In nations that go through transitional justice, it is common to see criminal lawsuits brought against officials of the previous regime, who are held responsible for the wrongs that were done, as is relieving them of their positions and imposing sanctions on them. Another common practice is providing material compensation to victims and providing a reassessment of the old regime. In short, a rehabilitation of everyone who has suffered under the old regime takes place.
Today, when people talk about transitional justice, it encompasses what could perhaps be called the “millennium compensation movement,” which has been going on for the past few years.
The movement includes compensation demands for property losses from descendants of Jewish victims of the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany; demands for compensation related to human trafficking and slavery; compensation demands related to colonialism — in particular the driving out and slaughter of indigenous peoples; and demands for compensation following a transition of power related to an old regime’s abuse of criminal arrests.
Following developments over the past years, the main method of implementing transitional justice in such nations has been to advocate monetary compensation for losses that have resulted from illegal measures and requiring that all forcefully expropriated assets be returned in their entirety.
In Taiwan, the government used unjust methods to obtain privately owned assets during the White Terror era. Although such cases have not been completely ignored in practice, nothing has been done to address them, either by returning the assets or offering compensation.
The government has been unable to handle such cases, offer compensation, or restore private assets that were unjustly expropriated. Regardless of whether as a result of illegal confiscation or expropriation by the government, or as the result of other unfair practices, such cases remain unresolved.
However, a new method of transitional justice — although perhaps not directly connected to authoritarian governments, but addressing issues arising from illegal government actions — has been receiving attention.
For example, illegal indiscriminate expropriation of privately owned land for the purpose of fabricated public interests or for the benefit of certain big corporations has developed into a new form of state violence. This is an area where transitional justice would be required in Taiwan.
When asked in a private meeting in 1943 why his well-known book The Concept of the Political did not mention the public interest that lies at the core of politics, German political scientist Carl Schmitt said that anyone who mentions bonum commune — the public interest or the public good — is out to cheat and deceive.
Much harm has been done to public assets and the public spirit in the name of patriotism and the public interest. Taiwan could do with both the old and the new versions of transitional justice.
Lin Chia-ho is an associate professor at National Chengchi University’s College of Law.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS