Paper short abstract:

This paper, focused on indigenous autonomy, looks at attempts in Taiwan to incorporate UNDRIP into law. What progress has been made? What obstructs passage and implementation of relevant laws? What does this impasse suggest relationships between indigenous peoples, states, and international law?

Paper long abstract:

Taiwan, excluded from the UN since 1970, tries to present itself as a proponent of human rights. Simultaneously, Taiwanese grassroots social movements also attempt to access international forums to pressure their government for change. Among them are indigenous Austronesian groups at the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in Geneva and at the UN Permanent Forum in New York. Taiwan's Council of Indigenous Peoples has also sought, albeit with less sympathy from international NGOs, to represent state interests at these events. The result of these activities, which began in the late 1980s, is that Taiwanese indigenous groups and government bodies have adopted UNDRIP as a key inspirational document.

In 2005, Taiwan's Legislature passed the Basic Law on Indigenous Peoples, based on earlier drafts of UNDRIP. Indigenous activists were quick to point out differences between the documents. Whereas most UNDRIP articles begin with "indigenous peoples have the right to….", articles in the Basic Law start with "the state shall…" This suggests that UNDRIP is based on the concept of inherent sovereignty; whereas Taiwan's Civil Code is based on positivist legal assumptions. Since 2005, legislators have worked to draft or revise laws in accordance with these documents. This paper evaluates progress made on autonomy - Article 4 in both UNDRIP and the Basis Law. What legal progress has been made? To what extent do existing proposals constitute real autonomy? What obstacles obstruct passage and implementation of relevant laws? What does this impasse suggest about the triangular relationship between indigenous peoples, states, and international law?