Abstract
Taiwan, home to over 580,000 Indigenous people in 16 state‐recognized groups, is one of three Asian countries to recognize the existence of Indigenous peoples in its jurisdiction. Taiwan’s Indigenous peoples remember their pre‐colonial lives as autonomous nations living according to their own laws and political institutions, asserting that they have never ceded territory or sovereignty to any state. As Taiwan democratized, the state dealt with resurgent Indigenous demands for political autonomy through legal indigeneity, including inclusion in the Constitution since 1997 and subsequent legislation. Yet, in an examination of two court rulings, we find that liberal indigeneity protects individuals, while consistently undermining Indigenous sovereignty. In 2021, the Constitutional Court upheld restrictive laws against hunting, seeking to balance wildlife conservation and cultural rights for Indigenous hunters, but ignoring Indigenous demands to create autonomous hunting regimes. In 2022, the Constitutional Court struck down part of the Indigenous Status Act, which stipulated that any child with one Indigenous parent and one Han Taiwanese parent must use an Indigenous name to obtain Indigenous status and benefit from anti‐discrimination measures. Both rulings deepen state control over Indigenous lives while denying Indigenous peoples the sovereign power to regulate these issues according to their own laws. Critical race theory (CRT) is useful in understanding how legislation designed with good intentions to promote anti‐discrimination can undermine Indigenous sovereignty. Simultaneously, studies of Indigenous resurgence highlight an often‐neglected dimension of CRT—the importance of affirming the nation in the face of systemic racism.
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Social Psychology
Reference46 articles.
1. Allio, F. (1998). La construction d’un espace politique austronésien [The construction of an Austronesian political space]. Perspectives chinoises, 47, 54–62.
2. Andrade, T. (2008). How Taiwan became Chinese: Dutch, Spanish, and Han colonization in the seventeenth century. Columbia University Press.
3. Awi Mona. (2019). Conceptualizing Indigenous historical justice toward a mutual recognition with state in Taiwan. Washington International Law Journal, 28(3), 653–675.
4. Barclay, P. D. (2018). Outcasts of empire Japan’s rule on Taiwan’s “savage border,” 1874–1945. University of California Press.
5. Bell, D. (1992). Racial realism. Connecticut Law Review, 24(2), 363–380.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献