DOCSLIB.ORG

One Problem, Two Paths: a Taiwanese Perspective on the Exclusionary Rule in China

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
One Problem, Two Paths: a Taiwanese Perspective on the Exclusionary Rule in China \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYI\43-3\NYI305.txt unknown Seq: 1 7-JUN-11 7:02 ONE PROBLEM, TWO PATHS: A TAIWANESE PERSPECTIVE ON THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IN CHINA BY YU-JIE CHEN* I. INTRODUCTION .................................. 713 R II. TAIWAN’S INITIAL EFFORTS TO CURB TORTURE AND WRONGFUL CONVICTION ......................... 715 R III. TAIWAN’S EXCLUSIONARY RULES .................. 719 R A. Background to Taiwan’s Reform of Exclusionary Rules ....................................... 719 R B. Changes Regarding Coerced Confessions......... 721 R C. Changes Regarding Illegally Obtained Physical Evidence ..................................... 723 R IV. TAIWAN’S HOLISTIC APPROACH AND CONTINUING PROGRESS ....................................... 724 R V. RELEVANCE OF TAIWAN’S EXPERIENCE TO CHINA . 725 R A. Exclusionary Rule ............................ 725 R B. Reform Push ................................. 726 R I. INTRODUCTION Professor Margaret Lewis’s outstanding article1 adds a pi- oneering, valuable chapter to the growing comparative schol- arship on exclusionary rules. Along the way, she tackles the fundamental questions that should be asked regarding all China’s recent criminal justice reforms: Why does an authori- tarian regime make legal changes that seemingly restrain its power? What are the challenges that are hindering implemen- tation? What reforms are needed to improve actual practice? Lewis carefully unravels the forces that moved the govern- ment of the People’s Republic of China, tasked with managing an increasingly sophisticated population of 1.4 billion and an increasingly complex criminal justice system, to announce two * Senior Research Fellow, U.S.-Asia Law Institute, New York University School of Law; LL.M. 2008, New York University School of Law; Taiwan law- yer. The author greatly appreciates the helpful comments and suggestions of Professor Jerome A. Cohen and Ms. Hsu Yi-Ping. 1. Margaret K. Lewis, Controlling Abuse to Maintain Control: The Exclusion- ary Rule in China, 43 N.Y.U. J. INT’L. & POL. 629 (2011). 713 \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYI\43-3\NYI305.txt unknown Seq: 2 7-JUN-11 7:02 714 INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS [Vol. 43:713 sets of evidence rules in May 20102 (the “Evidence Rules”). The rules deal with a wide range of evidentiary issues in crimi- nal cases and, in particular, set forth procedures to handle evi- dence allegedly obtained through illegal means. She con- cludes that the major motivation for the government to swiftly pass the Evidence Rules following the highly publicized wrong- ful conviction of Zhao Zuohai3 was to contain the public’s growing discontent with rampant injustice and police abuses, which apparently had threatened the regime’s legitimacy. Al- though the Evidence Rules are touted as a major step forward, Lewis points out many challenges that are likely to stand in the way of their meaningful implementation. Her analysis is a road map, leading to other changes necessary to address the major problem in China’s criminal justice system: the growing gap between the law on the books and the law in action. Lewis discusses why other jurisdictions incorporate exclu- sionary rules into their criminal justice systems. This high- lights the Chinese authoritarian regime’s distinct motivation to bolster its legitimacy by adopting the Evidence Rules. Among the jurisdictions examined, the Republic of China on Taiwan (ROC or Taiwan) is closest to China in cultural ties, language, features of a continental European system, and a le- gal tradition of inquisitorial criminal justice. Yet, compared with China, Taiwan has made tremendous strides toward the rule of law in recent decades. It therefore deserves close atten- tion because its experience may serve as a useful reference for China’s future.4 2. “Guanyu Banli Sixing Anjian Shencha Panduan Zhengju ruogan Wenti de Guiding” he “Guanyu Banli Xingshi Anjian Paichu Feifa Zhengju ruogan Wenti de Guiding” de Tongzhi ( ) [Notice Regarding the Issue of “Rules on Certain Issues Relating to Examining and Judging Evidence in Death Penalty Cases” and “Rules on Certain Issues Relating to the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Criminal Cases”] (promulgated by the Supreme Peo- ple’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, and Ministry of Justice, June 13, 2010), available at http://www.spp.gov.cn/site2006/2010-06-25/0005428115.html. 3. For an introduction to the Zhao Zuohai case, see Lewis, supra note 1, at 630-31. 4. See generally Jerome A. Cohen, Keynote Essay, 3 TAIWAN IN COMP. PER- SPECTIVE 5 (2011). \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYI\43-3\NYI305.txt unknown Seq: 3 7-JUN-11 7:02 2011] ONE PROBLEM, TWO PATHS 715 Taiwan’s example should certainly shed some light on the questions raised in Lewis’s article. Taiwan too has confronted the challenges of grappling with police abuses and wrongful convictions amid institutional constraints similar to China’s, but it has made considerably greater progress. This comment thus aims to call special attention to Taiwan’s experience. It will first examine Taiwan’s initial efforts to deal with these problems and then discusses the island’s subsequent adoption and implementation of the exclusionary rule.5 The comment will conclude with some reflections on what Taiwan’s experi- ence can tell us about China and might contribute to China. II. TAIWAN’S INITIAL EFFORTS TO CURB TORTURE AND WRONGFUL CONVICTION The ROC’s Criminal Procedure Code, which became ap- plicable to Taiwan in 1945,6 has long prohibited the use of force, threats, inducements, deception, or other illegitimate means in interrogations of defendants.7 It further stipulated that the defendant’s confession may be used as evidence only if (1) it is not extracted through force, threats, inducements, deception, or other illegitimate means and (2) it corresponds with the facts.8 Theoretically, this provision rendered illegally obtained confessions inadmissible at trial. But reality was much more 5. “Exclusion of evidence” (Zhengju paichu) and “prohibition of use of evidence” (Zhengju shiyong jinzhi) are both common phrasings in Taiwan to refer to prohibitions against the court’s use of evidence as basis of convic- tion. Broadly speaking, the scope of the exclusionary rule in Taiwan covers exclusion of illegally obtained confessions and physical evidence. 6. When in October 1945 the Republic of China’s Nationalist govern- ment (Kuomintang or KMT) took control of Taiwan after World War II, Japanese colonial rule was replaced by the ROC’s legal system. Four years later, after defeat in the civil war against China’s Communist Party, the KMT central government retreated to Taiwan and imposed on this island the longest period of martial law (1949-1987) in modern world history. See gener- ally Tay-sheng Wang ( ), Taiwan de falu jishou jingyan ji qi qishi ( ) [Taiwan’s experience with legal transplants and its lessons], 1 ZHONGYANYUAN FAXUE QIKAN 111 ( ) [ACADEMIA SINICA L.J.], at 115 (2007). 7. Zhonghua Minguo xing shi su song fa ( ) [Re- public of China Criminal Procedure Code] art. 98 (Jan. 1, 1935; prior to the amendment of Jan. 28, 1967). 8. Id. art. 270 (Jan. 1, 1935; prior to the amendment of Jan. 28, 1967). \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYI\43-3\NYI305.txt unknown Seq: 4 7-JUN-11 7:02 716 INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS [Vol. 43:713 gruesome. A defendant’s confession was viewed as the “king of evidence” in practice.9 Coerced confessions were rarely ex- cluded during the martial law era (1949-1987) maintained by the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang or KMT), because proving police coercion was a formidable task for the defendant.10 The judiciary, including Taiwan’s special constitutional court—the Council of Grand Justices—was in the firm grip of the KMT’s authoritarian government and rarely issued pro-human rights decisions that challenged the regime. The very first reform that addressed police coercion and wrongful convictions was prompted in 1982 by the highly pub- licized Wang Ying-Xian case.11 It grasped public attention the way China’s Zhao Zuohai case more recently did. Wang, ac- cused of committing the first bank robbery in Taiwan’s history, killed himself after confessing during police interrogations. However, Wang had not committed the crime. The real rob- ber was captured soon after Wang’s death. The media then revealed that Wang had been tortured to confess and tragically ended his life out of desperation to prove his innocence. Like the later sensational Zhao Zuohai story on the