The crisis in Hong Kong can only be solved through a political solution. This solution, however, may have legal ramifications. As legal scholars, we believe it is important to address one of the legal aspects in contention: the demand for an amnesty and pardons. “Granting an amnesty would legitimise violence”; “an amnesty and pardon would contravene the rule of law”, “an amnesty fosters impunity” – we hear and acknowledge such criticism. But the use of an amnesty and pardons can be legitimate and reasonable responses to Hong Kong’s crisis. An amnesty and pardon scheme, if properly framed, has the potential to be a peace-building measure, to draw a line in the sand and limit the threat of violence on all sides. Although the meanings of the two terms are contested, “amnesty” typically refers to the preclusion of criminal liability for entire groups before conviction, whereas a “pardon” applies only after conviction, to one individual at a time. Pardon forgives, whereas amnesty forgets. Whether there are established precedents for amnesties in Hong Kong, such as for corrupt police officers in the 1970s , is beside the point. Amnesties and pardons have long been granted as transitional justice measures with some success, helping to stop a cycle of revenge attacks, creating space for dialogue and ultimately enabling society to move forward. In several instances, successful amnesties or pardon schemes have been passed in different countries facing a far more precarious situation than the one we see in Hong Kong. Those include in South Africa after the end of apartheid, various countries of the former Yugoslavia following civil war, Israel in relation to the demonstrations against the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and even China, which has granted several rounds of amnesties to former Kuomintang and Japanese soldiers. Some of these amnesties and pardons carved out exceptions for violent and particularly serious crimes, whereas others were conditional on truth-telling by the perpetrators. Yet, regardless of its precise characteristics, what an amnesty or widespread pardon scheme does is to acknowledge the limitations of retributive justice in dealing with politically motivated crimes. Amnesties are utilitarian and forward-looking, whereas retributive justice primarily looks backwards. The only limit within international law is a prohibition on blanket amnesties granted to the perpetrators of international crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Hong Kong, thankfully, has not reached this stage. An amnesty does not condone violence. It is a forward-looking preventive measure, rather than a backward-looking moral judgment. It simply adopts a utilitarian view that conflict resolution would be best served by forgetting past crimes rather than pursuing all of the perpetrators through the criminal justice system. An amnesty scheme does not necessarily contravene the rule of law. Although that phrase has many meanings, critics of an amnesty mostly associate it with the notion that the law should apply equally to all, all of the time. Yet, it is a fallacy to suggest that all perpetrators of crimes are treated equally before the law: consider police discretion not to arrest for minor crimes, or the public interest test in limiting prosecutions. Moreover, as mentioned, there are numerous historical examples of successful amnesties in states that espouse the rule of law. Yes, there are likely to be disgruntled victims who feel that their hurt has not been properly acknowledged, but that is the price of moving forward and stopping the escalating cycle of violence. Break Hong Kong’s spiral of violence, for the sake of our youth As for the fiscal contention that widespread pardons would be a waste of the courts’ time and public money, the cost of escalating violence is bound to be far higher. To ensure that any amnesty and pardon scheme is effective, and carries broad public and political support in Hong Kong, we believe it should exhibit the following characteristics. First, the scheme should apply to all sides, including crimes committed by protesters of various stripes. In relation to alleged police brutality and possible excessive use of force, there is undoubtedly a need to thoroughly investigate the police’s behaviour. However, when deciding how to deal with any officers who break the law, the same rules that apply to protesters should apply to the police force. Second, the scheme should be time-limited, covering only crimes committed between, say, June 9 and the date of its enactment. Third, the scheme should only apply to offences connected with the protest movement. However, the government may consider excluding severe violent crimes committed against individuals. Fourth, the scheme should apply both to convicted crimes (that is, through the chief executive’s pardon, authorised by the Basic Law) and to criminal charges yet to be prosecuted (through a legislative amnesty). These delineations in scope counter the accusation that a general amnesty would be too one-sided, or that it would irreparably damage the rule of law in Hong Kong. Here’s how Carrie Lam could end the protest chaos in a single speech Further exclusions or conditions might be considered, but we believe the government should be careful not to overly limit an amnesty scheme as this would detract from its power as a peace-building measure. An amnesty and pardon scheme cannot end the crisis on its own, but must be part of a broader political solution . However, it is an important and legally justifiable step towards reconciling different parties in the crisis. Daniel Pascoe and Noam Zamir are assistant professors at the School of Law, City University of Hong Kong. The opinions expressed here are solely their own