The Sunflower movement has come to an end and the cross-strait service trade agreement is to enter the legislative review process. This means that the question of whether it can be changed once again will come into focus.
The treaties and agreements that Taiwan has signed with other countries rarely take immediate effect. They must first be approved or transformed by the legislature so they can become part of domestic legislation. When it comes to international or multilateral treaties or agreements, they are decided by majority decision among the participating countries. If each country could adjust the contents of these agreements unilaterally, the above norms and standards would be meaningless.
For example, the 1998 Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court stresses universal jurisdiction over international crime. It will thus interfere with national criminal jurisdiction, which is why over 30 signatories to the statue still have not ratified or transformed it into domestic legislation. The US and Israel even refused to sign it because they say it encroaches on their national interests. Although it can be changed, Article 121 of the statute states that changes to the text must be approved by two-thirds of the signatories and ratified by seven-eighths of all signatories before the changes can take effect. Reaching these numbers is quite a challenge. This means when signing international agreements of this importance, the legislatures of the signatory countries in effect have to approve or reject the agreement as a whole.
When bilateral treaties and agreements are signed under coercion, for example when the losing side in a war signs a peace agreement, the legislature likely has no choice but to accept the facts and forget about altering the document even if the agreement is unfair.
Any agreements signed with other countries that involve the public’s rights or have a major impact on the nation must of course be reviewed by the legislature, which can also alter the proposal, regardless of whether it is a treaty, an agreement or an accord. However, any changes made during the review must be negotiated with the counterpart and resigned after a consensus has been reached. It must then be sent back to the legislature, where it once again enters the cycle of review, re-signing and follow-up reviews.
Based on Constitutional Interpretation 329, because the service trade agreement has a great impact on the public’s rights and interests, the legislature has the right to review and amend it. However, once amended, negotiations with China must be restarted. This will lead to a long period of talks which might break down. This would of course have a negative impact on future talks with other countries. This issue shows that, in terms of the signing of any agreement with another country, democratic oversight prior to and during negotiations is more important than review after it has been negotiated. This shows it is necessary to institutionalize an oversight mechanism for cross-strait and other international agreements as soon as possible.
To sum up, the question of whether cross-strait agreements can be changed cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. In addition to considering international precedent and domestic legislation, it also hinges on international realities and political wrangling.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor and chair of Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under