Mainland, Wang’s case fueled public anger and propelled the then-au- thoritarian KMT government to adopt an unprecedented re- form.12 However, the reform did not relate to the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, but to enabling defense lawyers to monitor police/prosecutorial behavior during interrogations. In response to public criticisms and the pleas of the Taiwan Bar Association and local bar associations,13 the Legislature 9. Even in the late 1990s, judicial practice still held onto this view. See Tze-Lung Chen, ( ), Zhengju faze zhi xiuzheng fangxiang ( ) [The direction of the revisions of evidence rules], 52 YUEDAN FAXUE ZAZHI 60 ( ) [TAIWAN L. REV.], at 74 (1999). 10. See generally Ming-Woei Chang, The Exclusionary Rule in Taiwan: Les- sons from the United States, 8 AUSTL. J. ASIAN L. 68 (2006). 11. See TUN-MING TSAI ( ), SHEHUI YU FALU ( ) [SOCIETY AND LAW] 352-53 (2001). 12. See Feng-Jeng Lin ( ), Dujue xingqiu san bu qu ( ) [Trilogy to end torture to extract confessions], JUD. REFORM FOUND. NEWSLETTER, July 14, 2007, available at http://www.jrf.org.tw/newjrf/epaper/files/381-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Taiwan's Constitutional Court Reined in Police Power
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Fordham University School of Law Fordham International Law Journal Volume 37, Issue 4 2014 Article 10 How Taiwan’s Constitutional Court Reined in Police Power: Lessons for the People’s Republic of China Margaret K. Lewis∗ Jerome A. Coheny ∗Seton Hall University School of Law yNew York University School of Law Copyright c 2014 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj ARTICLE HOW TAIWAN’S CONSTITUTIONAL COURT REINED IN POLICE POWER: LESSONS FOR THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA* Margaret K. Lewis & Jerome A. Cohen INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 864 I. THE LEGAL REGIME FOR PUNISHING LIUMANG ........... 866 II. STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ................. 871 III. INITIAL JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT IN CURBING POLICE POWER ................................................................ 878 IV. INTERPRETATION NO. 636 ................................................ 882 A. Definition of Liumang and the Principle of Legal Clarity ........................................................................... 883 B. Power of the Police to Force Suspected Liumang to Appear .......................................................................... 891 C. Right to Be Heard by the Review Committee .............. 894 D. Serious Liumang: Procedures at the District Court Level .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Decentralized and Anomalous Interpretation of Chinese Private Law: Understanding a Bureaucratic and Political Judicial System
    Article Decentralized and Anomalous Interpretation of Chinese Private Law: Understanding a Bureaucratic and Political Judicial System Yun-chien Chang† & Ke Xu†† INTRODUCTION China’s dazzling economic development in the past few dec- ades has increased the welfare of the Chinese people but caused headaches for legal and economic-development scholars. A widely shared view has been that delineation of rights is a pre- 1 requisite to market exchange and economic development. † Research Professor and Director of the Center for Empirical Legal Stud- ies, Institutum Iurisprudentiae, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. J.S.D., New York University (NYU) School of Law. Please direct correspondence to: [email protected]. I thank Min-yen Tai (戴旻諺) for his research assistance. †† Lecturer, Renmin University, Beijing, China. A draft of this Article was presented at the Law and Society in China Sem- inar at NYU School of Law on November 21, 2016, the Symposium on Decen- tralization and Development at Hong Kong University Faculty of Law on March 14–15, 2017, and at the Faculty Workshop at Ocean University of China Faculty of Law on March 29, 2017. We thank Ruoying Chen, Jerry Cohen, Xin Dai, Kevin Davis, Richard Epstein, Cindy Estlund, Xin He, Rick Hills, Weiqiang Hu, Wendell Pritchett, Benqian Sang, Ilya Somin, Barry Weingast, Chenggang Xu, Ran You, and Lei Zhao for their helpful comments. Songtao Liu, the Director of ClassicLaw, kindly provided us with the needed data. Disclosure: Professor Xu is affiliated with ClassicLaw, which provided the data analyzed in Part II.C. Division of labor: Professor Chang came up with the research question.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert A. Mcfarlane Partner
    Robert A. McFarlane Partner Rob is a registered patent attorney who chairs Hanson Bridgett’s San Francisco Technology Practice and co-chairs its Intellectual Property Practice. His litigation practice focuses on patent infringement matters, intellectual Hanson Bridgett LLP property disputes, and technology-related commercial disputes. He also 425 Market Street, 26th Floor provides his clients with counseling on a wide range of intellectual San Francisco, CA 94105 property matters relating to licensing negotiations, data breaches, 415-995-5072 Direct Phone trademark and copyright, unfair competition, and trade secrets. He 415-541-9366 Fax advocates on behalf of clients ranging from individuals to multi-national corporations. [email protected] He has argued cases before the Federal Circuit and the California Courts Firm Leadership of Appeals, and represents his clients in courts throughout the United States, including significant patent litigation jurisdictions such as the Technology Practice Leader Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, the Eastern District of Virginia, Intellectual Property Practice Leader the Northern District of Illinois, the District of Delaware, and the Northern and Central Districts of California. He has been retained as an expert in U.S. patent law in a matter pending before the High Court of England and Practices/Industries Wales, is experienced with inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) within the United States Patent and Trademark Technology Office (USPTO), patent infringement
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of Law Rules Between China and Taiwan and Their Significance
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 22 Issue 3 Volume 22, Winter 2008, Issue 3 Article 1 Conflict of Law Rules Between China and aiwanT and Their Significance Chi Chung Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES CONFLICT OF LAW RULES BETWEEN CHINA AND TAIWAN AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE CHI CHUNG* INTRODUCTION The conflict of law rules between China' and Taiwan is not a popular topic in law reviews in the United States. There has only been one article in 1989,2 one in 1990, 3 one in 1992, 4 and one in 1998. 5 Part I of this article serves as an update on this topic. * S.J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School. I wish to thank Professor William P. Alford and Professor Richard D. Parker for years of teaching and guidance. I want to thank Po- fang Tsai, Bruce Y. Hsueh, Hui-wen Chen, and Ming-sung Kuo for their helpful comments on earlier versions. I alone bear all responsibilities and welcome suggestions and criti- cisms. 1 The meaning of the two words China and Taiwan is a politically contested issue. In this paper, China and Taiwan are used as shorthand for the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • The Public Competition Enforcement Review
    TheThe Public Public Competition CompetitionEnforcement Review Enforcement Review The Cartels and Leniency Review Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. Eighth Edition This article was first published in The Cartels and Leniency Review, 8th edition (published in AprilEditor 2016 – editor Aidan Synnott). For furtherAidan information Synnott please email [email protected] Law Business Research The Public Competition Enforcement Review The Cartels and Leniency Review Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The Cartels and Leniency Review, 8th edition (published in April 2016 – editor Aidan Synnott). For further information please email [email protected] The Public Competition Enforcement Review Eighth Edition Editor Aidan Synnott Law Business Research Ltd PUBLISHER Gideon Roberton SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGERS Thomas Lee, Felicity Bown, Joel Woods ACCOUNT MANAGER Jessica Parsons MARKETING COORDINATOR Rebecca Mogridge EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Sophie Arkell HEAD OF PRODUCTION Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Anna Andreoli SUBEDITOR Caroline Herbert CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Paul Howarth Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2016 Law Business Research Ltd www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of April 2016, be advised that this is a developing area.
    [Show full text]
  • Hong Kong by Andrew Robinson and Michael Chik, Bird & Bird
    Service of claim documents within the jurisdiction and..., Practical Law Country... Service of claim documents within the jurisdiction and abroad Q&A: Hong Kong by Andrew Robinson and Michael Chik, Bird & Bird Country Q&A | Law stated as at 31-Mar-2020 | Hong Kong - PRC Hong Kong-specific information setting out the framework for service of claim documents (in relation to domestic and foreign proceedings) within the jurisdiction, and service of claim documents outside the jurisdiction. Starting civil proceedings 1. How are civil proceedings commenced in your jurisdiction? Do the rules permit the filing of documents containing the details of claim electronically? There are four main courts in Hong Kong, each handling different types of dispute. The four courts are the Labour Tribunal, the Small Claims Tribunal, the District Court and the Court of First Instance of the High Court: • For a claim in relation to employment disputes, the plaintiff should commence proceedings in the Labour Tribunal. • For a claim for a sum below HKD75,000, the plaintiff should commence proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal. • For higher value civil actions, the plaintiff should commence proceedings: • in the District Court, for general contract/tort claims up to HKD3 million; or • in the High Court, generally for claims in excess of HKD3 million. Most actions are commenced in the Court of First Instance of the High Court (CFI) by issuing and serving a writ of summons or an originating summons on the defendant. A writ of summons is used for actions where the main facts of the case are in dispute, while an originating summons is used for actions where the main issues in dispute are points of law and there is little or no dispute over the facts.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Turn Toward
    ARTICLE China’s Turn Toward Law TAISU ZHANG & TOM GINSBURG* The picture of Chinese law that many Western scholars and commentators portray is an increasingly bleak one: since the mid-2000s, China has been retreating from legal reform back into unchecked authoritarianism. This article argues that, much to the contrary, Chinese politics have in fact become substantially more law-oriented over the past five years. The Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping has indeed centralized power and control to an almost unprecedented extent, but it has done this in a highly legalistic way, empowering courts against other state and Party entities, insisting on legal professionalism, and bringing political powers that were formerly the exclusive possession of the Party under legal authorization and regulation. In fact, nowhere is this “legalism” more powerfully expressed than in the 2018 amendments to the Chinese Constitution. Thus, even if China is indeed deepening its dictatorship, it is doing so through harnessing the organizational and legitimizing capacities of law rather than circumventing it. We argue that both top-down political considerations and bottom-up social demands are driving this recent turn towards legality: first, as a purely instrumental matter, governing China in a centralized, top-down manner requires a strong commitment to bureaucratic legalization. The sheer size of the country and its population creates severe principal-agent and resource allocation problems that force central authorities to either recognize some version of de-facto federalism, or to combat local corruption and abuse through rigorous law enforcement. With the recent political turn away from decentralized administration, the Party leadership must pursue the latter strategy of investing in legality.
    [Show full text]
  • Torture by Non-State Actors
    NOT ONLY THE STATE: TORTURE BY NON-STATE ACTORS TOWARDS ENHANCED PROTECTION, ACCOUNTABILITY AND EFFECTIVE REMEDIES MAY 2006 THE REDRESS TRUST 3rd Floor, 87 Vauxhall Walk, London SE11 5HJ Tel: +44 (0)20 7793 1777 Fax: +44 (0)20 7793 1719 Registered Charity Number 1015787, A Limited Company in England Number 2274071 [email protected] (general correspondence) URL: www.redress.org TORTURE BY NON-STATE ACTORS Cover page photo credit:: Carlo Heathcote ‘Shadows on a mound of soil (Kabul)’ 2 REDRESS FOREWORD The Report by REDRESS "Not only the State: Torture by Non-State Actors" is very timely. De facto regimes and armed groups continue to commit acts amounting to torture, causing untold suffering. However, this practice has received comparatively little attention if contrasted to torture committed by state agents. The international community is making some progress towards enhanced accountability for international crimes. Yet, as this Report rightly points out, more should be done to respond to torture by non-state actors, and I hope that it will trigger a fresh debate on the subject. The Report proposes several important areas for standard setting and practical implementation, in order to make new inroads to combat torture by non-state actors, and these proposals merit careful consideration. I applaud REDRESS for this initiative, which should serve as an invaluable reference and tool for all those who are committed to tackling this particular practice of torture more effectively. Professor Manfred Nowak UN Special Rapporteur on Torture 3 TORTURE BY NON-STATE ACTORS INTRODUCTION by Robert Francis B. Garcia, Secretary General, PATH (Peace Advocates for Truth, Healing and Justice) There is one simple but inescapable conclusion illumined by this study: the laws we have right now, and their implementing mechanisms, need to catch up.
    [Show full text]
  • The Procuratorate and the Judiciary in Taiwan
    The Procuratorate and the Judiciary in Taiwan Nigel N.T. Li Adjunct Professor Soochow University, Graduate School of Law National Taiwan University, Graduate Institute of Political Science A New Law: The Judge Act Promulgated on 6 July 2011; to take effect on 6 July 2012. The objective of the Act: To ensure judges can try cases independently, their tenure should be secured and an external rating system for judges should be established. The Act is enacted to protect people’s right to a fair trial. A new and fundamental law for the judiciary in tandem with the Court Act (effective since 1932), which does not define the role of a judge. The new act is a new offensive against two chronic, unsettled issues in Taiwan’s legal system: Line between procuratorate and judiciary not clearly drawn Whether procuratorate should be institutionally independent I. Line between procuratorate and judiciary not clearly drawn Historically, separation of the judiciary from executive branch is an alien notion in the Chinese culture and political system. Hence the line between the procurotorate and the judiciary has always been blurred since the inception of the Republic A Transformative Journey That Begin in 1950: Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 13 (1953/1/31) Issue: Does the judge with a tenure stipulated in Article 81 of the Constitution include the prosecutor? Holding: The judge referred to in Article 81 of the Constitution means the judge that Article 80 of the Constitution refers to and does not include the prosecutor. However, guarantee of a tenure for prosecutors, extended by the Court Act, is the same as that of tenured judges.
    [Show full text]
  • Regime Shift and Prosecutorial Reform in Taiwan
    For conference discussion only. Please don’t cite without permission. Regime Shift and Prosecutorial Reform in Taiwan Chin-shou Wang Assistant Professor Department of Political Science National Cheng Kung University [email protected] Presented at Fifth European Association of Taiwan Studies Conference which will be held from April 18-20, 2008 in Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. The conference is co-organized by the Centre of Taiwan Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London and Charles University. 1 INTRODUCTION Is it possible that judges can play a leading role in pursuing judicial independence under a one-party-dominated regime? If the answer is yes, what are the characteristics of the reform-minded judges? What strategies will the judges carry out? How do the authoritarian parties respond to the reform-minded judges’ actions? What can be accomplished by the judges’ reform movement? And what is the limit of the judges’ reform actions? In this paper, I will use the case of Taiwan to show that the judges can play a pivotal role in building an independent judiciary during political transition. Brian Z. Tamanaha (2004:59) argues that “the legal profession, then, is located at the crux of the rule of law…the rule of law could not conceivably function without this group committed to the values of legality. This position, however, also renders the legal profession, judges in particular, uniquely situated to undermine the rule of law.” However, scholars in the field have not yet devoted sufficient attention to the roles that judges play in the process of building the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Strait Relations: “Ascend the Heights and Take a Long-Term Perspective”
    Romberg, China Leadership Monitor, No. 27 Cross-Strait Relations: “Ascend the Heights and Take a Long-term Perspective” Alan D. Romberg To put it in Dickensian terms, the recent period has seen both the best of times and the worst of times for Taiwan. Significant progress has been made on many aspects of cross-Strait relations, primarily in the economic realm but in some respects extending beyond that. The extent to which enhanced economic links will provide relief for the increasingly troubled Taiwan economy is not at all clear, but both governments have committed themselves to help Taiwan firms invested in the Mainland and to promote further cross-Strait trade and other economic relations, including in the tourism and financial arenas. How far the non-economic gestures and signaling will go in terms of satisfying Taiwan’s quest for “international space” also remains a question mark, with the looming WHA observer issue still unresolved. However, at year end, PRC President Hu Jintao gave a significant speech that, while strongly reiterating the importance of a “one China” foundation, seemed to reflect flexibility in responding to the strong desire in Taiwan for “international space” and also presented other ideas for progress. Among the latter were a reiteration of his support for a peace accord and a long-term political framework for peaceful development of cross-Strait relations. Hu proposed that the two sides begin discussions about political relations “under the special circumstances” before reunification, as well as—“at the appropriate time”—a military-to-military dialogue aimed at creating a confidence-building mechanism.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformation of Taiwan's Intellectual Property Protection
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 9 Volume IX Number 1 Volume IX Book 1 Article 3 1998 From Pirate King to Jungle King: Transformation of Taiwan's Intellectual Property Protection Andy Y. Sun Asia Pacific Legal Institute of ashingtW on, D.C. Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Andy Y. Sun, From Pirate King to Jungle King: Transformation of Taiwan's Intellectual Property Protection, 9 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 67 (1998). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol9/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Pirate King to Jungle King: Transformation of Taiwan's Intellectual Property Protection Cover Page Footnote "The author especially wishes to thank Edward C. Werner for his assistance." This article is available in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol9/iss1/3 ARTICLES From Pirate King to Jungle King: Transformation of Taiwan's Intellectual Property Protection* Andy Y. Sun** TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 70 I. TAIWAN'S REFORM PATH ................................................. 73 A. External Factors: BilateralInteractions with the United States and Other States.................................
    [Show full text]