Between Legal Indigeneity and Indigenous Sovereignty in Taiwan: Insights From Critical Race Theory

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Social Inclusion Pub Date : 2023-04-26 DOI:10.17645/si.v11i2.6514
S. Simon, Awi Mona
{"title":"Between Legal Indigeneity and Indigenous Sovereignty in Taiwan: Insights From Critical Race Theory","authors":"S. Simon, Awi Mona","doi":"10.17645/si.v11i2.6514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":37948,"journal":{"name":"Social Inclusion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Inclusion","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i2.6514","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
台湾的法律愤怒与本土主权——批判性种族理论的启示
台湾是承认在其管辖范围内存在原住民的三个亚洲国家之一,拥有16个国家承认的群体,超过58万原住民。台湾原住民记得他们在殖民前的生活,是根据自己的法律和政治制度生活的自治民族,他们声称他们从未将领土或主权割让给任何国家。随着台湾的民主化,政府通过法律上的本土化来应对原住民对政治自治的要求,包括自1997年以来将其纳入宪法和随后的立法。然而,在对两项法院裁决的研究中,我们发现自由主义的土著保护个人,同时不断破坏土著主权。2021年,宪法法院维持了禁止狩猎的限制性法律,寻求平衡野生动物保护和土著猎人的文化权利,但忽视了土著建立自主狩猎制度的要求。2022年,宪法法院废除了《原住民身份法》的部分条款,该条款规定,任何父母一方为原住民、一方为台湾汉人的孩子,必须使用原住民名字,才能获得原住民身份,并享受反歧视措施。这两项裁决都加深了国家对土著生活的控制,同时剥夺了土著人民根据自己的法律管理这些问题的主权权力。批判种族理论(CRT)有助于理解旨在促进反歧视的良好意图的立法如何损害土著主权。同时,对原住民复兴的研究强调了一个经常被忽视的方面——在面对系统性种族主义时肯定民族的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Inclusion
Social Inclusion Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
114
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Inclusion is a peer-reviewed open access journal, which provides academics and policy-makers with a forum to discuss and promote a more socially inclusive society. The journal encourages researchers to publish their results on topics concerning social and cultural cohesiveness, marginalized social groups, social stratification, minority-majority interaction, cultural diversity, national identity, and core-periphery relations, while making significant contributions to the understanding and enhancement of social inclusion worldwide. Social Inclusion aims at being an interdisciplinary journal, covering a broad range of topics, such as immigration, poverty, education, minorities, disability, discrimination, and inequality, with a special focus on studies which discuss solutions, strategies and models for social inclusion. Social Inclusion invites contributions from a broad range of disciplinary backgrounds and specializations, inter alia sociology, political science, international relations, history, cultural studies, geography, media studies, educational studies, communication science, and language studies. We welcome conceptual analysis, historical perspectives, and investigations based on empirical findings, while accepting regular research articles, review articles, commentaries, and reviews.
期刊最新文献
Disability, Religion, and Gender: Exploring Experiences of Exclusion in India Through an Intersectional Lens Intersecting Disability and Poverty in the Global South: Barriers to the Localization of the UNCRPD Disabled People and the Intersectional Nature of Social Inclusion Discourses of Digitalisation and the Positioning of Workers in Primary Care: A Norwegian Case Study Work‐Related ICT Use and the Dissolution of Boundaries Between Work and Private Life
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1