Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Taiwan and International Human Rights pp 249–273Cite as

The Problems with the Incorporation of International Human Rights Law in Taiwan

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific ((ELIAP))

Abstract

Though Taiwan is not a member state of the United Nations, it is determined to incorporate some international human rights treaties in the same way a usual state does. In 2009, the Government made every effort to “ratify” the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women into the domestic legal system in accordance with the “treaty obligation.” Unsurprisingly, none of the instruments of ratification were successfully deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Two years later, the Government submitted its initial reports under the two Covenants to a group of ten international independent experts for review in Taiwan. In this connection, the Government and people of Taiwan have come to recognize that international human rights law constitutes an integral part of the legal system of Taiwan. With this recognition, the courts have occasionally applied or referred to the two Covenants in their decisions and judgments in spite of the doubts and criticism as to the validity of the international human rights treaties’ rules. Apparently, the determination to internalize international human rights law into the domestic legal system of Taiwan is beyond any doubt; however, several problems have emerged subsequent to the failure of completing the process of ratification under international law. The problems may be summarized as follows. First, the question concerning the capacity to conclude international treaties and the nature of the legal effect as regards the unilateral act by Taiwan in the context of international law. Second, the status and effect of international human rights treaties in the domestic legal order of Taiwan, Third, there are questions concerning the method of incorporating international human rights treaties by enacting the Implementing Act, which was specifically designed to create the binding force of the treaty law within the jurisdiction of Taiwan. Fourth, the practice applied by the courts or in constitutional interpretation as regards the rights and freedoms in the human rights treaties. Without proper theory and adequate practices concerning how to incorporate international human rights treaties in Taiwan, international human rights law is nothing but an unexpected and unwelcome international law that has caused an unpleasant disturbance in the domestic legal order. That said, this chapter intends to elucidate the legal implications of these questions and the problems therein and to deliberate a possible solution for the judiciary to take the rights and fundamental freedoms seriously.

This chapter is based on a conference paper presented at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum in Taipei.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to Article 40(a), The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to submit reports within one year of the entry into force of the present Covenant for the States Parties concerned. Since the two Covenants have never been operative in Taiwan, the right time to submit the initial report is nonexistent in a legal sense.

  2. 2.

    The Implementing Act was enacted for the sole purpose of overcoming the situation of the impossibility of ratifying the two Covenants. With the Implementing Act, the two Covenants were regarded as having domestic legal status. Some other international human rights treaties, namely, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are all incorporated in Taiwan in an identical manner and are similar in their content. They are: the Enforcement Act of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Implementation Act of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Act to Implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

  3. 3.

    The ten independent experts included Philip Alston, Nisuke Ando, Virginia Bonoan-Dandan, Theodoor van Boven, Jerome Cohen, Shanthi Dairiam, Asma Jahangir, Manfred Nowak, Eibe Riedel and Heisoo Shin.

  4. 4.

    Concluding observations and recommendations on the initial reports of Taiwan adopted by the international group of independent experts, Taipei, 1 Mar 2013, at para. 4. http://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/HitCounter.asp?xItem=385451. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.

  5. 5.

    Id., at paras. 36–80. Other points concern general issues which include the national commission for the protection and promotion of human rights; United Nations core human rights treaties; the Implementation Act Relating to the International Covenants; judicial implementation of the Covenants; human rights education and training; transparency and participation in decision-making; corporate responsibility; transitional justice; equality and non-discrimination based on gender and the rights of indigenous peoples.

  6. 6.

    The instrument of ratification was deposited with the Secretary-General of the UN by the then President on 9 Feb 2007, two years earlier than the instruments of ratification to the Two Covenants. The result was rejection by the Secretary-General based on GA Resolution 2758 that states that the People’s Republic of China is the sole representative of China. See also note 14.

  7. 7.

    That is why the constitutional interpretation in Taiwan has deliberately ignored the status of human rights law in the domestic legal order. The deficit is discussed in part 5 of this chapter.

  8. 8.

    Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, art.1, 26 Dec 1933, 165 L.N.T.S. 19. The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

  9. 9.

    Jennings and Watts (1996), p. 120.

  10. 10.

    Id.

  11. 11.

    The declaratory theory is adopted by most writers in international law. The Arbitral Commission of the EC Conference on Yugoslavia was of the opinion that recognition was purely declaratory; however, it did confer certain rights and obligations under international law. See Arbitral Commission of the EC Conference on Yugoslavia, Opinion 8, 31 I.L.M. 1521 (4 July 1992).

  12. 12.

    Jennings and Watts, supra note 9, at pp. 128–130.

  13. 13.

    G.A. Res. 2758(XXVI), GAOR, 26th Sess., Supp. No. 29, UN Doc A/8429, at 2 (25 Oct 1971).

  14. 14.

    On 15 Jun 2009, the Secretary-General of the UN rejected the instrument of ratification of the Government of Taiwan to the two Covenants by noting that the People’s Republic of China was the only legal representative in the UN in accordance with G.A. resolution 2758.

  15. 15.

    Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), 1974 ICJ 253 (20 Dec); Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), 1974 ICJ 457 (20 Dec).

  16. 16.

    Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), 1974 ICJ 253, para. 46 (20 Dec).

  17. 17.

    Harris (2010), p. 50.

  18. 18.

    Rep. of the Int’l Law Comm’n, 58 Sess., 1 May-9 June, 3 July-11 Aug 2006, UN Doc. A/61/10; GAOR, 61st Sess., Supp. No. 10, p. 367, quoted in Harris, supra note 17, at p. 51.

  19. 19.

    See Denza (2014).

  20. 20.

    Jennings and Watts, supra note 9, at pp. 14–15.

  21. 21.

    Klabbers (2013).

  22. 22.

    The concept of direct applicability should not be confused with that of direct effect or that of a self-executing treaty. The former refers to the doctrine of sources of law. A ratified treaty therefore becomes a part of the formal sources of domestic law; however, the direct effect or self-executing treaty concerns the legal basis of a claimable right. The subject matter of direct applicability refers to the whole treaty concerned; however, the self-executing treaty concerns a specific provision in the treaty which is precise and unconditional in its meaning. No further legislation is needed for its application.

  23. 23.

    The highest legislative organ in the constitutional law of Taiwan.

  24. 24.

    Zhonghua Minguo Xianfa, art. 38 (Taiwan) (“The President shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, exercise the powers of concluding treaties, declaring war and making peace”).

  25. 25.

    The Judicial Yuan is the highest judicial organ in the constitutional law of Taiwan. It is in charge of civil, criminal, and administrative cases, and cases concerning disciplinary measures against civil servants.

  26. 26.

    Sifayuan Jieshi [司法院解釋] (Judicial Yuan Interpretation) No. 329 (24 Dec 1993) (Taiwan).

  27. 27.

    See Harris (2010), supra note 17.

  28. 28.

    The process and procedure of resolving a bill is different from that of an international treaty, as an international treaty is completed in the second reading. See Lifayuan Zhiquan Xingshifa [立法院職權行使法] (The Act of the Functions and Power of the Legislative Yuan), art.7 (Taiwan).

  29. 29.

    See generally Lin C-F (2010); Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan, [行政院研究發展考核委員會] Policy research on the implementation of the two Covenants [落實兩公約施行法之政策研究] RES-099-034 (2011), https://www.ndc.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=E4F9C91CF6EA4EC4&sms=4506D295372B40FB&s=549B97021773800B. Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

  30. 30.

    The Act of Concluding Treaties passed on 1 July 2015 does not mention the legal status of an international treaty after it is resolved by the Legislative Yuan. A general discussion on the issue can be found in Lee (2014).

  31. 31.

    During a forum organized by Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice held on 11 Jan 2010 to celebrate the 65th Judicial Day a paper, “Some question and problems concerning the incorporation of the Two Covenants in Taiwan,” was presented by Teng Y-S. Editorial, Implementing the Two Covenants on Human Rights Protection Forum in Celebrating the 65th Judicial Day Co-Organized by the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice [院部聯合慶祝第 65 屆司法節研討實踐兩公約之人權保障], judicial weekly, 14 Jan 2010, http://www.judicial.gov.tw/jw9706/pdf/1475-1.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2017.

  32. 32.

    Teng Y-S (2010) “Some question and problems concerning the incorporation of the Two Covenants in Taiwan” [两公约内国法化后相关问题之探讨]. Paper presented at the 65th Judicial Day Conference (11 January 2010); Hsu (2010); Lin, supra note 29, at p. 25.

  33. 33.

    Liao (2011), Liao (2010), p. 52.

  34. 34.

    Lin T-W (2013) “Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6 and 7 in the Criminal Justice Practice of Taiwan: Focus of the Judgements of the Supreme Court Related to Right to Life”. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Human Rights Education: Global Convergence and Local Practice (21–26 November).

  35. 35.

    Hualien Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Anon, 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 6259 [99 年度台上字第 6259 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 18 Oct 2010) (Taiwan); Anon. v. Kaohsiung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct, 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 6287, [99 年度台上字第 6287 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 20 Oct 2010) (Taiwan); Anon. v. Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct, 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 7167 [99 年度台上字第 7167 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 18 Nov 2010) (Taiwan); Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Anon, 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 6251 [99 年度台上字第 6251 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 25 Oct 2010) (Taiwan); Tainan Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Anon, 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 6981 [99 年度台上字第 6981 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 10 Nov 2010) (Taiwan); Taichung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Shao-Qiang Ji, 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 7287 [99 年度台上字第 7287 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 29 Nov 2010) (Taiwan); Tainan Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Kun-Li Zheng and Jin-Nan Guo, 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 7586 [99 年度台上字第 7586 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 13 Dec 2010) (Taiwan); Tainan Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Yan-Quan Lin et al., 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 8138 [99 年度台上字第 8138 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 30 Dec 2010) (Taiwan); Hualien Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Feng-Xing Xie, 100 Tai Shang Zi No. 319 [100 年度台上字第 319 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 24 Jan 2011) (Taiwan); Taichung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Zhi-Cheng Chen, No. 487 [100 年度台上字第 487 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 27 Jan 2011) (Taiwan); Kaohsiung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Ming-Jia Xu et al., No. 1399 [100 年度台上字第 1399 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院]. 24 Mar 2011) (Taiwan); Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Shu-Fen Chen, No. 1716 [100 年度台上字第 1716 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 8 Apr 2011) (Taiwan); Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Yi-Wei Wang and Guo-Jie Zhang, No. 2364 [100 年度台上字第 2364 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 12 May 2011) (Taiwan); Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Shi-Ming Li et al., No. 3070 [100 年度台上字第 3070 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 9 Jun 2011) (Taiwan); Kaohsiung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Chuan-de Xu, No. 3231 [100 年度台上字第 3231 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 16 Jun 2011) (Taiwan); Tainan Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Zhi-Dong Chen, No. 3618 [100 年度台上字第 3618 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 6 July 2011) (Taiwan); Tainan Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Jin-Hui Huang and Yu-Zhi Luo, No. 4036 [100 年度台上字第 4036 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 27 July 2011) (Taiwan); Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Zhao-Feng Huang, No. 4761 [100 年度台上字第 4761 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 31 Aug 2011) (Taiwan); Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Ming-Xiong Li, No. 5426 [100 年度台上字第 5426 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 5 Oct 2011) (Taiwan); Tainan Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Qin-Jie Huang, No. 6088 [100 年度台上字第 6088 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 9 Nov 2011) (Taiwan); Kaohsiung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Zong-Yu Li, No. 6944 [100 年度台上字第 6944 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 14 Dec 2011) (Taiwan); Taichung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Guang-Qing Xie, 101 Tai Shang Zi No. 577 [101 年度台上字第 577 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 15 Feb 2012) (Taiwan); Hualien Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Da-Xiong Wu et al., 101 Tai Shang Zi No. 720 [101 年度台上字第 720 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 22 Feb 2012) (Taiwan); Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Ru-Bin Wang et al., 101 Tai Shang Zi No. 885 [101 年度台上字第 885 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 7 Mar 2012) (Taiwan); Kaohsiung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Anon, 101 Tai Shang Zi No. 1072 [101 年度台上字第 1072 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 14 Mar 2012) (Taiwan); Taichung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Mei-Ling Cai, 101 Tai Shang Zi No. 1690 [101 年度台上字第 1690 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 11 Apr 2012) (Taiwan); Hualien Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Zhi-Xin Lin, No. 101 Tai Shang Zi No. 1693 [101 年度台上字第 1693 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 11 Apr 2012) (Taiwan); Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. Li Chien, 101 Tai Shang Zi No. 1847 [101 年度台上字第 1847 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 18 Apr 2012) (Taiwan); Tainan Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct. v. He-Ping Huang and Zhong-Xian Li, 101 Tai Shang Zi No. 3100 [101 年度台上字第 3100 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 20 Jun 2012) (Taiwan).

  36. 36.

    Cheng-Hao Hong et al., 100 Tai Kang Zi No. 113 [100 年度台抗字第113號] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 24 Feb 2011) (Taiwan); He-Shun Qin, 99 Tai Kang Zi No. 649 [99 年度台抗字第 649 號] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 12 Aug 2010) (Taiwan); Anon, 99 Tai Kang Zi No. 141 [99 年度台抗字第 141 號] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 10 Feb 2010) (Taiwan).

  37. 37.

    Anon v. Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct, 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 5087[99 年度台上字第 5087 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 12 Aug 2010) (Taiwan); Zong-Zhou Li v. Taichung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct, 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 7060 [99 年度台上字第 7060 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 11 Nov 2010) (Taiwan); Yun-Long Wu v. Taichung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct, No. 1045 [100 年度台上字第 1045 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 3 Mar 2011) (Taiwan).

