Taiwan’s commitment to environmental protection and ecological sustainability has been a focal point in recent years, with significant legislative advancements aimed at addressing the pressing issues of climate change and environmental conservation. The country has taken steps to incorporate environmental considerations into its legal framework, with laws such as the Basic Environment Act (2002) and the Climate Change Response Act (2023) reflecting Taiwan’s dedication to environmental stewardship. However, the question remains: how environmentally conscious is Taiwan’s constitution?
Ecological constitutionalism, an inclusive concept that emphasizes the integration of environmental protection into a nation’s constitution, provides a framework for evaluating Taiwan’s environmental constitution from an ecological perspective. This approach underscores the importance of principles such as sustainability, intergenerational equity, and the rights and obligations related to human health, natural environment, and climate. By embracing ecological constitutionalism, Taiwan can move towards a more holistic understanding of environmental protection that encompasses not only human interests but also the well-being of animals, plants, and entire ecosystems.
At the constitutional level, Taiwan’s commitment to environmental and ecological protection is enshrined in Article 10(2) of the Additional Articles of the Constitution, which mandates that environmental and ecological concerns be given equal consideration alongside economic and technological development. While this provision, known as the “equal consideration” clause, was added in 1994, its substantive impact has been recognized in legal scholarship and constitutional practice. The state’s obligation to protect the environment and ecology was affirmed by the Judicial Yuan in Interpretation No. 426 in 1997. However, the lack of a subjective rights nature in this provision means that citizens cannot directly sue based on it. Despite this limitation, legal scholars argue that courts should consider these Fundamental National Policy Clauses when interpreting fundamental rights to enhance their scope and impact.
The debate over the inclusion of “environmental rights” in Taiwan’s constitution revolves around whether to interpret them under the existing “right to life” provision or to establish an independent environmental right within the constitution. While the “right to life” already guarantees survival under the Constitution, creating a separate “right to environment” would offer more comprehensive protection for human and environmental rights. Legal scholars suggest that the “right to health” could serve as a constitutional anchor for addressing climate-related threats to human well-being. By extending Article 22 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to health, to encompass environmental concerns, Taiwan can establish a strong constitutional basis for ecological protection.
In addition to individual rights, some legal scholars argue that the “environmental state principle” should be considered as fundamental a constitutional value as democracy, the rule of law, and social state principles. This principle posits that all state actions should prioritize environmental protection, aligning with the growing global emphasis on sustainability and ecological consciousness. While similar arguments exist in other countries, Taiwan has yet to fully realize this principle in practice.
Efforts to promote ecological protection and environmental justice in Taiwan have also seen bottom-up initiatives, with citizens initiating lawsuits to compel courts to clarify constitutional contents or secure further constitutional recognition. These legal challenges seek to ensure that constitutional requirements for ecological protection are translated into tangible administrative and legislative actions. Despite the challenges of eligibility for litigation, particularly in the context of climate change litigation, these grassroots efforts demonstrate a growing awareness and commitment to environmental rights among Taiwanese citizens.
Recent climate litigation cases in Taiwan, such as the “Major Electricity Consumers Case” and the challenge to the Climate Change Response Act, highlight the urgent need for stronger legal protections and regulatory measures to address climate change and environmental threats. While these cases face procedural obstacles, they underscore the importance of aligning constitutional principles with practical measures to safeguard ecological sustainability. By integrating ecological considerations into the constitution, Taiwan can lay the groundwork for a more sustainable and environmentally conscious future.
In conclusion, Taiwan’s journey towards ecological constitutionalism reflects a growing recognition of the interconnectedness between environmental protection, human rights, and sustainability. By embracing an ecological perspective in its legal framework and institutional practices, Taiwan can pave the way for a more resilient and environmentally conscious society. Through continued dialogue, collaboration, and legal innovation, Taiwan can position itself as a leader in environmental justice and climate action, setting a positive example for other nations to follow.
