why not?
>who saw his abduction as a violation of the city state’s ability to run its own affairs, guaranteed by international treaty until 2047.
Even without that excuse, if you break a law in one country and flee to 'another state', you can still be arrested and remanded into custody of the country that you fled.
The US for example has sent the FBI to foreign nations to arrest foreign nationals and return them to the US for trial----all with the backing of the allied government.
Is it fair to expect Hong Kong, which is a territory of China, to not permit China the same sort of action?
Just going in (like the Mossad in Argentina for Eichmann) is not legal (even if it might be morally justified).
National security is a bit tricky, because the HK Basic Law allows for exceptions there, I think - but has that seriously been invoked?
Yes, I do expect the UK to "renege" in the sense that I expect everyone else to support self-government for Hong Kong. Maybe not to fight for it with them, but at least not to support the abusers with petty arguments of legality, etc.
> which while I wish they could, they aren't in a position to say no to china
Right. The same way Taiwan is a separate country, and a great one, but we pretend it's Chinese and essentially property of China because we don't want to get in a fight.
But might doesn't make right. We shouldn't give it the veneer of decency and legality. It's slavery through and through.
If North Korea or Iran acted that way we'd call it like it is.