碩士 / 佛光大學 / 公共事務學系 / 107 / It is not until 1987 when Martial law came to an end that the cross-strait relationship is improved with close contact. Taiwan and China will help combat the crimes and strengthen law enforcement, including cross-strait manpower mutual relations in the strait. Moreover, improve the mutual legal assistance between the two sides agreed to repatriate illegal immigrants via International Committee of the Red Cross. After constant negotiation of repatriation procedures, the “Kinmen Agreement” 1990. To avoid this kind of incidents, Ensuring humaneness, safety, and convenience as principal of repatriation, a new page of the cross-straits cooperation in combating crimes and mutual legal assistance has turned when an Agreement on Cross-Strait Cooperation in Combating Crimes and Mutual Legal Assistance between Taiwan and China has been signed in 2009.
However, after the new government came in 2016, denying “1992 Consensus, the relation between Taiwan and mainland enter a new peace but cold phase. In order to emphasize Taiwan’s autonomy, pointing out that this Agreement fails to deal with the issue of jurisdiction disputes such that the Agreement contains only outlined framework prescriptions, and thus is unconducive to truly solving the jurisdiction disputes, nor is it conducive to effective prosecution of cross-border cases. In view of the fact that compromise and solution for present cross-strait jurisdiction disputes are the fundamental premise for domestic courts to acquire adjudicative power, and are the critical leading indicator in revealing whether the agreement for criminal mutual judicial assistance functions effectively. To date, Taiwan should take basis on the legal principle of international jurisdiction negotiation to establish a fundamental principle, concept of levels, and criterion of determination for negotiation of cross-strait jurisdiction so as to facilitate establishment of judicial jurisdiction promptly.
The purpose of this study finds that the two sides based on the common interests of cross-border crimes against the cross, the temporary suspension of national sovereignty and jurisdiction of the dispute, China's judicial sovereignty to maintain a great deal of damage. The actual content of principles of cross-strait criminal jurisdiction conflicts arises from a conflict of jurisdiction. Today neither side of the Strait recognizes the other’s sovereignty, and both deny each other’s administrative powers. Both believe that their jurisdiction extends over the areas where the other side has sovereignty. Law between Taiwan and mainland China, and tries to suggest a concrete method to reconcile the conflicts arising from issues of cross-strait criminal jurisdiction. The conclusion from this paper is that the best resolution for cross-strait criminal jurisdiction conflicts is to sign an agreement on mutual jurisdictional assistance. Possible agreement clauses are provided for future policy reference and decision making. This article is based on the basic spirit of the advanced international divisions mutual assistance, extradition treaties, etc., and proposes two major proposals, "Legal Nomenclature" and "Practical Aspects", to resolve cross-strait criminal jurisdiction.This article is based on the basic spirit of the legislation of the International Division of Mutual Aid, Extradition Treaty, etc., and proposes two major proposals: " Institutional aspect" and " Practical operation".
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:TW/107FGU00636016 |
| Date | January 2019 |
| Creators | HUNG,CHEN-TANG, 洪震堂 |
| Contributors | LIU, CHIN-TSAI, HE, DA-REN, 柳金財, 何達仁 |
| Source Sets | National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan |
| Language | zh-TW |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | 學位論文 ; thesis |
| Format | 189 |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds