National Apology and Reinvigoration of Indigenous Rights in Taiwan

Part of the Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific book series (ELIAP)


There has been a huge debate about the protection of indigenous rights in the context of legal reform. One of the focal points of the debate is how and to what extent the state’s legal system and social transformation construct indigenous cultural development and needs. On 1 August 2016 Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen delivered a National Apology to Indigenous Peoples, which laid out a comprehensive scheme to restore historical and transitional justice for indigenous rights. In brief, this chapter focuses on the deliberation of law and legal pluralism amongst indigenous diversity. By way of empirical research, this chapter demonstrates the legal web of the state’s legal system and its influence on local indigenous communities. Also, it explores how and to what extent indigenous customary laws have been incorporated and implemented through the state’s legal system. To conclude, the theoretical emphasis on ontology framing distinctive bodies and processes of indigenous jurisprudence, together with the possibility of collaboration and translation between indigenous knowledge and academic disciplines, will create space for postcolonial indigenous legal consciousness, ongoing dialogues and relationship-building of self-determination and indigenous justice paradigms.


Historical and transitional justice Indigenous peoples Legal pluralism National apology Self-determination 


  1. Blumm MC (2004) Retracing the discovery doctrine: aboriginal title, tribal sovereignty, and their significance to treaty-making and modern natural resources policy in Indian country. Vermont Law Rev 28:713–777, at 714Google Scholar
  2. Chartrand P (2006) International expert group meeting on the millennium development goals. In: Lah, P. (ed) Indigenous participation and good governance (UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues) PFII/2006/WS.3/4. New York, 11–13 Jan 2006Google Scholar
  3. Daes EI (2001) Prevention of discrimination and protection of indigenous peoples and minorities. In: Indigenous peoples and their relationship to land (Final working paper E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/21)Google Scholar
  4. Kalt JP (2006) Constitutional rule and the effective governance of native nations. In: Lemont ED (ed) American Indian constitutional reform and the rebuilding of native nations. University of Texas Press, Texas, pp 184–219, at 197Google Scholar
  5. Macklem P (2001) Indigenous difference and the constitution of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, p 78Google Scholar
  6. McHugh PG (2004) Aboriginal societies and the common law: a history of sovereignty, status, and self-determination. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 124–127Google Scholar
  7. Porter RG (1979) A good speed to Virginia, quoted by Harry C. Porter in The inconstant savage: England and the North American Indian 1500–1660. Duckworth, London (Southwest Books Services)Google Scholar
  8. Russell PH (2005) Recognizing aboriginal title: the Mabo case and indigenous resistance to English-settler colonialism. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  9. Tully J (ed) (1994a) Philosophy in an age of pluralism: essays in honour of Charles Taylor. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Tully J (1994b) Aboriginal property and Western theory: recovering a middle ground. In: Paul EF, Miller FD Jr., Paul J (eds) Property rights. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wiessner S (1999) Rights and status of indigenous peoples: a global comparative and international legal analysis. Harv Hum Rights J 12: 57–128Google Scholar
  12. World Commission on Environment and Development [The Brundtland Commission] (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Dong Hwa UniversityShoufengTaiwan

Personalised recommendations