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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS