In April, Djibouti, a small African country which had already abolished the death penalty in 1995 for all crimes, decided to go one step further and include the abolition of the death penalty in its Constitution. This decision does not come as a surprise and is in fact in line with the international trend toward abolition.
Today, more than two-thirds of the world’s countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice: 95 have abolished it for all crimes; nine retain it for extraordinary crimes such as those committed in times of war; and more importantly, 35 countries are de facto abolitionists.
That means that even though the death penalty is still provided for in legislation, no executions have been carried out for at least several years. This is the case for instance in Mongolia, which announced in January the introduction of a moratorium on the death penalty and indicated that death sentences would be commuted to 30 years of imprisonment.
Mongolia is following the example of other countries like Algeria, Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Nauru, Suriname, Tajikistan and South Korea, which maintain de facto moratoriums.
Judging by the numbers, the trend is toward worldwide abolition of the capital punishment since over the last 20 years, more than 50 countries have abolished capital punishment for all crimes worldwide.
Moreover, there is a link between the non-democratic nature of the regime and retention of capital punishment (36 countries out of the 43 retaining it are non-democratic regimes).
What’s more, not only the number of countries moving toward abolition is progressing, but also the scope where capital punishment is still allowed at the international level is shrinking.
That is for instance the case of the newly established International Criminal Court, which despite being in charge of judging severe criminals, has specifically ruled out capital punishment as a possible sentence for convicts.
An international criminal justice free of capital punishment represents a major breakthrough toward universal abolition of the death penalty. Even though there are different ways to achieve abolition, looking at the experience of abolitionist countries shows some common features. Active discussion among intellectual and parliamentarian groups, political debate leading to proposals for new legislation are experiences which can be found among most abolitionist countries.
In nearly all countries, abolition did not take place with majority public support. Politicians led the way and public opinion followed. Besides, alternatives to capital punishment exist like life imprisonment without parole. The introduction of such alternatives is often a crucial step toward abolition.
This was the case in the US state of New Mexico, which introduced it in its legislation last year and abolished the death penalty at the same time. The EU is at the forefront of the fight against the death penalty and is involved in a global campaign against the death penalty, not one that is directed against any particular country.
Indeed, until this month, the EU carried out more than 20 demarches for individual cases in about eight countries and is systematically raising the issue with partners that still retain capital punishment, including the US and Japan.
The abolition of the death penalty represents one of the main objectives of the EU’s human rights policy. In countries where abolition is not likely, the EU calls for a moratorium of executions as a first step.
Guy Ledoux is the head of the European Economic and Trade Office.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS