In his speech on US-China relations at the Woodrow Wilson International Center on Oct 24, US Vice-President Mike Pence cited the 1984 China-United Kingdom joint declaration to justify the US' interference in China's Hong Kong affairs.

A week earlier, on Oct 16 to be precise, the United States House of Representatives passed the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act", accusing the Chinese central government and Hong Kong government of violating the China-UK joint declaration and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region's Basic Law by restricting the SAR's autonomy and violating the democratic rights of Hong Kong residents.

The US act not only supports rioters in Hong Kong but is also aimed at preventing the central government from exercising sovereignty over the SAR and interfering in China's internal affairs by imposing sanctions on it.

The aim of the China-UK joint declaration is to restore China's sovereignty over the SAR, not to prevent China from governing the city. More than 20 years after Hong Kong's return to China, even the UK has no right to question Beijing's governance. So what right does the US, as a third party, have to question China's sovereign authority to rule Hong Kong? And why does Washington expect Beijing to follow US norms in governing the SAR?

The US House cannot force the central and SAR governments to grant "universal suffrage" to Hong Kong residents at the time of its choosing.

Still, while introducing the act to the House, US Congressman Chris Smith claimed "the leadership of the Hong Kong SAR government does not represent Hong Kong people, but is affiliated to the Chinese central government", adding that the failure of the Hong Kong government and all the members of the city's Legislative Council to implement universal suffrage for the chief executive's election is to blame for the "Umbrella Movement" in 2014 and the demonstrations and riots in Hong Kong in recent months. Smith even urged Beijing to "honor" the commitments it made in the China-UK joint declaration and the Basic Law to implement "double universal suffrage" in the SAR.

However, Item 4 of Clause 3 of the Sino-British joint declaration states that the Hong Kong SAR chief executive shall be locally elected or selected through consultations and appointed by the central government. And Annex 1 of the declaration says the Legislative Council shall be elected. So where does the question of "double universal suffrage" arise?

Electing Hong Kong's chief executive and Leg-Co members through universal suffrage is the ultimate goal of the SAR's Basic Law. But this "double universal suffrage" can be implemented only under the "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law, and in accordance with the relevant decisions made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, China's top legislature. More importantly, determining the form and procedure of "double universal suffrage" is part of China's internal affairs, which brooks no interference by other countries.

The US' so-called human rights and democracy act, on the pretext of supporting democracy in Hong Kong, provides visa facilities for Hong Kong rioters, imposes sanctions on those who it claims have violated the provisions of the Sino-British joint declaration and the Basic Law as well as those who have allegedly infringed on SAR residents' human rights, thus seriously compromising the central government's exercise of sovereignty over the SAR.

True, the Sino-British joint declaration, Basic Law, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights grant Hong Kong residents freedom of speech, press, assembly and procession. But they do not give rioters, whom the US supports, the freedom to do whatever they want. Besides, detaining, arresting and punishing those who disturb the social order or commit violent crimes is within the jurisdiction of a sovereign state, especially if they are aimed at safeguarding national security and territorial integrity.

Respecting state sovereignty and non-interference in other countries' internal affairs are the basic principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. And while formulating its domestic laws, a state should not violate the basic principles of the international law. The US administration would do good to abide by these principles, fulfill its obligations under the UN Charter, respect China's sovereignty over the Hong Kong SAR, and stop passing acts related to Hong Kong and meddling in China's internal affairs.

The author is a lecturer at the School of International Law, Southwest University of Political Science and Law. The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.