Freedom of Movement in Taiwan—A Local Development to Meet International Standards

Li, Jeffrey C. F.

doi:10.1007/978-981-13-0350-0_23

Jeffrey C. F. Li⁵

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

1100 Accesses

Abstract

According to Article 12 of the ICCPR, the freedom of movement includes at least three distinct rights: (1) the right to enter one’s own country; (2) the right to leave any country; and (3) the right to liberty of movement within the territory of a state. In Taiwan, the three rights are all covered by the Constitution and have been expanded on by the Constitutional Court. Article 10 of the Constitution states that people should have the freedom of migration and the Constitutional Court has declared a series of interpretations that elaborate on the freedom of migration. In addition to the traditional freedom of movement, the Constitutional Court has also developed a freedom of movement in Article 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, further observation and analysis is required regarding the actual scope of the freedom of movement in Article 22 of the Constitution as developed by the Constitutional Court. By observing the constitutional interpretations in Taiwan, the author intends to introduce the freedom of migration as it exists in the Constitution and how it corresponds to the freedom of movement under international treaties.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 Dec 1948) [hereinafter Universal Declaration of Human Rights]. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
2.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 Dec 1966, 999 UN T.S 171 [hereinafter ICCPR]. http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3aa0.html. Accessed 9 Oct 2017.
3.
See UN Human Rights Committee [HRC], CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (freedom of movement), para 11, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (2 Nov 1999) [hereinafter General Comment No. 27]. http://www.refworld.org/docid/45139c394.html. Accessed 9 Oct 2017.
4.
ICCPR, at art. 12, para 3.
5.
See General Comment No. 27, at para 11.
6.
Id., at para 21.
7.
Id., at para 20.
8.
Id.
9.
Id., at para 4.
10.
Id., at paras 4−7.
11.
Re-codified Chinese dictionary by Ministry of Education. http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?ccd=b57j_o&o=e0&sec=sec1&op=v&viev=5-1. Accessed 12 Nov 2017.
12.
Dafaguan Shizi Di 265 Hao [大法官釋字第265號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 265) (5 Oct 1990) (R.O.C.) [hereinafter Interpretation No. 265]. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=265. Accessed 15 Nov 2017; see also Dafaguan Shizi Di 454 Hao [大法官釋字第454號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 454) (22 May 1998) (R.O.C.) [hereinafter Interpretation No. 454]. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionnalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=454. Accessed 15 Nov 2017; Dafaguan Shizi Di 542 Hao [大法官釋字第542號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 542) (4 Apr 2002) (R.O.C.) [hereinafter Interpretation No. 542]. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=542. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
13.
Dafaguan Shizi Di 443 Hao [大法官釋字第443號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 443) (26 Dec 1997) (R.O.C.) [hereinafter Interpretation No. 443]. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=443. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
14.
Dafaguan Shizi Di 558 Hao [大法官釋字第558號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 558) (18 Apr 2003) (R.O.C.), available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=558. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
15.
English translation of the Constitution, on the ROC laws and regulations database website, available at: http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=A0000001.
16.
See infra Section 3.
17.
See, e.g., J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 454 and 558.
18.
See e.g., Fa and Dung (2006), p. 214 (recognizing freedom of migration may include people’s freedom to move and reside within a state, foreigners’ freedom to enter a state, and people’s freedom to go abroad); Wu (2015), pp. 314–315 (agreeing that freedom of migration includes people’s freedom to move freely inside Taiwan, freedom to leave Taiwan, and freedom to enter Taiwan); Chen (2005), p. 235 (pointing out that freedom of migration may refer to a people’s general freedom of movement as the broader meaning, or may refer to freedom to change residence as the narrower meaning, and concluding that freedom of migration under the Constitution should be understood as the broader meaning. Also, he concludes that freedom of migration may include freedom of migration within a state and freedom to go abroad).
19.
J.Y. Interpretation No. 265.
20.
Legislative History of the National Security Act. Laws and Regulations Database of the ROC. http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawHistory.aspx?PCode=A0030028vggb. Accessed 12 Nov 2017.
21.
See the Petition of J.Y. Interpretation No. 265, available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/P03_01_detail.asp?expno=265&showtype=%AC%DB%C3%F6%AA%FE%A5%F3.
22.
Id.
23.
Id.
24.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 265, para 1.
25.
Holding of J.Y. Interpretation No. 265.
26.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 265, para 2.
27.
Id.
28.
J.Y. Interpretation No. 443.
29.
See Petition of J.Y. Interpretation No. 443, available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/P03_01_detail.asp?expno=443&showtype=%AC%DB%C3%F6%AA%FE%A5%F3.
30.
See. e.g., Wu (2007), pp. 103–106; Chen (2013), pp. 159–160. The principle of “Vorbehalt des Gesetzes” originated in Germany. A similar principle in U.S. law would be the non-delegation principle. See, e.g., Hwang (2004), pp. 1−45.
31.
See Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 443, para 1.
32.
Id., at para 2.
33.
Article 22 of the ROC Constitution reads: “All other freedoms and rights of the people that are not detrimental to social order or public welfare shall be guaranteed under the Constitution.” Article 23 of the ROC Constitution reads: “All the freedoms and rights enumerated in the preceding Articles shall not be restricted by law except by such as may be necessary to prevent infringement upon the freedoms of other persons, to avert an imminent crisis, to maintain social order or to advance public welfare.”
34.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 443, para 2.
35.
Id.
36.
J.Y. Interpretation No. 454.
37.
See Petition of J.Y. Interpretation No. 454, available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/p03_01.asp?expno=454.
38.
Holding of J.Y. Interpretation No. 454.
39.
See id.
40.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 454, para 1.
41.
Id. (Emphasis added.)
42.
Dafaguan Shizi Di 497 Hao [大法官釋字第 497 號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 497) (3 Dec 1999) (R.O.C.), available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=497. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
43.
See Petition of J.Y. Interpretation No. 497, available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/uploadfile/C100/497.pdf.
44.
See Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 497.
45.
Id.
46.
Id.
47.
J.Y. Interpretation No. 542.
48.
See Summary of Facts of J.Y. Interpretation No. 542, available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/P03_01_detail.asp?expno=542&showtype=%AC%DB%C3%F6%AA%FE%A5%F3.
49.
Holding of J.Y. Interpretation No. 542, para 1.
50.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 542, para 2.
51.
See Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 542, para 3.
52.
Dafaguan Shizi Di 558 Hao [大法官釋字第 558 號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 558) (18 Apr 2003) (R.O.C.), available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=558. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
53.
See Summary of Facts of J.Y. Interpretation No. 558, available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/P03_01_detail.asp?expno=558&showtype=%AC%DB%C3%F6%AA%FE%A5%F3.
54.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 558, para 2.
55.
See, e.g., J.Y. Interpretations No. 443 and No. 454.
56.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 558, para 2.
57.
See id.
58.
Subparagraph 2, Paragraph 2, Article 3 of the NSA during the Period provides that entry into and exit from the country may not be permitted if, judging from the facts, it may be reasonably suspected that the applicant may pose a threat to national security or social stability.
59.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 558, para 3.
60.
Id. (Emphasis added.)
61.
Id. (Emphasis added.)
62.
Article 11 of the Amendments to the Constitution reads: “Rights and obligations between the people living in the free area and those of the Chinese Mainland Area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specially prescribed by law.”
63.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 558, para 2.
64.
Id.
65.
See Dissenting Opinion of Justice Liu Tieh-Cheng of J.Y. Interpretation No. 558, available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/p03_01.asp?expno=558.
66.
Paragraph 2, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
67.
Paragraph 4, Article 14 of the ICCPR reads: “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”
68.
Id.
69.
Dafaguan Shizi Di 710 Hao [大法官釋字第 710 號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 710) (5 July 2013) (R.O.C.), available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=710. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
70.
This paragraph is summarized from the Summary of Facts of J.Y. Interpretation No. 710.
71.
Dafaguan Shizi Di 708 Hao [大法官釋字第 708 號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 708). (6 Feb 2013) (R.O.C.), available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=708. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
72.
Holding of J.Y. Interpretation No. 710.
73.
Id.
74.
See Holding of J.Y. Interpretation No. 708.
75.
Id.
76.
See J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 497 and 558.
77.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 710, para 2.
78.
J.Y. Interpretation No. 603 reads:

Although the right of privacy is not among those rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it should nonetheless be considered as an indispensable fundamental right and thus protected under Article 22 of the Constitution for purposes of preserving human dignity, individuality and moral integrity, as well as preventing invasions of personal privacy and maintaining self-control of personal information.
79.
J.Y. Interpretation No. 748 reads:

Unspoused persons eligible to marry shall have their freedom of marriage, which includes the freedom to decide “whether to marry” and “whom to marry” (see J.Y. Interpretation No. 362). Such decisional autonomy is vital to the sound development of personality and to the safeguarding of human dignity, and therefore is a fundamental right to be protected by Article 22 of the Constitution. The creation of a permanent union of intimate and exclusive nature for the purpose of living a common life by two persons of the same-sex will not affect the application of those provisions on betrothal, conclusion of marriage, general effects of marriage, matrimonial property regimes, and divorce, as provided for in Sections 1 through 5 of the Marriage Chapter to the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Nor will it alter the social order established upon existing opposite-sex marriages. Furthermore, the freedom of marriage for two persons of the same-sex, once legally recognized, will constitute the bedrock of a stable society, together with opposite-sex marriages.
80.
J.Y. Interpretation No. 712 reads:

The family system is based on the free development of personality and is essential for ensuring the functions of inheritance, education, the economy and culture. It is vital for an individual’s growth in society and is the foundation for the creation and development of our society. Adoption is part of our country’s family system. It is an action that establishes a parent-child relationship with a view to creating an identity. In this way, it forms human relationships between the adopter and the adoption of education, nurturing, support, belonging and inheritance of property. It plays an important role in developing the mind and body and molding the personality of both adopter and adopted. The people’s freedom to adopt children, in particular the freedom of development of personality for both adopter and adopted, is protected under Article 22 of the Constitution.
81.
J.Y. Interpretation No. 656 reads: “The right to reputation, necessary in the realization of human dignity, aims to maintain and protect individual sovereignty and moral integrity. It is guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution (see J. Y. Interpretation Nos. 399, 486, 587 and 603).”
82.
J.Y. Interpretation No. 587 reads:

A child’s right to identify his/her blood filiations is declared by Article 7, Section 1, of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, validated on 2 Sept 1990. The right to establish paternity is concerned with a child’s right to personality and shall be protected under Article 22 of the Constitution.
83.
See, e.g., J.Y. Interpretations Nos. 443 and 454.
84.
Dafaguan Shizi Di 535 Hao [大法官釋字第 535 號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 535) (14 Dec 2001) (R.O.C.), available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=535. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
85.
The English translation of J.Y. Interpretation No. 587 uses “right to travel,” however, to distinguish the right to travel under Article 10 of the Constitution; I choose “freedom of movement” as a more correct English translation of “一般行動自由.”
86.
Holding of J.Y. Interpretation No. 587, para 1.
87.
Holding of J.Y. Interpretation No. 535 reads:

The relevant provisions concerning police checks in the aforementioned Act never delegate police unlimited authority to exercise any check, law enforcement or interrogation without due consideration of time, place, manner and subjects. Unless prescribed otherwise in the law, the police shall limit their checking authority to public transportation, public places, or other places where danger exists or may exist according to reasonable and objective judgments. Among these places, some places may be private residences that must be protected to the same extent as any homes. Police shall not exercise checking authority over any persons unless there is a reasonable belief that actions taken by such persons have caused or may cause danger; and in so doing, police must abide by the principle of proportionality and not go beyond the degree of necessity. Before conducting any checks, police must immediately inform the involved persons of the reasons for exercising such checks and identify themselves clearly as law enforcement officers. Any police checks must be conducted on the spot. If police do not obtain the consent of the persons to be checked and, with no alternative to identify the persons to be checked or to conduct on-the-spot checks, and they still conduct such checks, this may have harmful effects or may impede traffic flows and interfere with social tranquility. Moreover, police are not permitted to ask checked persons to go to a police station for further interrogation. After the identification of such persons has been confirmed, police should permit them to leave without delay unless they are suspected of having committed a crime, in which case criminal law procedures should be followed.
88.
Dafaguan Shizi Di 689 Hao [大法官釋字第 689 號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 689) (29 Jul 2011) (R.O.C.), available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=689. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
89.
Holding of J.Y. Interpretation No. 689.
90.
Id.
91.
Id.
92.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 689, para 5.
93.
Dafaguan Shizi Di 699 Hao [大法官釋字第 699 號] (J.Y. Interpretation No. 699) (18 May 2012) (R.O.C.), available at: http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/EN/p03_01.asp?expno=699. Accessed 15 Nov 2017.
94.
Holding of J.Y. Interpretation No. 699.
95.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 699, para 4.
96.
Id.
97.
Holding of J.Y. Interpretation No. 699.
98.
Reasoning of J.Y. Interpretation No. 699, para 1.

References

Chen M (2013), Xing Zheng Fa Zong Lun [行政法總論] (The General Administrative Law). New Sharing, Taipei
Google Scholar
Chen X-M (2005) Xian Fa Xue Shi Lun [憲法學釋論] (Constitutional Law Commentary). San Min, Taipei
Google Scholar
Fa J-P, Dung B-T (2006) Xian Fa Xin Lun [憲法新論] (Novel Commentary on Constitutional Law). Angle, Taipei
Google Scholar
G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 Dec 1948). http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
Hwang S (2004) Falu Baoliu Yuanze zai Deguo Fazhixu xia de Yihan yu Tezheng [法律保留原則在德國法秩序下的意涵與特徵] (The Principle of “Vorbehalt des Gesetzes” in the Context of the German Legal Tradition). Chung Yuan Financ Econ Law Rev 13:1–45
Google Scholar
Legislative History of the National Security Act. Laws and Regulations Database of the ROC. http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawHistory.aspx?PCode=A0030028vggb. Accessed 12 Nov 2017
Re-codified Chinese Dictionary by Ministry of Education. http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?ccd=b57j_o&o=e0&sec=sec1&op=v&viev=5-1. Accessed 12 Nov 2017
UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (freedom of movement), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (2 Nov 1999). http://www.refworld.org/docid/45139c394.html. Accessed 9 Oct 2017
Wu G (2007) Xing Zheng Cheng Xu Fa Zhi Li Lun Yu Shi Yong [行政程序法之理論與實用] (The Practice and Theory of Administrative Law). San Min, Taipei
Google Scholar
Wu X-H (2015) Xian Fa Shi Lun [憲法釋論] (The Constitution Commentary). San Min, Taipei
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Soochow University Law School, Taipei, Taiwan
Jeffrey C. F. Li

Authors

Jeffrey C. F. Li
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey C. F. Li .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

U.S.-Asia Law Institute, New York University, New York, NY, USA
Jerome A. Cohen
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, USA
William P. Alford
Constitutional Court, Taipei, Taiwan, Taiwan
Chang-fa Lo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Li, J.C.F. (2019). Freedom of Movement in Taiwan—A Local Development to Meet International Standards. 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_23

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0350-0_23
Published: 17 May 2019
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