  38. 38.

    Anon. v. Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct, 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 5079 [99 年度台上字第 5079 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 12 Aug 2010) (Taiwan); Anon. v. Taichung Br, Prosecutors Office for Taiwan High Ct, 99 Tai Shang Zi No. 5080 [99 年度台上字第 5080 號判決] (S. Ct. [臺灣最高法院] 12 Aug 2010) (Taiwan).

  39. 39.

    See Lin, supra note 34.

  40. 40.

    See generally Liao (2014).

  41. 41.

    Id.

  42. 42.

    Sifayuan Jieshi [司法院解釋] (Judicial Yuan Interpretation), No. 709 (24 Apr 2013) (Taiwan).

  43. 43.

    Sifayuan Jieshi [司法院解釋] (Judicial Yuan Interpretation), No. 710 (5 July 2013) (Taiwan).

  44. 44.

    See Hart (1997), p. 117.

  45. 45.

    Sifayuan Jieshi [司法院解釋] (Judicial Yuan Interpretation) No. 445 (23 Jan 1998) (Taiwan).

  46. 46.

    Id.

  47. 47.

    Sifayuan Jieshi [司法院解釋] (Judicial Yuan Interpretation) No. 718 (21 Mar 2014) (Taiwan).

  48. 48.

    A similar deficit can be found in Judicial Interpretation No. 708 of 6 Feb 2013 on immigration detention of foreign nationals pending deportation, which relates to the protection under Articles 13 and 14 of the ICCPR.

  49. 49.

    See Human Rights Council Res 24/5, Rep. on Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, 24th Sess., 9 Sept 3012–27 Sept 2013, UN GAOR, 69th Sess., A/69/365 (1 Sept 2014).

  50. 50.

    Sifayuan Jieshi [司法院解釋] (Judicial Yuan Interpretation) No. 618 (3 Nov 2006) (Taiwan).

  51. 51.

    The Republic of China signed it on 3 Mar 1966 and ratified on 14 Nov 1970 respectively.

  52. 52.

    Lianggongyue Shixingfa [兩公約施行法] (The Implementing Act for the Two Covenants), art.4 (Taiwan), “Whenever exercising their functions, all levels of governmental institutions and agencies should conform to the human rights protection provisions in the two Covenants; avoid violating human rights; protect the people from infringement by others; positively promote the realization of human rights.” Lianggongyue Shixingfa [兩公約施行法] (The Implementing Act for the Two Covenants), art. 5 (Taiwan), “All levels of governmental institutions and agencies should take responsibility for preparing, promoting and implementing the human rights protection provisions in the two Covenants within their functions that are governed by existing laws and regulations. When multi-functions are involved, distinct governmental institutions and agencies should contact and coordinate to carry out their responsibilities. The government should cooperate with other national governments and international nongovernmental organizations and human rights institutions to realize promotion and protection of the human rights provisions in the two Covenants.”

  53. 53.

    Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13 (26 May 2004).

  54. 54.

    See Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), 1974 ICJ 253 (20 Dec); Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), 1974 ICJ 457 (20 Dec).

  55. 55.

    This is the institution of recognition in international law that regulates the existence of a state. The prevailing international theory concerning recognition is declaratory in nature; however, in international politics, the doctrine of recognition is constitutive and relative.

  56. 56.

    See Zhonghua Minguo Xianfa, art. 38 (Taiwan).

  57. 57.

    “徒法不能自行.” The Sayings of Mencius, Ch. 4, Li-Lou.

  58. 58.

    Id., at p. 3.

  59. 59.

    Bodansky (2007).

  60. 60.

    Chwaszcza (2010), p. 335.

  61. 61.

    Id.

  62. 62.

    See Götzmann N (2014).

  63. 63.

    On 20 May 1950, the Nationalist Government issued A Martial Ordinance in Taiwan, which was not rescinded until 15 July 1987.

  64. 64.

    See Ministry of Justice, Human Rights in Taiwan on Human Rights Education and Training Arranged and Conducted, http://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/np.asp?ctNode=40301&mp=205. Accessed 23 Dec 2017. However, the concluding observations and recommendations noted a deficit relating to human rights education and training, Review of the Initial Reports, supra note 4, at paras. 17–19.

