News reports said that the government is considering the reintroduction of military courts, using the US military justice system as a model. The basic idea of having a military justice system is, of course, not particularly controversial, since many countries continue to have military courts, even in peacetime. However, the question is what the structure for a military justice system should be.
Taiwan should follow contemporary best practices. Indeed, if it reintroduces those courts, it should take a progressive stance rather than doing the bare minimum permitted by human rights standards. A good place to start is the 2006 UN draft Principles Governing the Administration of Justice through Military Tribunals, which was updated in 2018, although there is no reason Taiwan should not be a leader in the field and go even further.
Here are some suggestions that Taiwanese authorities might want to consider, rather than adopting the US or any other national “lock, stock and barrel” model:
The scope of military court jurisdiction should extend only to active-duty military personnel and reservists. Retirees, veterans and civilians should not be covered. It should be limited to offenses that have a clear nexus to military service. Offenses that have no direct and substantial “service connection,” such as crimes committed off-base, should be tried in civilian court. In principle, if an offense can be tried in a civilian court, that is where it should be tried.
Judicial independence should be strictly guaranteed. That means that at the very least, presiding judges should be trained lawyers with substantial fixed terms of office, and removable only for misconduct or disability. The term of office should be the same as civilian judges’. In addition, Taiwan should seriously consider using civilian judges rather than military officers. That is what the UK does and the system has worked well.
Decisions on who should be prosecuted for which offenses should be made by trained prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command, rather than by non-lawyer commanders. The US recently made that change for many serious crimes, and should have done so for all such offenses. Taiwan should follow the contemporary UK model, rather than the outmoded US model.
News reports on the possible direction of new legislation indicate that the people who wrote the draft are aware of the need to guard against unlawful command influence. That is critical in fostering independence and public confidence in the administration of justice in the armed forces. The new legislation should make it clear that the prohibition on unlawful command influence has real teeth and applies not only to military commander, but also to everyone in the military justice system, as well as civilian officials, including legislators.
Minor offenses, such as absence from duty, uniform contraventions or disrespect should be subject to administrative punishment by commanders, but such punishment should not include deprivation of liberty. There should be meaningful rights of appeal, including the right to consult an attorney.
Finally, military court cases should be appealable to the civilian courts, including to the highest court, to the same extent as civilian criminal convictions and sentences.
Before Taiwan commits to a blueprint for a revived military justice system, it should carefully review the available contemporary models and consult widely to achieve a system that meets or exceeds contemporary standards and acknowledges the country’s challenges.
Eugene R. Fidell is visiting lecturer in law and senior research scholar at Yale Law School. He served as a judge advocate in the US Coast Guard and cofounded the National Institute of Military Justice. He is the author of Military Justice: A Very Short Introduction.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS