Lin Chih-chieh: "Long-arm jurisdiction" of democracies fundamentally differs from China's transnational repression

(Central News Agency Reporter Yeh Su-ping Taipei, July 8) Regarding external attention to China extending its jurisdiction overseas under the guise of law, Presidential Office Advisory Council member Lin Chih-chieh stated on Facebook today that the "long-arm jurisdiction" of democratic rule-of-law countries fundamentally differs from the transnational repression of authoritarian states. "Long-arm jurisdiction," also known as "extraterritorial jurisdiction," hinges on whether the country exercising jurisdiction has a democratic rule-of-law foundation and whether its criminal laws adhere to clarity and due process.

Lin Chih-chieh pointed out that long-arm jurisdiction is one method by which criminal law determines jurisdiction. Many democratic rule-of-law countries, including the United States and Taiwan, have provisions in their criminal codes that apply outside their territory. Taking Taiwan as an example, if its citizens commit crimes abroad such as rebellion, foreign collusion, piracy, or aggravated fraud, the judiciary may still handle the case according to law, even if the crime occurred outside Taiwan. As for evidence collection, suspect extradition, and trial, these rely on inter-state judicial assistance, extradition, and other systems.

Lin Chih-chieh said that if the same act constitutes a crime under both Taiwanese and foreign law, the suspect may first be tried and serve their sentence in the foreign country before being extradited back to Taiwan according to law. The criminal code also stipulates that if the entirety or a portion of a sentence has already been executed abroad, the sentence may be partially or fully waived upon return to Taiwan. These systems do not devolve into transnational repression because the elements of crimes in democratic countries' criminal laws are clear, and procedural laws protect the rights of the parties involved.

Lin Chih-chieh emphasized that China's extraterritorial jurisdiction should not merely be viewed as ordinary long-arm jurisdiction but should be termed transnational repression because China is not a democratic rule-of-law country, and its legal provisions often employ vague, broad, and uncertain concepts. She cited examples from the "Anti-Secession Law," the "Hong Kong National Security Law," to the "Law on the Promotion of National Unity and Progress," noting that many articles lack the crucial clarity of elements of crime required in criminal law.

She pointed out that the "Law on the Promotion of National Unity and Progress" requires citizens to have the obligation to "love communism and promote unity" and prohibits "splitting ethnic groups," "inciting or intensifying ethnic contradictions," or instilling "thoughts harmful to unity" in minors. However, the law lacks clear definitions for what constitutes promoting unity, intensifying ethnic contradictions, or harmful unity.

Lin Chih-chieh questioned whether not attending a patriotic speech organized by neighbors would constitute a violation of obligation, or if criticizing a specific culture or discussing Tibetan history could be deemed as inciting ethnic contradictions or instilling harmful thoughts. She believes that authoritarian states precisely use such vague laws to easily criminalize dissidents, and then, under the guise of judicial accusations, demand extradition of overseas individuals, or even establish so-called "police stations" in other countries to enforce the law.

Lin Chih-chieh stated that the core issue is not merely the "extension of jurisdiction" but China's instrumentalization of law to suppress dissent and intimidate overseas individuals. She cautioned that whether relevant individuals sent to China can receive a fair trial can be seen from the plight of Next Digital founder Jimmy Lai and many Chinese human rights activists.

She emphasized that the "long-arm jurisdiction" of democratic rule-of-law countries fundamentally differs from the transnational repression of authoritarian states. The former is built upon clear laws and due process, while the latter extends oppression to overseas societies through vague charges and state violence. The international community and the Taiwanese public should clearly distinguish between the two. (Edited by Lin Ke-lun) 0708

Stand with facts. Your every donation is a force to protect press freedom.

Download the CNA "One-Stop News" APP for real-time updates.

This website's text, images, and videos may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, publicly transmitted, or used without authorization.