References

  • Bodansky DM (2007) The Concept of Legitimacy in International Law (Univ of Georgia Sch of L, Research Paper No, 07-013), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1033542

  • Chwaszcza C (2010) The Concept of Rights in Contemporary Human Rights Discourse. Ratio Juris 23(3):333–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denza E (2014) The Relationship Between International and National Law. In: Evans MD (ed) International Law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 412–440

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Götzmann N (2014) Human Rights and Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Practical Considerations in the Private Sector (The Danish Institute for Human Rights, Matters of Concern for Human Rights Research Paper No. 2012/2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris D (ed) (2010) Case and Materials on International Law, 7th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1997) The Concept of Law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu H-Y (2010) On the Normative Contents of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—A Preliminary Inquiry on its Practice in Taiwan [論經濟、社會及文化權利國際公約中文化權之規範內涵我國實踐問題之初探]. Chinese (Taiwan) Review of International and Transnational Law [中華國際法與超國界法評論] 6(2):495–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings R and Watts A (eds) (1996) Oppenheim’s International Law. Volume I: Peace. Longmans, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2013) International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee C-L (2014) On the Legal Effects and the Status of International Treaty under Domestic Legal Order [論國際條約的國內法效力與法位階定位]. In: Liao F-T (ed) The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Interpretation [憲法解釋之理論與實務]. Academia Sinica Taipei, pp. 175–275. http://publication.iias.sinica.edu.tw/90501141.pdf

  • Liao F-T (2010) Should and How the Court Applies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [法院應否及如何適用公民與政治權利國際公約]. Taiwan Law Journal [台灣法學雜誌] 163:45–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao F-T (2014) Court’s Challenges When Applying the ICCPR and the ICESCR-Review of Judgments of Administrative Courts [司法審判於兩公約人權保障思維所面臨之挑戰––行政法院適用兩公約之檢視]. China Law Journal [法學叢刊] 59(2):1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao T-S (2011) The Domestic Effects of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Taiwan: Focusing on the Criminal Judgments of the Supreme and High Court [公民與政治權利國際公約在我國的效力以最高及高等法院刑事裁判為研究中心]. Chinese (Taiwan)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin C-F (2010) On the Supplementary Function of the Two Covenants to Human Rights Protection under Constitutional Law in Taiwan—An Inquiry into the Preliminary Framework [論兩公約對憲法人權保障的補充-一個初步架構的探討]. Journal of Taiwan Bar Association [全國律師] 14(3):23–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin T-W (2013) Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6 and 7 in the Criminal Justice Practice of Taiwan: Focus of the Judgements of the Supreme Court Related to Right to Life. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Human Rights Education: Global Convergence and Local Practice (21–26 November)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin Y-H (2013) Criminal Procedural Law (1), 7th edn. New Sharing, Taipei

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice, Human Rights in Taiwan on Human Rights Education and Training Arranged and Conducted. http://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/np.asp?ctNode=40301&mp=205. Accessed 23 Dec 2017

  • Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan [行政院研究發展考核委員會] (2011) Policy Research on the Implementation of the Two Covenants [落實兩公約施行法之政策研究]. https://www.ndc.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=E4F9C91CF6EA4EC4&sms = 4506D295372B40FB&s = 549B97021773800B Accessed 26 Dec 2017

  • Review of International and Transnational Law [中華國際法與超國界法評論] 7(1):96–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Review of the Initial Reports of the Government of Taiwan on the Implementation of the International Human Rights Covenants: Concluding Observations and Recommendations Adopted by the International Group of Independent Experts, Taipei, 1 Mar 2013, at para. 4. http://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/HitCounter.asp?xItem=385451. Accessed 30 Sept 2017

  • Teng Y-S. Editorial, Implementing the Two Covenants on Human Rights Protection Forum in Celebrating the 65th Judicial Day Co-organized by the Judicial Yuan and the Ministry of Justice [院部聯合慶祝第 65 屆司法節研討實踐兩公約之人權保障], judicial weekly, 14 Jan 2010, http://www.judicial.gov.tw/jw9706/pdf/1475-1.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2017

  • Teng Y-S (2010) Some Questions and Problems Concerning the Incorporation of the Two Covenants in Taiwan 两公约内国法化后相关问题之探讨. Paper presented at the 65th Judicial Day Conference (11 Jan)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Soochow University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Yean-Sen Teng

Authors
  1. Yean-Sen Teng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yean-Sen Teng .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. U.S.-Asia Law Institute, New York University, New York, NY, USA

    Jerome A. Cohen

  2. Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, USA

    William P. Alford

  3. Constitutional Court, Taipei, Taiwan, Taiwan

    Chang-fa Lo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Teng, YS. (2019). The Problems with the Incorporation of International Human Rights Law in Taiwan. In: Cohen, J., Alford, W., Lo, Cf. (eds) Taiwan and International Human Rights. Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0350-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0350-0_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0349-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0350-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation