Taiwan, without access to international treaties, has created its own way to implement universal human rights norms. A theoretically monist system with dualist practices, Taiwan’s treaty implementation acts inaugurate the era of conventionality review, along side its constitutionality review monopolized by the Grand Justices of Judicial Yuan. However, national judges still have doubts about the implementation methods and especially the superiority of these acts. We argue that firstly and practically, the human rights norms can only become effective when they prevail and thus invalidate rights-infringing acts. Secondly, observations from the national report examinations, executed by an ad hoc panel of international independent experts, are to be considered within concrete cases by national judges. National judges in Taiwan are not complete aliens to judicial review, and the conventionality review will only push the constitutionality review to grow stronger. From the experiences of France and Romania, we suggest that the domestication of international norms does not mean any top-down normative imposition, but a paranormal way to engage Taiwan seriously in a bargain between judges.
Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Vol.1, pp.166-191