A soldier who went missing from Kinmen County on Thursday last week has been confirmed to be in China. It has not been determined why the soldier swam there, but the situation does raise the question of criminal liability.
A serving member of the military who surrenders to an enemy is punishable under Article 24 of the Criminal Code of the Armed Forces (陸海空軍刑法) and liable to imprisonment of no less than 10 years, life imprisonment or the death penalty, depending on the severity of the crime.
The applicability of this law to defections to the Chinese communists has caused controversy over whether China should be considered an enemy state. This is because Article 11 of the Additional Articles of the Republic of China Constitution (中華民國憲法增修條文) treats China as part of the “mainland area,” not a foreign country.
This presents complications for the application of the crime of treason, which involves safeguarding the state’s existence. When the Criminal Code was amended in 2019, the loophole was meant to be closed by the addition of Article 115-1, extending liability for treason to “offenses committed in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, or any hostile foreign forces, or to the agents thereof.”
This amendment only settled the question of whether China is to be considered a foreign country; the matter of whether it could be considered an enemy in the eyes of the law remains unresolved. The definition of an enemy state depends on how authorities interpret the situation.
Although the Chinese People’s Liberation Army has been sending jets close to Taiwan’s airspace, there is no explicit provision in laws or official documents that considers the other side of the Taiwan Strait as an enemy state or enemy force, and this makes the application of the crime of defection to China problematic.
Consequently, if a soldier swims to the other side, they can only be punished for attempting to dodge military service.
Article 39 of the Criminal Code of the Armed Forces says a person who tries to avoid military service over a long period for the purpose of evasion could be imprisoned for up to five years, but a person who tries to escape service could have the penalty reduced if they return within six days.
The offense, then, must be committed with the intent of evading military service for a long period. If done because of emotional stress or other pressures, it would not be considered as having been committed with the intention to evade service, and would fall under Article 40 of the Criminal Code of the Armed Forces and be punishable by up to three years in prison.
This is why the notice of evasion was not issued until Wednesday, six days after the person went missing.
Further complications arise if China is unwilling to repatriate the soldier. The crime has been established, but the act is ongoing, and according to Article 80 of the Criminal Code, the statute of limitations commences from the day the offense is committed. If the offense is of a continuing nature, the period commences from the last day on which the offense is completed.
As long as the person has not returned to Taiwan to face arrest, the act is continuing and the statute of limitations does not start to run.
There is precedent in the case of Justin Lin (林毅夫), who defected to China by swimming from Kinmen to Xiamen in 1979.
Wu Ching-chin is a professor of law at Aletheia University and director of its Research Center for Criminal Law.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS