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.
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