The governments of the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq and the Catalonia region of Spain have both held controversial independence referendums in recent weeks. Although the two regions have yet to receive international recognition as sovereign states following the votes, it begs the question whether Taiwan would be able to hold a similar independence referendum — and if it were officially held by government, would it be legal?
First, if the government were to hold an independence referendum, would it fall foul of Article 100 of the Criminal Code on civil disturbance?
This clause was originally intended to be used against people intending to destroy the state and separatist groups attempting to break up the nation.
However, in 1991, a postgraduate student reading group studying Su Beng’s (史明) Taiwan’s 400-Year History were arrested by the Ministry of Justice’s Investigation Bureau for advocating Taiwanese independence, which was interpreted as civil disturbance.
The arrest sparked a protest by academics who demanded that the government remove Article 100 from the Criminal Code.
The following year, lawmakers amended the law and while the charge of sedition was removed, the offense of civil disturbance was retained. The offense was also limited to acts involving violence or coercion.
From that moment on, subversive argument or thought was no longer a criminal offense in Taiwan.
Since holding an independence referendum — or conversely a referendum on unification with China — can neither be classified as an act of violence or coercion, holding a plebiscite could not be classified as a civil disturbance.
A more important question is whether an independence referendum would be legally binding, according to the provisions of the Referendum Act (公民投票法). The act does not clearly prohibit a referendum on independence, but as it is tied to the Republic of China Constitution, the legality of such a referendum cannot be judged by referring to this act alone.
The legitimacy of any independence referendum in any part of the world cannot be based solely upon the domestic laws of that region and can therefore only be derived from international law.
After World War I, then-US president Woodrow Wilson proposed the principle of self-determination. In 1945 the right of people to self-determination was written into the UN Charter.
In 2009, the Legislative Yuan passed two UN covenants on human rights, of which the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights clearly states that: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
The covenant provides the foundation for a referendum on independence.
However, although the legal basis for an independence referendum can be derived from international human rights law, peoples and regions of nations that express a desire for autonomy have to start from a position of weakness within the international community.
As such, they inevitably face strong resistance, which can sometimes end in a bloody suppression.
Ultimately, whether an independence referendum can take place in Taiwan will not be decided by law, but by the realities of international politics.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor in Aletheia University’s law department.
Translated by Edward Jones
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
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
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