Taiwan has decided to combat torture and revise its laws to comply with the UN anti-torture framework. A bill on the implementation of the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) and its Optional Protocol has been adopted by the Executive Yuan and is pending approval by the legislature.
Unlike many treaties that recognize basic human rights and freedoms, UNCAT requires a state to take action and ensure that there is a functioning regulatory framework that criminalizes torture and brings perpetrators to justice. This unique treaty resembles more the UN crime suppression treaties, as one of its main purposes is to investigate all allegations of torture, and prosecute and punish those who are responsible.
Similar to war crimes and crimes against humanity, UNCAT draws on the idea that the perpetrators of torture are hostis humani generis (the enemies of all mankind) who must be brought to justice no matter their whereabouts or nationality.
In other words, regardless of where torture is committed and the nationality of the perpetrators, each country has a duty to take legal action against them once they appear in its territory.
As soon as a foreign torturer sets foot in Taiwan, judicial authorities shall either establish jurisdiction for such a criminal or extradite them to a country that can ensure effective and impartial investigation and prosecution.
Evidently, the commitment of national judicial bodies to investigate and prosecute foreign torturers necessitates a significant level of international cooperation (providing witness testimony, material evidence, etc).
UNCAT recognizes the need for judicial cooperation in criminal matters and in Article 9 calls on states to afford one another the greatest measure of assistance.
However, as the UN does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state, international cooperation under universal jurisdiction could be a stumbling block.
With regard to these political constraints, one should bear in mind that the prohibition of torture is a principle of international customary law and the norm to which no derogation is permitted. Therefore, the prosecution of torturers lies in the center of international law and is shared by all members of the international community, including those that stand formally “outside.“
That is also the reason the UN Committee against Torture has reiterated that there should be no “safe haven“ for the perpetrators of torture anywhere in the world.
It could be argued that if a “white spot” appears on the universal anti-torture map, then it is the duty of all to fill it.
One might ask what the implications of UNCAT are: What is Taiwan supposed to do? What should be the response of the international community?
The ball is in Taiwan’s court as the Legislative Yuan should promptly ratify the convention and amend the Criminal Code to define torture as a criminal offense and implement jurisdiction over it.
At the same time, a cross-agency debate on the implementation should be initiated. The responsible stakeholders should not wait for the ratification of the bill, but should start promptly with the necessary changes in legislation and practice.
The Criminal Investigation Bureau, which is responsible for the coordination of the implementation of UNCAT, should initiate such changes, and commission research and analyses on how the universal jurisdiction should be exercised.
Once the convention is ratified and the jurisdiction over torture is clearly established in the Criminal Code, the onus should be placed on the international community, which should be asked to ensure that international cooperation under the principle of universal jurisdiction is effectively exercised.
There is no doubt that compliance with this commitment is a long-term contest and a number of challenges will arise along the way.
Moreover, it is possible that no foreign torturer will ever arrive in Taiwan. However, if this does happen, national bodies and their international counterparts must be prepared for a firm response.
Pavel Doubek is a Czech human rights lawyer and postdoctoral researcher at Academica Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS