On Oct. 18, the UN Human Rights Committee opened its 67th session in Geneva. This body has become an important forum for raising international awareness and concern about violations of civil and political rights. Unfortunately for Taiwan, access to the Committee does not appear likely in the near future.
Nevertheless, other critical avenues for promoting human rights in Taiwan remain available. The Committee is a body of independent experts established under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Governments that have signed and ratified the Committee must appear before the committee on a periodic basis and report on their compliance with the obligations of the treaty.
Currently, 144 countries have ratified the ICCPR. While the committee has no means of enforcing its recommendations, in certain cases, the censure of an international body has been enough to convince a government to change its ways.
For example, after the Committee criticized Japan's nationality laws as being discriminatory for permitting only fathers (not mothers) to pass their Japanese nationality on to their children, Japan revised its laws accordingly.
The Committee's review of a government's human rights record is an important exercise because it creates a series of opportunities for the activists to mobilize public concern about rights violations, at both the domestic and international level. For example, in the case of Hong Kong -- which will be reviewed by the Committee this fall -- its government was obliged to submit a lengthy report to the Committee detailing the steps that have been taken to comply with each article of the ICCPR.
The report was released to the public earlier this year and debated in the Hong Kong Legislative Council in the fall. Numerous human rights groups in Hong Kong prepared their own reports, criticizing the claims made by the government and offering further evidence of violations to the Committee.
Some groups will even travel to Geneva to lobby members of the Committee in person and to monitor the government's presentation to the body. Following the session, the Committee will issue observations and recommendations which can become the basis for future advocacy by human rights groups.
While publicizing human rights abuses and shaming governments is often one of the most effective ways of ending violations, such means are not available to Taiwan because of the island's isolation from the international community, and most importantly, from the UN. Since Taiwan's statehood is not internationally recognized, it would be virtually impossible for Taiwan to be recognized as a party to international human rights treaties which are open for signature only to states, or to state members of the UN.
Prior to its expulsion from the UN, Taiwan, as the Republic of China, signed a number of human rights treaties such as the ICCPR and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Moreover, Taiwan has signed and ratified the Convention Against Genocide and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
Taiwan has never attempted to submit a report on racial discrimination to the CERD committee, nor is it likely that such a report would be welcomed.
The exclusion of Taiwan from the review of the Human Rights Committee, the CERD committee and other treaty-monitoring bodies means that the government may violate international human rights laws without fear of international condemnation or embarrassment. Indeed, numerous laws and practices in Taiwan violate the ICCPR. Article 14 of the ICCPR provides for the rights of criminal defendants to communicate with counsel.
Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee has interpreted this provision as prohibiting states from intruding upon the confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and his client. In Taiwan, however, conversations between a lawyer and his client are regularly monitored by prison officials and recordings of such conversations may even be used as evidence in court.
Article 6 of the ICCPR requires that the death penalty be imposed for only the "most serious crimes" and the Human Rights Committee has stated that "the death penalty should be a quite exceptional measure." Yet, in Taiwan, there are 171 crimes for which the death penalty may be imposed, of which 75 crimes carry a mandatory death penalty.
While treaty-monitoring bodies constitute one important component of the UN's human rights system, also important are the "thematic mechanisms." These consist of the independent experts, Special Rapporteurs and working groups which have been appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights to address particularly problematic human rights themes.
The Special Rapporteurs -- whose mandates may be relevant to issues in Taiwan -- include the Special Rapporteurs on the independence of judges and lawyers; on freedom of opinion and expression; on extradjudicial, summary or arbitrary execution; on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; on the human rights of migrants; and on violence against women.
The mandates of the Special Rapporteurs permit communications not only with governments, but also with individuals and non-governmental organizations.
In the past, they have investigated the human rights situation in the embryonic Palestinian state, which is not an independent country nor a member of the UN.
In April 1999, I assisted the Taiwan Association for Human Rights in submitting a report on Taiwan's death penalty and an urgent appeal on behalf of Chen Wen-hai (
Although we received no response from the Special Rapporteur at the time, the reason may not necessarily have been political. The Special Rapporteurs do not have abundant resources at their disposal, and during the spring, Jahangir's assistants were reportedly busy with investigating violations in Kosovo. I would encourage Taiwanese groups to learn more about the Special Rapporteur system from the Web site of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (www.unhchr.ch) and to utilize this mechanism to its fullest extent.
Submitting reports to the Special Rapporteurs will raise awareness within the UN about the situation in Taiwan, while at the same time place the government on notice that the human rights violations in Taiwan are being publicized internationally.
Regardless of whether or not the UN is watching, Taiwan's international isolation does not absolve Taiwan's government from the obligation to protect and ensure human rights.
While Taiwan may not be legally bound by treaty obligations, it is nevertheless bound by customary international law, which includes fundamental human rights norms.
An important first step toward fulfilling its duty to protect human rights would be for Taiwan to incorporate the principles of major international human rights treaties as part of its domestic law.
Since 1991, Hong Kong has already enshrined the ICCPR in its own Bill of Rights Ordinance. Britain recently announced that it will also adopt a Bill of Rights, based on the European Convention on Human Rights, by next year.
Last December, on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a welcome announcement that it would "vigorously implement the relevant principles of each international human treaty through domestic legislation."
It is time for the government to back up its words with action.
Phyllis Hwang is a human rights lawyer based in New York.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
The Central Election Commission (CEC) on Friday announced that recall motions targeting 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安) have been approved, and that a recall vote would take place on July 26. Of the recall motions against 35 KMT legislators, 31 were reviewed by the CEC after they exceeded the second-phase signature thresholds. Twenty-four were approved, five were asked to submit additional signatures to make up for invalid ones and two are still being reviewed. The mass recall vote targeting so many lawmakers at once is unprecedented in Taiwan’s political history. If the KMT loses more
Taiwan’s unconditional support “for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India to safeguard national security and fight terrorist forces that cross borders to attack innocent civilians” marked a monumental shift in the relationship between Taipei and New Delhi. At a time when the Indian government sent several delegations of parliament members to convey to the rest of the world Pakistan’s role in sponsoring terrorism against India, Taiwan became one of the few nations that unequivocally supported India’s military operation, “Sindhoor.” Sure, this change in bilateral ties did not happen in a vacuum. Over the past decade,
RSS