The US Congress in the past few years has passed legislation in support of Taiwan, including “an act to direct the [US] Secretary of State to develop a strategy to obtain observer status for Taiwan in the International Criminal Police Organization [Interpol] and for other purposes” and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 providing for military exchanges between Taiwan and the US.
The Taiwan Travel Act bill is the latest addition to this legislative drive. Taiwanese officials and the public have embraced this development with enthusiasm.
In the public eye, this is a welcome development, as it apparently affirms the US’ commitment to Taiwan time and again. Yet, in the eye of a constitutional law student, these congressional acts should be treated with caution.
To begin with, all the foregoing congressional statutes are more symbolic than transformative. In terms of style, they consist of two main parts: The first sets out the factual findings by Congress; the second and main part provides for policy direction.
It is the second part that merits attention. Apart from the legislation on Taiwan’s participation in Interpol, the other two legal instruments imply no legal obligation whatsoever in their main section. Instead, Congress deliberately chose the word “should” instead of “shall” when it comes to visits between US and Taiwanese officials.
As any law student can instantly tell, “should” simply expresses the subjective expectation of Congress. It only imposes moral obligations on the US administration at best, lacking any enforceability or justiciability.
It is true that the legislation on Taiwan’s participation in Interpol adopts the wording “shall,” which denotes a congressional directive to the government, but the legal obligations imposed by Congress are flimsy.
The US government’s main duty is to report back to Congress what strategy it develops and adopts with respect to Taiwan’s participation in Interpol as an observer, as well as “instruct[ing]” Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department to “officially request” that Interpol consider the matter.
It is not hard to see why Congress has legislated in support of Taiwan in this thinned form. The US adheres to the principle of separation of powers, not the doctrine of legislative sovereignty. It is the executive branch that takes the helm in steering foreign affairs.
The US Constitution prohibits Congress from micromanaging military administration and diplomatic relations, not to mention sending military delegations overseas or receiving foreign government visitors. This explains why “should” is chosen over “shall” in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and the Taiwan Travel Act bill.
Taiwanese officials and the public had better exercise caution when they welcome the recent US Congress-driven Taiwan-friendly movement. Friends of Taiwan also need to think about how to better spend their capital in the advocacy for Taiwan. Preoccupation with legislative symbolism will only deepen the false sense of security pervading Taiwanese society.
Kuo Ming-Sung is an associate professor at the University of Warwick’s School of Law.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS