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.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS