1 Introduction
The principle of diplomatic immunities and privileges is one of the essential elements of foreign relations. Under this principle, receiving states extend certain privileges and immunities to foreign diplomatic missions and their personnel.1 Although customary international law continues to refine the progress of diplomatic immunities and privileges, the basic rules have been codified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR)2 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).3 Most states worldwide are contracting parties of the two Vienna treaties, therefore, legally bound by such rules of immunities and privileges.
Compared to practices of other states, the Republic of China (ROC or Taiwan) has failed to gain full immunities and privileges under the VCDR and the VCCR from most countries of the world. The reality is, as of December 2022, the ROC4 maintains diplomatic relations with only 13 countries.5 Under such circumstances, Taiwan’s diplomatic immunities and privileges practices are unique, showing how the ROC maintains its foreign relations and international legal status through unorthodox channels in international law.
This article provides an overview of Taiwan’s practices on diplomatic immunities and privileges. As mentioned above, customary law and the two Vienna Conventions are the primary basis for regulating diplomatic and consular relations concerning diplomatic allies. Therefore, part II will examine the status of customary international law and treaties concerning diplomatic immunities and privileges in the law of Taiwan. At the same time, section III will focus on Taiwan’s legislation and cases concerning this issue toward states without diplomatic relations with the ROC, with a particular reference to the Agreement on Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States and the American Institute in Taiwan (hereinafter referred to as 2013 TECRO-AIT Agreement). Then, based on the above observations, this article will conclude how the ROC implements and observes international law on diplomatic immunities and privileges in its foreign relations.
2 Full Diplomatic Relations
As mentioned above, the ROC has full diplomatic relations with 13 states, which are Belize, Guatemala, Paraguay, Haiti, Saint Lucia, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Vincent, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu, Eswatini, and Holy See (Vatican City). To these states, immunities and privileges are granted by the ROC to their embassies and envoys to carry out diplomatic functions based upon the VCDR and the VCCR and customary international law. Therefore, the status of customary international law and international treaties in the ROC’s domestic law is a concern here.
2.1 Customary International Law
The present Constitution of the ROC does not prescribe whether, in the absence of statutory authorization, customary international law has validity in the internal law of the ROC so that the courts in Taiwan may apply it. However, it seems clear that legislative and administrative references to “public international law,” “international law,” or “international custom” include the rules of customary international law.6
In the absence of a specific authorization by a statute or an administrative decree, there is no statutory prohibition against a court in Taiwan to apply a rule of customary international law in exercising its functions. In practice, the courts in Taiwan sometimes refer to rules of customary international law to clarify the meaning of statutory provisions or to decide a question of jurisdiction.7 For example, Kao Lin Co. v. The Embassy of the Republic of Panama in the Republic of China is a case regarding the defendant, the Embassy of Panama, reselling a Mercedes-Benz sedan to the plaintiff. In the default judgment of 2001, the Taipei District Court indicated that although the Ambassador, as Head of the Mission of the Republic of Panama in the ROC, could claim jurisdictional immunity of the receiving state under paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the VCDR, the defendant, in this case, was the Embassy of Panama. Then, the court held, under customary international law, that the jurisdictional immunity of a sovereign state is restrictive and that a diplomatic mission of a foreign state may not claim state immunity for acta jure gestionis.8 Upon appeal, the Taiwan High Court upheld the case that “according to international practices and customs, a state or its representative organ may not claim jurisdictional immunity for acta jure gestionis (commercial activities).”9
In 1994, Professor Hungdah Chiu, President of the International Law Association Chinese (Taiwan) Branch, forwarded a copy of the questionnaire of the International Law Association regarding the international law practice in the municipal courts of the ROC to the Judicial Yuan and requested its response. In the letter addressed to Professor Chiu, the Secretary-General of the Judicial Yuan replied:
As to [the validity, content, scope, and manner of application of the international custom], the parties involved have the burden to prove them, and the court is also competent to initiate an investigation. As to general international law, the court can refer to the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, other courts in the Republic of China, executive branches, and domestic and foreign scholars to ascertain what it is.10
The application of customary international law rules by the courts of the ROC or judicial authorities has been taken for granted. None of the procurators, attorneys, judges, writers, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) has raised the question of whether the courts or agencies of the ROC could apply customary international law in exercising their functions.11 Thus, ROC courts and government agencies can apply rules of customary international law on diplomatic immunities and privileges in exercising their functions without special authorization by statutes or administrative decrees.
2.2 Treaties
The ROC signed the VCDR on April 18, 1961, and ratified it on December 19, 1969.12 On the other hand, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) was signed on April 24, 1963, and passed by the Legislative Yuan on March 7, 1972. However, the ROC could not deposit its ratification in the United Nations due to the UN General Assembly resolution 2758 (XXVI).13
From Taiwan’s point of view, the VCDR is absolutely a “treaty” in Taiwan’s domestic legal system because it is consistent with interpretation 329 of the Grand Justice Council of the Judicial Yuan of December 24, 199314 and article 3 of the Conclusion of Treaties Act.15 The status of VCCR in Taiwan is questionable because it still needs to complete the deposit process. However, the author tends to treat VCCR as a treaty duly ratified by the Legislative Yuan and has the force of municipal law under the ROC legal system.16 Thus, the status of VCDR and VCCR in the ROC legal system shall be summarized as follows.
First, given Article 58, paragraph 2; Article 63 and Article 57, paragraph 1, subparagraph 3 of the Constitution, the review procedure is the same as that of general domestic laws. They should be deemed to have the same force as domestic laws and should be applied by the court.17 Article 1 of the Conclusion of Treaties Act indicates that “treaties have the force of domestic laws is provided for by law.”
Second, the Statute Governing Privileges and Immunities of Foreign Missions and Their Personnel in the ROC (Taiwan)18 stipulates that the privileges and immunities of foreign missions and their personnel in Taiwan shall be governed by the Foreign Missions and Their Personnel Statute “unless specified otherwise by relevant treaties or agreements.” Therefore, it is beyond doubt that where such references exist, courts or administrative organs in Taiwan must apply the indicated treaties or agreements in exercising their functions.
Third, when a treaty and a municipal law conflict, which rule should a court or administrative organ of the ROC apply? The present Constitution is silent on this question. In its instruction No. 459 to the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Yuan, on July 27, 1931, stated, “In principle [if a treaty conflicts with the municipal law] … the validity of treaties should prevail.”19 In 1990, the Taiwan High Court, in a case regarding American Encyclopedia Britannica, elaborated on the issue of treaties conflicting with municipal laws of the ROC. The court held:20
Besides, based on the “respecting treaties” provision of Article 141 of the Constitution, the force of treaties should have supremacy over the general domestic laws, thus becoming special laws. Thus, where treaties conflict with the general domestic law, treaties should have priority to be applied according to the principle of supremacy of special law over general laws.
Based upon the above observations, the VCDR and the VCCR are applied to missions and personnel of countries that are allies of the ROC. Similarly, the privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions and personnel of the ROC also apply the norms of the Conventions to its diplomatic allies.21 One may argue that the provisions of VCDR do not apply to the diplomatic missions of the ROC and their staff because the ROC is not a party of VCDR.22 However, neither Taiwan nor its diplomatic allies support this argument.
3 Non-Diplomatic Relations
3.1 The Status of Unofficial Representation of ROC Abroad
As of March 7, 2023, Taiwan has 112 unofficial representative offices around the world.23 From a legal point of view, issues of privileges and immunities are irrelevant to unofficial foreign representations of Taiwan. However, it is not the reality. Many states granted the unofficial representations of Taiwan a particular scope of privileges and immunities. Among them, Australia is a case that grants a relatively broad scale of privileges and immunities to Taiwan’s representation offices based on its Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1995 and Taipei Economic and Cultural Office (Privileges and Immunities) Regulations 1998.24 The United States is another case that had concluded a bilateral agreement to grant a relatively wide scale of privileges and immunities to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) of Taiwan.
Today, most of Taiwan’s representative offices abroad hold various privileges and immunities established through practice and reciprocity. Singapore and the Philippines have provided Taiwan with substantial privileges and immunities, including the use of diplomatic passports, diplomatic bags, and airport privileges and an exemption from taxes and duties arising from salaries and vehicles.25 Slovakia and the Czech Republic grant Taiwan the same privileges and immunities as stipulated by the VCCR.26 On the other hand, Cambodia and Laos have severely restricted engagement with Taiwan.27
The overall trend shows that Taipei representative offices in most states have enjoyed an increasing degree of diplomatic treatment, primarily based on reciprocity and often not externally discernible.
3.2 The Status of Unofficial Representation of Foreign Missions and Their Personnel in Taiwan
3.2.1 ROC Domestic Laws
Taiwan also hosted 53 representative offices from countries around the world.28 For these unofficial presentations and their staffs in Taiwan, Statute Governing Privileges and Immunities of Foreign Missions and their Personnel in the Republic of China (Taiwan) (hereinafter referred to as “the Statute”) was enacted to deal with issues such as the inviolability of the premises, freedom of communications, Immunity from jurisdiction, exemption from taxation, exemption from customs duties and inspection, etc.
3.2.1.1 Basic Principles
The ROC’s MOFA has primary jurisdiction over matters regarding the privileges and immunities of foreign missions and their personnel in Taiwan. The Statute, therefore, authorized MOFA to approve the establishment of a foreign mission and accredit its personnel in Taiwan.29 Only those missions and their personnel confirmed by MOFA can enjoy the privileges and immunity provided by the Statute.
Taiwan grants privileges and immunities to foreign missions and their personnel based on reciprocity.30 In exceptional circumstances, some privileges apply to foreign missions, or their personnel may be the same as those that apply to foreign embassies and consulates in Taiwan.31
3.2.1.2 Immunities from Jurisdiction
Under international law, the immunities of the diplomatic mission, members of the diplomatic mission, and their families are not absolute.32 Article 5 and 6 of the Statute applies similar rules. Article 5 stipulates that foreign missions do not enjoy immunity from civil or administrative jurisdiction in some cases, such as a case of (1) waiver of immunity by foreign missions; (2) counterclaim concerning any legal action initiated by foreign missions; (3) legal action arising from commercial activities conducted by foreign missions; (4) legal action related to immovable property situated in the Republic of China (Taiwan).33
Article 6 prescribes that personnel of foreign missions in Taiwan without ROC’s nationality shall enjoy “immunity from civil and criminal jurisdiction related to acts performed within the scope of their official duties.”34 If approved by the Executive Yuan, their privileges and immunities will be accredited to the scope of privileges and immunities accorded to foreign diplomats and consular officers.35
3.2.1.3 Exemption from Taxation and Exemption from Customs Duties and Inspection
Foreign missions enjoy the same treatment as foreign embassies and consulates in Taiwan in matters such as applications for tax obligation and exemption36 and importation and exportation of articles for office use by foreign missions.37 Thus, they are exempt from all national, regional, or municipal dues and taxes concerning the mission’s premises other than representing payment for specific services rendered.38
To the personnel of foreign missions in Taiwan, under the condition that they are not ROC nationals, taxation on their income derived from official duties, purchase of goods, and personal effects and luggage upon the first arrival in Taiwan shall be exempted as those foreign diplomats and consular officers accredited to the ROC.39
Article 49, sec. 1, para. 2, of the ROC Customs Act further stipulates that imported articles are exempt from customs duty if “articles imported for official or personal use by diplomatic and consular officials of foreign embassies, legations, and consulates stationed in the Republic of China, and articles imported by other organizations and personnel that are entitled to diplomatic privileges, provided that the foreign governments concerned are extending reciprocal privileges to the Republic of China.”
3.2.1.4 Inviolability
The latter part of Article 22 (1) of the VCDR stipulates, “[t]he agents of the receiving state may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.” Responding to this obligation, article 5. sec. 1, para. 1 of the Statute established with the specific exception of the inviolability of mission premises. It stipulates, “the premises of foreign missions shall be inviolable. No entry is admitted unless with the consent of the person in charge of the mission. However, consent may be assumed in case of fire or other disasters requiring prompt action.”
The Statute does not request that members of foreign missions and their families shall be inviolable.40 However, Article 116 of the ROC Criminal Code stipulates, “intentionally causing bodily injury to, restraining the personal freedom of, or injuring the reputation of the head of a friendly state or the representative of a friendly state will be punished.” It is unclear that “the representative of a friendly state” includes personnel of foreign missions from sending states without diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
3.2.1.5 Freedom of Communications and Diplomatic Bag
Protecting all forms of diplomatic communication is essential to the functioning of a diplomatic mission. The Statue provides telecommunications and mail foreign missions in Taiwan shall not be inspected, “and may be conducted in the form of code or cipher. The installation of radio transmitters shall be subject to authorization by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other relevant authorities.”41
Unlike the Vienna Convention, the Statute does not assert the right of the sending state to communicate by “all appropriate means,” which in the longer term is probably more significant.42 Methods of communication have proliferated, and undetected interception has become more accessible. Hence, the basic principle of the right to free communication is even more important as a guide to lawful conduct.
3.2.2 2013 TECRO-AIT Agreement
After the US changed its diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, the Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA) and American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) were established to deal with bilateral matters between Taiwan and the United States. On October 2, 1980, Taiwan and the US signed an agreement on privileges, exemptions, and immunities to cover personnel in CCNAA and AIT.43 On February 4, 2013, Taiwan and the United States signed a new “Agreement on Privileges, Exemptions and Immunities Between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office” (TECRO) in the United States and the American Institute (AIT) in Taiwan (hereinafter as 2013 TECRO-AIT Agreement).44
The 2013 TECRO-AIT Agreement has the validity of municipal law in Taiwan and US. After terminating diplomatic relations with the ROC, the US continues to consider its Treaties or agreements with the ROC as remaining in force based upon Section 4(c) of the US Taiwan Relations Act of 1979,45 while the MOFA in Taiwan indicated that except for the Sino-American Treaty of Mutual Defense and the Agreement on the Status of United States Forces in the ROC to be terminated on January 1, 1980, “all other treaties or agreements, including those provisions involving the judiciary, shall remain in force.”46
On the other hand, although the US cannot conclude treaties with the ROC under traditional international law and diplomacy after 1979, “semi-official agreements” have been concluded between “unofficial agencies” of the ROC, and the US may have the full force and effect if they are consistent with the US Taiwan Relations Act47 and the ROC Conclusion of Treaties Act.48 2013 TECRO-AIT Agreement is such a case. Here are the significant points as follows.
3.2.2.1 AIT
The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) set up the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) to handle substantive relations to facilitate the commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan. AIT officially is not an embassy of the US and is an explicitly non-governmental organization Headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, maintaining offices in Taipei and Kaohsiung, Taiwan. These offices performed most of the functions that the US embassy and consulates-general had previously carried out.49
According to the 2013 TECRO-AIT Agreement, AIT can contract, acquire, and dispose of real and personal property and institute legal proceedings.50 It enjoys privileges and immunities, such as immunity of vehicles, financial assets, and bank accounts from attachment, execution, requisition, or any other form of seizure or confiscation, the inviolability of premises from forced entry and search, inviolability of archives and documentation,51and exemption from major taxations of local and central authorities in Taiwan.52
Furthermore, AIT is free to communicate and enjoys inviolability for all correspondence related to its functions.53 The bag carrying correspondences and articles related to the performance of its functions shall be kept from being opened nor detained.54 The designated carrier shall enjoy personal inviolability and shall not be liable for any arrest or detention.55
3.2.2.2 AIT Personnel
Personnel of the AIT office located in Taipei, whom TECRO accredits, enjoy complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction,56 but only enjoy immunity from civil jurisdiction for their official acts.57 Their residences may not be entered or searched and are not subject to arrest or detention.58 They may not be obliged to give evidence as witnesses in criminal, civil, administrative, or other proceedings.59 Their property, including vehicles, may not be entered or searched in matters involving the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or matters related to the exercise of civil jurisdiction for acts performed within their official duties.60 The immediate family members of an AIT personnel in Taipei, forming part of his or her household, enjoy the same immunity from criminal jurisdiction, arrest, and detention, so long as such individuals are not nationals or permanent residents of the ROC.61
Under the new 2013 Agreement, entirely criminal immunity is granted only to AIT’s representative office in Taipei, while the directors and deputy directors of AIT branches in Kaohsiung may be arrested or detained pending trial in the case of a criminal offense punishable by one year or more in prison.62 That personnel of AIT branches in Kaohsiung would only enjoy functional immunity as before. Their residences and property are not inviolable, and they may decline to give evidence as witnesses only on matters related to their official duties.63
AIT personnel are eligible for tax exemption privileges similar to those for foreign missions in Taiwan. Those privileges include exemption from sales, occupancy, and other similar taxes at the point of sale. The wages, fees, or salaries shall be exempt from taxation;64 shall not be subject to withholding; shall be exempt from making contributions for unemployment, social security, or similar insurance.65
4 Conclusion
International treaties and customary international law have the validity of municipal law in Taiwan. Courts or administrative organs of the ROC can directly apply provisions of the VCDR and the VCCR in exercising their functions. In cases concerning countries that have no formal diplomatic relations with the ROC, Taiwan has established statutory laws for implementing its duties under international law. Thus, diplomatic missions and foreign missions and their staff members enjoy privileges and immunities in Taiwan under the VCDR 1961, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963, bilateral agreements, international practices, principles of reciprocity, as well as Taiwan’s rules, regulations, and practices.
Distinguished Professor, Department of Diplomacy and Department of Law (joint appointment), National Chengchi University.
See John P. Grant & J. Craig Barker, Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law 156 (3d ed. 2009).
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, opened for signature Apr. 18, 1961, 500 U.N.T.S. 95 (entered into force Apr. 24, 1964) [hereinafter VCDR]; see generally Eileen Denza, Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (4th ed., 2016); The ICJ has held VCDR to “codify the law of diplomatic relations, state principles and rules essential for the maintenance of peaceful relations between states and accepted through the world by nations of all creeds, cultures and political complexions ….” see US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran Case, 1980 ICJ 3, at 24.
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, opened for signature Apr. 24, 1963, 596 U.N.T.S. 261 (entered into force Mar. 19, 1967) [hereinafter VCCR].
Id. In this Article, the terms “Taiwan” and “ROC,” as well as the terms “Mainland China” and “PRC,” will be used interchangeably.
Diplomatic Allies, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, https://en.mofa.gov.tw/AlliesIndex.aspx?n=1294&sms=1007.
Hungdah Chiu & Chun-i. Chen, The Status of Customary International Law, Treaties, Agreements and Semi-official or Unofficial Agreements in Law of the Republic of China on Taiwan, Maryland Series in Contemporary Asian Studies 1, 4 (2007).
See id. at 4–5.
Civil Judgment 90 [2001], Shu-387 (Taipei District Court, June 3, 2003), reprinted in 17 Chung-kuo kuo-chi-fa yu kuo-chi-shih-wu nien-pao [Chinese Yearbook of International Law and International Affairs] 937, 937–982 (2003).
Civil Judgment 92 [2003], Shang-yi-875 (Taiwan High Court, Feb. 17, 2004), reprinted in 17 Chung-kuo kuo-chi-fa yu kuo-chi-shih-wu nien-pao [Chinese Yearbook of International Law and International Affairs] 982, 982–988 (2005).
See Responses of the Chinese (Taiwan) Branch of the International Law Association and the Judicial Yuan of the Republic of China to the Questionnaire of the International Law Association Regarding the International Law Practice in the Municipal Courts of the Republic of China, 13 Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law & Affairs 200, 202 (1994–1995).
Chiu & Chen, supra note 6, at 9.
However, on November 25, 1975, the PRC government deposited the instrument of accession to declare, “[t]he ‘signature’ on and ‘ratification’ of this Convention by the Chiang Kai-shek clique usurping the name of China are illegal and null and void”; see also VCDR, supra note 2, at 16, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20III/III-3.en.pdf.
On September 29, 1972, the MOFA of the PRC sent a communication to the Secretary-General indicating that the ROC government’s multilateral treaties signed, ratified, or acceded to “are all illegal and null and void”; my government will study these multilateral treaties before making a decision in the light of the circumstances as to whether or not they should be acceded to Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General, Historical Information, China, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/HistoricalInfo.aspx?clang=_en#China; upon the accession of VCCR, the PRC Government declared, “[t]he Taiwan authorities’ signature on this Convention in the name of China is illegal and null and void”; see also VCDR, supra note 2, at 16, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20III/III-3.en.pdf.
Interpretation 329 of the Grand Justice Council of the Judicial Yuan of December 24, 1993, explained,
[w]ithin the Constitution, “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between the ROC and other nations or international organizations whose title may apply to a treaty, Convention, or Agreement. Its content involves essential issues of the Nation or rights and duties of the people, and its legality is sustained.
Above quote translated by the Judicial Yuan, http://www.judicial.gov.tw/constitutionalcourt/en/p03_01.asp?expno=329.
Article 3 of the Conclusion of Treaties Act stipulates that “treaty” means internationally written agreements that meet one of the following circumstances:
-
(1) carry the designation of “treaty” or “convention”;
-
(2) contain a ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession clause;
-
(3) involve people’s rights and obligations;
-
(4) involve national defense, foreign affairs, financial matters, economic interests, or other issues of national interest;
-
(5) involve incoherence or changes to domestic laws, https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=E0020021.
Chiu & Chen, supra note 6, at 17.
See Judgment of 72 (1983)-t’ai-shang-tzu no. 1412 by the Supreme Court [of Taiwan].
Promulgated on July 9, 1982; Article 7-1 was added and Article 9 was amended on May 7, 1997.
Chung-hua Min-kuo liu-ga li-yu p’an-chieh ch’uan-pien [Collection of Reasons, precedents, and Interpretations of the Six Laws of the Republic of China] 8 (Chung-Kuang Book Co., 1964), reprinted in Hungdah Chiu & Chun-I Chen, Hsien-tai kuo-chi-fa [Modern International Law] 131–32 (4th ed. 2021) (Taiwan).
Civil Judgment, 79 [1990], shang-keng-i-128 (Taiwan High Court, Jan. 28, 1991), translated in 9 Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law & Affairs 328, 328–329 (1989–1990).
Erik Pajtinka, Between Diplomacy and Paradiplomacy: Taiwan’s Foreign Relations in Current Practice, 11(1) Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics 39, 47 (2017).
Id.
Links to Embassies and Missions, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, https://en.mofa.gov.tw/OverseasOfficeLink.aspx?n=1573&sms=957.
Ivan Shearer, International Legal Relations Between Australia and Taiwan: Behind and Facade, 21 Australian Yearbook of International Law 113, 125 (2000).
Pasha L. Hsieh, Rethinking non-recognition: Taiwan’s new pivot to ASEAN and the one-China policy, 33(2) Cambridge Review of International Affairs 204, 216–217 (2020).
Pajtinka, supra note 21, at 51.
Hsieh, supra note 25, at 217.
Taiwan – Embassies & Consulates, Embassy Pages, https://www.embassypages.com/taiwan.
Statute Governing Privileges and Immunities of Foreign Missions and Their Personnel in the Republic of China (Taiwan), art. 2 [hereinafter Statute].
Id., art. 3 of the Statute.
Id.
See VCDR, art. 31(1); see VCCR, art. 43; United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, opened for signature Jan. 17, 2005 (not yet in force).
Statute, supra note 29, art. 5 § 1 para. 4.
Id. art 6 § 1 para. 1 (indicating that “The term ‘personnel’ referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article is limited to non-ROC nationals”).
Id. art. 6 § 1 para. 3.
Id. art. 5 § 1 para. 6.
Id. art. 5 § 1 para. 7.
VCDR, supra note 32, art. 23(1); VCCR, supra note 32, art. 32(1).
Statute, supra note 29, art. 6 § 1 para. 2(b).
VCDR, supra note 32, art. 29, 37.
Statute, supra note 29, art. 5 § 1 para. 5.
VCDR, supra note 32, art. 27(1) (stipulating that “In communicating with the Government and the other missions and consulates of the sending state, wherever situated, the mission may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic couriers and messages in code or cipher”).
Zhongwai Tiaoyue Jibian, 6 Treaties between the Republic of China and Foreign States 378–383 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs ed.) (1982).
The case of US v. Liu may be one of the major reasons Taiwan and the US signed the 2013 TECRO-AIT Agreement to replace 1980 one. In November 2011, Ms. Liu, the director-general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Kansas City, was arrested for mistreating, underpaying, and fraud in foreign labor contracting (18 USC §1351). Director-general Liu finally paid US$80,044 in restitution to the two Filipina housekeepers and then was deported to Taiwan. See Chen-Yu Wang, Taiwan-USA Agreement on Privileges, Exemptions and Immunities, 1 Encyclopedia of Public International Law in Asia 528 (Seokwoo Lee ed.) (2021); US v. Liu, No. 11-00284 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 18, 2011); High-Ranking Taiwan Representative Pleads Guilty to Felony Charge, Pays $80,000 Restitution to Victims and Will be Deported, FBI, https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/kansascity/press-releases/2011/high-ranking-taiwan-representative-pleads-guilty-to-felony-charge-pays-80-000-restitution-to-victims-and-will-be-deported.
Taiwan Relations Act, Pub. L. No. 96-8, 93 Stat. 14 (1979) reprinted in China and the Taiwan Issue 266–275 (Hungdah Chiu ed., 1979).
Hungdah Chiu, Rong-jye Chen & Tzu-wen Lee, Contemporary Practice and Judicial Decisions of the Republic of China Relating to International Law, 1981–1983, 2 Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook International Law & Affairs 256, 256–257 (1982) (regarding letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wai (68) Pei Mei (1) No. 06514 of April 13, 1979, to the Ministry of Justice [now Legal Affairs]).
Taiwan Relations Act, Pub. L. No. 96–8, § 6, 93 Stat. 17 (1979); Taiwan Relations Act, Pub. L. No. 96–8, § 10(a), 93 Stat. 18 (1979); Agreements Between the American Institute in Taiwan and the Coordination Council for North American Affairs, 45 Fed. Reg. 34483 (May 22, 1980).
Conclusion of Treaties Act, supra note 15.
For its part, the ROC government established the Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA), with its leading representative office in Washington, DC. It has 12 other offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Honolulu, Guam, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle. Following the United States Taiwan Policy Review of 1994, the name of the CCNAA office in Washington, DC, was changed to the “Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office” (TECRO), while the names of all other CCNAA offices in the United States were changed to “Taipei Economic and Cultural Office.”
Agreement on Privileges, Exemptions and Immunities Between the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States, art. 3, Taiwan-U.S., Oct. 2, 1980, https://uploads.mwp.mprod.getusinfo.com/uploads/sites/68/2022/03/20130204-agmt-on-privileges-exemptions-immunities-english.pdf.
Id. art. 7(c).
Id. art. 7(d).
Id. art. 6(a).
Id. art. 6(b).
Id. art. 6(c).
Id. art. 8(a).
Id. art. 8(e).
Id. art. 8(b).
Id. art. 8(c).
Id. art. 8(e).
Id. art. 8(f).
Id. art. 8(g).
Id. art. 8(i).
Id. art. 7(a).
Id. art. 7(b).