We are always being told how we need to protect the environment and save the Earth, but these things cannot be done by just having summit meetings, where a few leaders mouth slogans. Governments need to show the way by turning their words into practical action, otherwise, when the conferences close, their resolutions vanish without a trace.
The best way for the government to show it really cares about the environment and win backing from the public would be to incorporate environmental rights into the Constitution along with other basic human rights guaranteed by the state.
As it stands, our Constitution does not list environmental rights among basic, guaranteed human rights, and it does not say that the state has a duty to protect the environment and ecology, which are the basis of human survival. Only among the additional articles of the Constitution is it written that “environmental and ecological protection shall be given equal consideration with economic and technological development.”
The wording of this sentence is rather abstract, and it is only a guideline for national policy. Citizens cannot rely on such a clause for support in executive or constitutional matters. Clearly, this clause does not offer adequate legal protection for citizens’ crucial rights. As for the Basic Environment Act (環境基本法) enacted in 2001, although it is called a “basic law,” in reality it is just an ordinary law passed by the legislature, not one with constitutional authority.
The Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment adopted in Stockholm in 1972 proclaims: “Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.”
The notion of environmental rights is clearly embodied in these words. Environmental rights are also expressly included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Article 37 which reads: “A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development.”
Around 60 countries around the world have already included environmental rights in their constitutions. Among them are France, South Korea, Russia, South Africa, Spain and Israel. Although the federal Constitution of the US does not specifically include environmental rights, they are written into the constitutions of many states, such as Pennsylvania, Illinois and New York.
The point of all these environmental provisions is to give people the right to demand a safe, comfortable and healthy environment, to reject pollution and to take action to prevent damage to the natural environment. They give the public the right to know about nature and ecology, to receive environmental education and to take part in environmental protection activities, and they seek to protect the integrity of the ecosystem.
Over the years, Taiwanese have not paid due attention to environmental values. Environmental damage and pollution caused by human activity has gone beyond what the natural ecosystem can assimilate or recover from without active intervention. Successive governments keep talking about how they want to protect the environment, save energy, cut carbon emissions and reduce global warming, but there have been few observable actions to match their words. The environmental policy stated in our Constitution can scarcely be called a clear expression of environmental rights, since it gives equal weight to economic, scientific and technological development on the one hand and environmental and ecological protection on the other, saying that neither should be emphasized to the neglect of the other.
Protecting the environment is vital for human life, health and dignity. In reality, however, when the government encounters conflicts between environmental protection and economic development, the clause of the Constitution calling for both factors to be given equal emphasis is usually forgotten. Generally the outcome of such conflicts of interest is that environmental and ecological concerns have to give way to the demands of economic development. Each time, mankind’s insatiable appetite to devour resources prevails, while the natural environment and people’s quality of life are degraded.
Listing environmental rights among the basic human rights protected by the Constitution would make it clear that, in situations where conflicts between economic and technological interests and environmental protection cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides, it is environmental protection that must be given priority. Only then can we ensure the sustainable development of human society and the natural environment for this and future generations.
The notion of human rights is not a static concept, but a dynamic one. New ideas about rights are added as society develops. Let us hope the next time the Constitution is revised, lawmakers will not forget to add environmental rights to the list of basic rights protected by the Constitution.
Hsu Chang-chin is a High Court judge.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS