taking content down and restricting its traffic, which can easily create two extreme problems. On the one hand, the boundary between legitimate public-opinion supervision and malicious infringement has not been clearly drawn. To avoid the risk of enterprise complaints, many platforms may simply remove reasonable complaints by netizens and legitimate investigative reports by media outlets, directly narrowing the channels through which the public can supervise enterprise violations. On the other hand, loopholes remain that allow capital to exploit the rules. Some enterprises maliciously complain about negative content that objectively identifies problems, and platforms may delete it directly to reduce disputes, while ordinary netizens have no third-party appeal channel. This can result in large enterprises using the rules to suppress critical voices. At the same time, governance mainly covers leading platforms; small online communities and private-domain traffic sites become destinations for displaced negative public opinion, creating regulatory blind spots. The convention also contains no accountability provisions for platforms’ erroneous deletion of posts, making it difficult for citizens to protect their rights after their speech rights have been harmed.

To improve the system, cyberspace authorities should issue official detailed rules, clearly listing the boundaries between malicious rumor-spreading and infringement and normal public-opinion supervision, and establish a third-party content review committee independent of platforms so that disputed content is no longer decided unilaterally by platforms. Mature self-regulatory provisions should be elevated into departmental regulations and given statutory force, with new penalty rules for platforms that abuse their review powers. The scope of regulation should also be extended to private online communities and small self-media accounts to achieve unified governance across the entire internet, while balancing protection of enterprises’ lawful rights and interests with the public’s normal right to supervision and freedom of expression.

IV. The Provisions on the Supervision and Administration of Online Food and Beverage Service Operators’ Fulfillment of Primary Food-Safety Responsibilities formally take effect

The regulation was promulgated by the State Administration for Market Regulation on January 27, 2026, as Order No. 123 of the administration, and formally took effect on June 1, 2026, replacing the previous version of the measures for regulating online food and beverage services. The legislation’s core purpose is to protect consumers’ basic human rights to food safety and life and health, and to reinforce the dual primary responsibilities of food-delivery platforms and merchants registered on those platforms. It requires platforms to verify merchants’ qualifications on site every six months and to conduct rigorous checks against ghost kitchens, unlicensed operations, and other problems. It makes the use of one-time seals on food packages mandatory; consumers may refuse delivery directly if a seal is damaged. It encourages the online disclosure of transparent kitchens and adds provisions for pursuing the personal liability of the people responsible for violating merchants, substantially increasing the cost of food-safety violations. Local market-regulation departments will simultaneously carry out special inspections, creating a co-governance model combining supervision by mobile couriers, platform self-inspection, and administrative regulation to effectively safeguard people’s everyday food safety. (For details, see: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/202602/content_7059967.htm)

Analysis: The purpose of introducing these provisions is to address widespread food-safety problems in the online food-delivery market, including ghost restaurants, unlicensed operations, and dirty and disorderly kitchens; reinforce the dual primary responsibilities of delivery platforms and offline food and beverage merchants; strengthen online food and beverage regulation through administrative rules; protect consumers’ basic human rights to food safety and life and health; resolve the previous problems of weak online food and beverage regulation and difficulty holding parties accountable when consumers became ill; and standardize the operation of online food and beverage services.

The positive effects after implementation are direct and evident. After the provisions formally took effect on June 1, the mandatory requirement for platforms to verify merchants’ qualifications every six months could eliminate a large number of merchants operating through unlicensed affiliations. The food-seal system gives consumers the right to refuse damaged food, and market-regulation departments now have more detailed enforcement standards. Overall compliance with hygiene requirements in online food and beverage services should improve, helping to restrain food-safety accidents involving delivered food.

But the shortcomings exposed at the implementation level are prominent. The regulatory model relies too heavily on online license reviews, while regulators find it difficult to conduct frequent on-site inspections of offline kitchens. Many merchants have complete licenses online but have dirty and disorderly kitchen environments or spoiled ingredients in practice—problems that online checks cannot detect. The food-seal system depends entirely on merchants’ self-discipline and lacks routine inspections; some merchants repeatedly reuse old seals to deal with inspections, reducing the system to a formality. After consumers encounter food-safety problems, the procedures for tracing ingredients and preserving evidence are cumbersome, making it difficult for individuals to prove their cases and causing rights-protection efforts to take a long time. There are also gaps in the scope of regulation: delivery services conducted through private social-media feeds and online groups operate outside platform oversight and become blind spots, while the cost of penalties for violations by small individual food businesses is low, providing insufficient deterrence.

Suggested improvements include advancing a system for the real-time online disclosure of kitchen operations, with regulators conducting random online checks of kitchen video feeds and connecting online and offline regulatory channels. The process for consumers to provide evidence when protecting their rights should be simplified, with order data directly serving as supporting evidence for accountability, and private-domain food-delivery operators should be included in market-regulation registration. Graduated penalty standards should be established for large chain food businesses and small individual operators, while couriers should be encouraged to report food-safety clues, creating a multi-party regulatory model.

V. The Ministry of Public Security issues the Rules for Determining Fatigued Driving by Motor-Vehicle Drivers

This industry standard (GA/T2372—2026) was issued by the Ministry of Public Security on January 9, 2026, and has been implemented nationwide since June 1, 2026. It was formulated under the leadership of the ministry’s Traffic Management Bureau. The rules change the previous single model of determining fatigued driving solely on the basis of driving time and establish a three-dimensional determination system based on driving behavior, physiological condition, and travel patterns. They distinguish between different control standards for ordinary vehicles and passenger-transport vehicles and specify mandatory rest requirements for long-distance passenger transport at night. The system’s core purpose is to reduce traffic accidents caused by fatigued driving, protect the right to life and the right to health of all road users, and provide a clear technical basis for traffic-management departments to assign responsibility for accidents and conduct administrative enforcement. Traffic-management departments will use data from vehicle-mounted terminals, roadside monitoring, and other sources to secure evidence and increase routine inspections of commercial vehicles, reducing road-safety risks. (For details, see: http://gaj.xam.gov.cn/gaj/2026-06/02/article_2026060209320936652.html)

Analysis: The purpose of introducing this industry standard is to change the crude enforcement model in which traffic-management departments previously relied solely on driving time to determine fatigued driving. It comprehensively determines violations through multiple dimensions, including driving behavior, physiological condition, and travel trajectory; unifies national standards for police enforcement and assigning responsibility; focuses on controlling the high-risk behavior of passenger- and freight-transport vehicles operating while fatigued; reduces traffic accidents caused by fatigued driving; and protects the right to life and health of all road users.

After implementation, the rules’ most direct value is eliminating the enforcement disorder caused by inconsistent standards for determining fatigued driving in different localities. They provide technical support for assigning responsibility in traffic accidents and impose strict rest requirements on long-distance commercial vehicles, which can force transport companies through enforcement measures to standardize drivers’ schedules, reduce the likelihood of major and especially serious road accidents, and fill the technical gap in the quantitative determination of fatigued driving.

The difficulties in implementing the rules are highly practical. Insufficient hardware support will cause serious shortcomings in regulatory coverage. Ordinary private vehicles are not required to install driver-condition monitoring equipment, so traffic police can only rely on roadside stops and inspections and will find it difficult to detect concealed fatigued driving; regulatory attention will therefore be concentrated on commercial vehicles. Many old freight vehicles lack supporting data-collection terminals, making it impossible to quantify and obtain evidence of physiological fatigue and causing some violations to be difficult to determine. The rules specify determination standards but do not strengthen the mechanism for holding transport enterprises primarily responsible. Many logistics companies force drivers to operate beyond prescribed hours in pursuit of transport efficiency, while enterprises need not bear much responsibility. Ordinary people have limited awareness of the determination rules and weak self-restraint.

Subsequent improvements could require commercial vehicles to be comprehensively equipped with intelligent driving-monitoring terminals and have their monitoring data synchronized with traffic-management backends. Supporting systems should be introduced to impose penalties such as fines and suspension of operations on logistics enterprises that force drivers to operate while fatigued. New-media channels should be used to explain to the public the consequences of determinations of fatigued driving. At the same time, dynamic roadside-inspection mechanisms should be improved, using big-data screening to identify vehicles making frequent long-distance journeys and increase enforcement efficiency.

VI. The Implementing Regulations of the Mineral Resources Law of the People’s Republic of China formally take effect

The regulations were reviewed and adopted at the 85th Executive Meeting of the State Council on May 9, 2026, promulgated by Order No. 839 of the State Council signed by the premier, and took effect on June 15, 2026. They are the core supporting administrative regulations for the revised Mineral Resources Law. The regulations consist of eight chapters and 79 articles. While regulating the order of mineral development, they focus on protecting the environmental rights, health rights, and personal and property rights and interests of residents surrounding mining areas. They identify mining enterprises as the primary parties responsible for ecological restoration and specify deadlines for the treatment and restoration of water and soil and soil pollution in mining areas. They strictly constrain discharges during resource development, establish channels for residents of mining areas to protect their environmental rights and interests when harmed, improve supervision throughout the entire process of mineral-resource development, and impose aggravated penalties for mining activities that damage ecosystems or harm residents’ lawful rights and interests, balancing the development of the mining economy with protection of the living environment of surrounding residents. (For details, see: http://big5.www.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/yaowen/liebiao/202605/content_7069687.htm)

Analysis:The purpose of introducing these administrative regulations is to support implementation of the revised Mineral Resources Law, regulate the nationwide order of mineral extraction, reverse the old model in which some mining enterprises emphasized extraction and neglected ecological restoration, focus on protecting the environmental and health rights of residents surrounding mining areas, clarify mining enterprises’ primary responsibility for ecological restoration, address harm to residents’ rights and interests caused by mining—including water and soil pollution, cracking in homes, and damage to water sources—and balance the conflict between the development of the mining economy and protection of local residents’ living environment.

The regulations’ positive significance is reflected in their institutional design. For the first time, they give prominent priority to protecting the environmental rights and interests of mining-area residents, set mandatory deadlines for mine-pollution treatment and land reclamation, establish channels for residents to protect their rights after environmental damage, constrain extensive mining practices, force resource-development enterprises to take ecological protection into account, and provide regulators with a complete enforcement basis for investigating and handling mines that illegally discharge pollutants or damage ecosystems.

The regulations’ greatest implementation conflict is that local development interests can easily clash with residents’ environmental rights and interests. The finances of many resource-based cities rely heavily on mining taxes, and some local governments may relax supervision of mine pollution and give priority to ensuring fiscal and tax revenue. Ordinary mining-area residents seeking compensation for environmental damage must bear the high cost of professional testing and appraisal themselves, while rights-protection procedures are lengthy.

Although the legal provisions specify the obligation of ecological restoration, restoration results lack independent third-party assessment, and many enterprises merely carry out superficial greening to deal with inspections. Localities independently set compensation standards for damage in mining areas, resulting in large differences. Compensation received by some residents is insufficient to cover their actual losses, and remote small mines also face problems including insufficient regulatory personnel and regulatory gaps.

Improvements require adjusting local assessment structures, reducing the weight of single fiscal and tax indicators, and increasing the score assigned to ecological and environmental protection. Third-party supervision bodies should be introduced to oversee mine ecological-restoration projects throughout the process, and unified national guidance standards for compensation for personal and property damage in mining areas should be established. Mechanisms for assisting with appraisal in residents’ environmental-rights claims should be simplified, with regulators helping to obtain pollution evidence and increasing inspection frequency at remote small mines to prevent unlawful extraction from harming people’s rights and interests at the source.

VII. Five departments jointly issue the Interim Provisions on the Protection of the Basic Rights and Interests of Over-Age Workers

These rules were jointly issued on May 10, 2026, by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, the National Health Commission, the Ministry of Emergency Management, the State Taxation Administration, and the National Healthcare Security Administration. Publicity and interpretation were carried out across the internet in June 2026, and the rules will take effect on July 1, 2026. They are the country’s first departmental rules specifically protecting the rights and interests of people who continue working after retirement. The provisions fill a gap in the labor-protection system in the field of over-age employment. They expressly protect four core rights and interests of over-age workers: labor remuneration, minimum-wage standards, rest and leave, labor safety and health, and employment injury insurance. They prevent employers from arbitrarily withholding wages, dismissing workers, or refusing compensation for work-related injuries on the grounds that workers have reached retirement age. They clearly define the rights and responsibilities of both sides of the employment relationship, open multiple channels for protecting rights—including complaints to human-resources and social-security departments, labor arbitration, and judicial litigation—and focus on older workers employed in cleaning, security, technical reemployment, and other fields, effectively protecting the right to work and the right to social security of older workers. (For details, see: https://www.mohrss.gov.cn/wap/xw/rsxw/202605/t20260527_577018.html)

Analysis: The purpose of introducing the provisions is to respond to the social reality of large numbers of retirees returning to work amid population aging and remedy the institutional gap in the Labor Law’s protection of over-age workers. For a long time, problems such as no compensation for over-age workers injured at work, arbitrary dismissal by employers, and malicious wage arrears have occurred frequently, causing constant disputes between the parties. The five departments jointly issued these rules to clarify such workers’ basic rights to labor remuneration, rest and leave, labor safety, and protection against work-related injuries; regulate enterprises’ employment of re-hired workers; resolve labor disputes; and protect older workers’ labor rights and rights to subsistence security.

The provisions offer substantial practical benefits. For the first time, they systematically define the boundaries of over-age workers’ rights and interests and prevent employers from arbitrarily infringing on workers’ rights on the grounds that they have reached the statutory retirement age. Covering large numbers of grassroots positions, including security, cleaning, and technical reemployment, they provide an institutional basis for older workers to claim wages and apply for compensation for work-related injuries. They also clarify enterprises’ rights and responsibilities in employing workers, reduce the phenomenon of different judgments in similar cases in judicial practice, and constitute an important supplement to human-rights protection in the area of people’s livelihoods.

The rules’ shortcomings are also clear. They are only departmental rules in the hierarchy of law and have limited legal force. Once they conflict with civil labor-service contracts or relevant legal provisions, courts in different localities may easily adopt divergent standards in their judgments. The provisions state the rights workers should enjoy but do not require enterprises to purchase commercial work-injury insurance for over-age workers. Many small and micro enterprises refuse to purchase insurance in order to reduce employment costs. Once a work-related injury occurs, workers can only enter into protracted litigation with the enterprise, making rights-protection efforts lengthy.

At the same time, the provisions do not specify standards for calculating overtime pay for over-age workers, and many employers arbitrarily reduce overtime compensation. For the large number of over-age workers in scattered and flexible employment, it is difficult to define the labor relationship, making it impossible to use these provisions to protect their rights. In addition, grassroots publicity and dissemination are insufficient, and many older workers have no knowledge of the statutory rights they enjoy.

To improve the system, in the long term the legislature could incorporate protection of over-age workers’ rights and interests into revisions of the Labor Law, thereby raising the system’s legal force. Employers should be required to purchase special commercial accidental-injury insurance for re-hired workers, and the procedures and documentation for determining work-related injuries should be simplified. Standards for calculating overtime pay for over-age workers should be specified, rules for determining labor relationships in cases of scattered employment should be issued, and publicity resources should be directed to the grassroots level so that communities and labor markets can explain how to use the provisions to protect rights.

VIII. The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress publishes the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Certified Public Accountants (Decision on Amendments)

The decision on amendments was adopted by vote at the 23rd session of the Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress on June 26, 2026, and promulgated by order of the president of the People’s Republic of China as Presidential Order No. 78. The new rules will take effect on January 1, 2027. Based on the need to maintain market-economic order, the amendments, on the one hand, expressly protect the lawful rights of certified public accountants and accounting firms to practice independently and impartially, and protect practitioners’ personal dignity and normal practice from illegal interference and retaliation; on the other hand, they reinforce audit institutions’ responsibility as gatekeepers of the capital market, severely address financial fraud and false auditing, and protect the property rights and economic interests of investors and enterprises. The provisions add bans on practice, improve systems for industry integrity and regulatory penalties, establish diversified channels for resolving disputes, regulate the accounting and finance service sector through the rule of law, and stabilize the order for protecting market entities’ property rights and interests. (For details, see: http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202606/t20260626_455830.html and https://www.news.cn/politics/leaders/20260626/e387ae8203db4af5999388ea9fdc6414/c.html)

Analysis:The purpose of these amendments is to meet the needs of capital-market development. On the one hand, they protect certified public accountants’ lawful rights to practice independently and normally, prevent enterprises and administrative forces from interfering with audit work, prevent practitioners from suffering retaliation, and safeguard practitioners’ personality rights and professional autonomy. On the other hand, they reinforce audit institutions’ intermediary responsibilities, severely crack down on financial fraud and false auditing, protect the property rights and interests of investors and market entities, purify capital-market order, and prevent financial risks.

The amendments’ positive effects are significant. By clarifying through legislation the right of audit personnel not to be subjected to illegal pressure, improving the industry-regulation system, and substantially increasing the cost of illegal false auditing, they play a key role in addressing financial disorder in the capital market. They clarify audit institutions’ legal responsibilities, give investors clearer targets for accountability after suffering losses caused by financial fraud, and stabilize the overall order of the market economy.

The amendments have the shortcoming of an imbalanced allocation of rights and responsibilities. The institutional design places excessive audit responsibility on accountants and accounting firms, while penalties for client enterprises that deliberately forge financial documents or conceal true operating data are relatively weak. The roots of much financial fraud lie in deliberate misconduct by the enterprises themselves. Audit personnel find it difficult to penetrate all concealed materials yet may be required to bear primary fault, resulting in unequal rights and responsibilities. The provisions on remedies after audit personnel suffer retaliation are relatively general, making it difficult for those involved to present evidence and protect their rights. The division of boundaries between administrative regulation and industry self-regulation is unclear, occasionally resulting in duplicate inspections or regulatory vacuums. The new law raises the cost of compliant operations, sharply increasing the survival pressure on many small and medium-sized accounting firms and potentially causing excessive concentration in the audit-industry market.

Possible improvements include issuing supporting detailed rules on the division of responsibilities and strictly distinguishing the proportions of responsibility attributable to an enterprise’s subjective fraud and to professional negligence in audit practice. Rapid remedies should be refined for practitioners whose rights have been infringed, and the division of responsibilities between regulation and industry self-regulation should be clarified. Phased support policies should be introduced for small and medium-sized accounting firms, with graduated compliance requirements, to prevent monopolistic development in the industry and balance the regulatory needs of the capital market with the space for small and medium-sized intermediary institutions to survive.