Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constitutional Dynamics of Judicial Discourse on the Rights of Non-citizens: The Case of Taiwan

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Taiwan and International Human Rights

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

  • 1115 Accesses

Abstract

The recent developments in global and regional immigration attitudes challenge the constitutionality of policies and regulations on immigrants and foreigners in many countries. Similar demands for such judicial resolutions also occurred in Taiwan while it underwent the successful democratic transition in the 1990s. Its Constitutional Court has rendered several decisions to address the civil, social, and political rights of non-citizens in recent years. Against the backdrop of these vibrant developments, this chapter discusses in what ways and to what extent the Constitutional Court of Taiwan has addressed disputes about the rights of non-citizens in the settings of the democratic transition and globalization and the features and critiques of those judicial decisions are. Having examined those judicial decisions, this chapter finds that the Court’s decisions reveal two significant features. First, the Court has increasingly taken an inclusive approach in the civil rights of non-citizens, which has facilitated the subsequent development of migrant regulations. Second, the Court and the individual Justices have actively used international human rights instruments to address the rights of non-citizens while Taiwan incorporates itself into the international human rights regime. However, the Court’s decisions on social and political rights drew scholarly critiques when it took a rather deferential approach in reviewing related cases due to concerns of national security and limited social resources. Since non-citizens are usually regarded as “discrete and insular minorities,” this chapter argues that the Court should consider applying stricter scrutiny to the legal restrictions on the social and political rights of non-citizens, especially when the issue of national origin classification is sensitive. In addition, to guarantee human rights for non-citizens, the Court should find it necessary to develop diverse criteria to review the disputes that pertain to the social and political rights of non-citizens.

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)
  • 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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Weissbrodt (2008), p. 1; Kondo and Popovic (2013), p. 349.

  2. 2.

    Edwards and Ferstman (2010), pp. 3–46.

  3. 3.

    Yeh (2016), pp. 63–65.

  4. 4.

    Id., at pp. 28–29.

  5. 5.

    Id., at p. 31.

  6. 6.

    Id., at pp. 37–38.

  7. 7.

    Id., at pp. 37–38.

  8. 8.

    Id., at pp. 38–49.

  9. 9.

    Id., at pp. 222–224.

  10. 10.

    Wang (2011), pp. 179–180.

  11. 11.

    Lee (2010), p. 338.

  12. 12.

    Chen (2016), p. 28.

  13. 13.

    Yeh (2016), p. 222.

  14. 14.

    Although the Constitutional Court of Taiwan has not addressed the status of Mainlanders in Taiwan, several Justices of the Taiwanese Constitutional Court have discussed this issue in their individual opinions. For example, to address Constitutional Court Interpretation No. 710, Justice Chun-Sheng Chen, in his opinion of concurring in part and dissenting in part, argued that Mainlanders have a special status under the Taiwanese legal system. In addition, the opinion of concurring in part and dissenting in part issued by Justice Chang-fa Lo argued people from Mainland China shall enjoy the same rights as other foreigners in Taiwan.

  15. 15.

    Li (2003), p. 162; Lee (2006), pp. 23–34.

  16. 16.

    Momesso and Cheng (2017), p. 230.

  17. 17.

    Yeh (2016), p. 80.

  18. 18.

    Momesso and Cheng (2017), pp. 61–99.

  19. 19.

    Si Fa Yuan Da Fa Guan Jie Shi Shizi Di 497 Hao [Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, Interpretation No. 497] (3 Dec 1999) (R.O.C.) [hereinafter J.Y. Interpretation No. 497 (3 Dec 1999)], Holding and Reasoning.

  20. 20.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 497 (3 Dec 1999), Reasoning.

  21. 21.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 497 (3 Dec 1999), Reasoning.

  22. 22.

    Lan (2006), pp. 33–37.

  23. 23.

    Si Fa Yuan Da Fa Guan Jie Shi Shizi Di 708 Hao [Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, Interpretation No. 708] (6 Feb 2013) (R.O.C.) [hereinafter J.Y. Interpretation No. 708 (6 Feb 2013)], Holding.

  24. 24.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 708 (6 Feb 2013), Reasoning, para. 1.

  25. 25.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 708 (6 Feb 2013), Reasoning, para. 1.

  26. 26.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 708 (6 Feb 2013), Reasoning, para. 3.

  27. 27.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 708 (6 Feb 2013), Reasoning, para. 3.

  28. 28.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 708 (6 Feb 2013), Reasoning, para. 3.

  29. 29.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 708 (6 Feb 2013), Reasoning, para. 4.

  30. 30.

    Si Fa Yuan Da Fa Guan Jie Shi Shizi Di 710 Hao [Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, Interpretation No. 710] (5 July 2013) (R.O.C.) [hereinafter J.Y. Interpretation No. 710 (5 July 2013)], Holding, para. 1.

  31. 31.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 710 (5 July 2013), Holding, para. 3.

  32. 32.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 710 (5 July 2013), Reasoning, para. 2.

  33. 33.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 710 (5 July 2013), Reasoning, para. 2.

  34. 34.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 710 (5 July 2013), Reasoning, para. 3.

  35. 35.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 710 (5 July 2013), Reasoning, para. 3.

  36. 36.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 710 (5 July 2013), Reasoning, para. 6.

  37. 37.

    Yeh (2016), p. 208.

  38. 38.

    Si Fa Yuan Da Fa Guan Jie Shi Shizi Di 618 Hao [Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, Interpretation No. 618] (13 Nov 2006) (R.O.C.) [hereinafter J.Y. Interpretation No. 618 (13 Nov 2006)], Reasoning, para. 2.

  39. 39.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 618 (13 Nov 2006), Reasoning, para. 3.

  40. 40.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 618 (13 Nov 2006), Reasoning, para. 3.

  41. 41.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 618 (13 Nov 2006), Reasoning, para. 3.

  42. 42.

    Si Fa Yuan Da Fa Guan Jie Shi Shizi Di 560 Hao [Justices of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan, Interpretation No. 560] (4 July 2003) (R.O.C.) [hereinafter J.Y. Interpretation No. 560 (4 July 2003)], Reasoning, para. 1.

  43. 43.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 560 (4 July 2003), Reasoning, para. 1.

  44. 44.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 560 (5 July 2003), Reasoning, para. 1.

  45. 45.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 560 (4 July 2003), Reasoning, para. 2.

  46. 46.

    Wu (2012), pp. 143–147.

  47. 47.

    Chang (2017), p. 614.

  48. 48.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 710 (5 July 2013).

  49. 49.

    Republic of China (2016), para. 123.

  50. 50.

    Chang (2011), p. 106.

  51. 51.

    There are two different Chinese-language versions of the ICCPR. One is the original version that the Republic of China signed in the 1960s, and the other is a different translation that has been used in recent years by the UN. The two different versions of the ICCPR have different names. The original Chinese version and the recent Chinese version of the ICCPR have different translations in some parts of the ICCPR. The differences are the translations of “civil and political rights” and “covenant.” The Taiwanese government adopted the original Chinese version of the ICCPR. The language is traditional Chinese. The Legislative Yuan of Taiwan ratified this version of the ICCPR and enacted the Implementation Act in 2009. Yeh and Chang (2014), pp. 152–153.

  52. 52.

    Yeh and Chang (2014), pp. 152–153.

  53. 53.

    General Comment No. 15 emphasizes “that each one of the rights of the Covenant must be guaranteed without discrimination between citizens and aliens.”

  54. 54.

    Chang (2011), p. 117.

  55. 55.

    J.Y. Interpretation No. 710 (5 July 2013).

  56. 56.

    Justice Yeong-Chin Su’s concurring opinion; Justice Ching-You Tsay’s concurring opinion; Justice Pai-Hsiu Yeh’s concurring opinion; Justice Dennis Te-Chung Tang’s concurring opinion; Justice Chang-fa Lo’s opinion of concurring in part and dissenting in part.

  57. 57.

    Justice Chun-Sheng Chen’s opinion of concurring in part and dissenting in part; Justice Chang-fa Lo’s opinion of concurring in part and dissenting in part; Justice Chen-Shan Li’s opinion of concurring in part and dissenting in part; Justice Shin-Min Chen’s dissenting opinion.

  58. 58.

    Hwang (2007), pp. 471–498.

  59. 59.

    Friedman (2010), pp. 79-83.

  60. 60.

    Li (2016), pp. 5–6.

  61. 61.

    Kondo and Popovic (2013), pp. 354–358.

  62. 62.

    Id., at p. 357.

  63. 63.

