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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.