The case for Hong Kong to have an anti-sanctions law resonated in the context of China-United States rivalry. Why should the city not be able to retaliate on its own account amid the flow-on effects of American sanctions against China, or even those imposed on its own top officials. Insertion of the mainland’s new anti-sanctions law in Hong Kong’s Basic Law would have cleared the way for the city to hit back. This was expected to follow this week’s sessions of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, China’s top legislative body. But that was before increasing focus on the extent of the likely down side for Hong Kong persuaded the committee to postpone a vote. Worries in the business community over a law that would punish companies that abide by US sanctions, or fail to carry out China’s, have prevailed. Beijing has made the right decision for the city to hold off until the negative implications are more fully considered. They include fears that international firms and banks operating here and complying with US sanctions could end up in a no-win situation, caught between tit-for-tat actions. Analysts cite the example of a financial institution that has banked on mainland growth, only to find returns now threatened by China-US rivalry. Anxiety over the law’s application to Hong Kong’s complex, globally oriented business and finance sectors, and its impact on the city’s status as a financial hub is therefore understandable. That said, there is good reason for the law, given US sanctions on local and mainland officials over China’s policies in Hong Kong and Xinjiang . But Hong Kong’s economy presents a very different landscape when it comes to applying the law. Beijing has realised the extent of concerns and wants to assess the city’s unique business environment and try to strike a balance before taking further action. The more cautious approach is welcome. The business community, including foreign chambers, saw the anti-sanctions law as potentially having a bigger impact than the national security law, which shut down political opposition and prompted US sanctions against city officials, but at least ended street violence. The postponement by the standing committee gives all sides valuable time for reflection and consultation, since the law is not to be directly promulgated by Beijing, but implemented through local legislation tailored to Hong Kong’s circumstances. Officials do not now expect the legislation to be submitted to lawmakers this year. It is worth noting that mainland officials responsible for Hong Kong affairs and national development are due to begin a three-day visit this weekend to brief local leaders on China’s 14th five-year plan, which includes enhancement of Hong Kong’s status as an international financial, transportation and trade centre and aviation hub – sectors that could have reason to fear a sanctions war.