    Richards (2014) Japanese Supreme Court Rules Against Foreign Residents on Welfare, The Diplomat, 23 July 2014, http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/supreme-court-makes-foreigners-second-class-citizens/. Accessed 21 Dec 2017; Constitutional Court of Korea, Case on Placing Limitations on the Number of Workplace Transfers by Foreign Workers, 2007 Hun-Ma 1083, 29 Sept 2011 (23-2(A) KCCR 623).

  64. 64.

    For example, multi-dimensional closeness between non-citizens and the host country can be included in a consideration of the judicial considerations: physical proximity, the legal duties they fulfill (to pay taxes), and their allegiance to the country. Moore (2013), p. 804.

References

  • Chang W-C (2011) The convergence of constitutions and international human rights: Taiwan and South Korea in comparison. N C J Int’l L Comp Reg 36(3):101–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang W-C (2017) The Constitutional Court of Taiwan. In: Jakab A, Dyevre A, Itzcovich G (eds) Comparative constitutional reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 604–640

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen L-C (2016) The U.S.-Taiwan-China relationship in international law and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng I, Momesso L (2017) Look, the world is watching how we treat migrants! The making of the anti-trafficking legislation during the Ma administration. J Curr Chin Affairs 46(1):61–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards A, Ferstman C (2010) Humanising non-citizens: convergence of human rights and human security. In: Edwards A, Ferstman C (eds) Human security and non-citizens: law, policy and international affairs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman SL (2010) Marital immigration and graduated citizenship: post-naturalization restrictions on Mainland Chinese spouses in Taiwan. Pac Affairs 83(1):73–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang J-Y (2007) Judicial standard of review for national origin classification: the case of J.Y. interpretation No. 618. In: Chou C-H, Hsu C-H, Tsai M-I (eds) Theory and practice of modern constitution: essays in honor of professor Hong-Hsi Lee. Taipei, Angle, pp 471–498. (In Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kondo A, Popovic D (2013) Rights of non-citizens. In: Tushnet M, Fleiner T, Saunders C (eds) Routledge handbook of constitutional law. Routledge, London, pp 349–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Lan P-C (2006) Global cinderellas: migrant domestics and newly rich employers in Taiwan. Duke University Press, Durham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee C-L (2006) Nationality and citizenship: origins and legal analysis on identity linkage between people and state. Paper presented at the Conference on Citizenship and Social Change, held by the Institute of Sociology and the Institute of Political Science, Academia Sinica. Taipei, 26 May 2006 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee SJ (2010) Immigration to Taiwan. In: Segal AU, Elliott D, Nazneen S, Mayadas SN (eds) Immigration worldwide: policies, practices, and trends. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 335–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Li C-S (2003) Immigration system and fundamental rights of foreigners. Police L J 2:159–187 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Li N-T (2016) Inequality or equality? foreigners on the decisions of the Constitutional Court. Dissent 28:4–7 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Momesso L, Cheng I (2017) A team player pursuing its own dreams: rights-claim campaign of Chinese migrant spouses in the migrant movement before and after 2008. In: Fell D (ed), Taiwan’s social movements under Ma Ying-jeou: from the wild strawberries to the sunflowers. Routledge, London, pp 219–235

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moore KN (2013) Madison lecture: aliens and the constitution. NYU L Rev 88(3):801–877

    Google Scholar 

  • Republic of China (2016) Implementation of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights: second report submitted under Article 40 of the Covenant

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards C (2014) Japanese Supreme Court rules against foreign residents on welfare, The Diplomat. http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/supreme-court-makes-foreigners-second-class-citizens/. Accessed 21 Dec 2017

  • Wang H-Z (2011) Immigration trends and policy changes in Taiwan. Asian Pac Migr J 30(2):169–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weissbrodt D (2008) The human rights of non-citizens. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wu C-H (2012) WTO and the greater China: economic integration and dispute resolution. Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh J-R (2016) The Constitution of Taiwan: a contextual analysis. Hart Publisher, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh J-R, Chang W-C (2014) A decade of changing constitutionalism in Taiwan: transitional and transnational perspectives. In: Chen AHY (ed) Constitutionalism in Asia in the early twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 141–168

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Global Taiwan Institute, Washington, DC, USA

    Yi-Li Lee

Authors
  1. Yi-Li Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi-Li Lee .

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

Lee, YL. (2019). Constitutional Dynamics of Judicial Discourse on the Rights of Non-citizens: The Case of 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_38

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0350-0_38

  • 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