UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal

This article endeavors to make three distinct contributions. First, this article focuses specifically on the perspective of Taiwan. The meanings of abortion vary in deferring cultural systems, and the norms vary significantly between countries. Nonetheless, in Taiwan, most scholars have a tendency to scrutinize and denounce domestic law through the lens of Western law, overlooking the disparities in the social and cultural foundations on which these two ledgal systems are built. To prevent replication of the previous research pattern of viewing Taiwan through a Western perspective, the legal system must be reexamined by taking into account Taiwan's social and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, this article chooses to focus on the locality of Taiwan. Second, this article wishes to present Taiwan’s experience and ongoing approach to addressing abortion issues as a model for other nations in the international community. Due to statehood disputes, Taiwan has not been featured or discussed in any international reports or documents pertaining to the legal framework of abortion, rendering it a crucial missing piece in the worldwide
jigsaw puzzle of abortion laws. This article strives to remedy this gap by sharing Taiwan’s experience and progress in this field. Finally, Taiwan’s uniqueness lies in its foundation of Confucian culture as a social norm, while also embracing a strong emphasis on freedom and human rights. Through the development of the concept of abortion rights by the Taiwanese government and society and the context of discourse surrounding it, Taiwan showcases the feasibility of integrating Eastern traditional values with Western contemporary liberalism, allowing for coexistence and harmony.

As many people are currently discussing an important reform of international tax rules1 and the tensions surrounding Taiwan, it is worthwhile to consider the tax aspect of Taiwan’s relationship with the world. Legal rules govern both Taiwan’s outbound investment and inbound investment in Taiwan. Even the People’s Republic of China (P.R.C., zhonghua renmin gonghe guo, or 中華人民共和國) receives Taiwan’s outbound investment, and Taiwan receives inbound investment from the P.R.C. At a time when tit-for-tat politics catches almost all the attention, a less well-known aspect of international law demonstrates both a
cause for optimism and a problem. Taiwan has its own legal rules, and Taiwan has bilateral treaties or agreements with its friends. However, when there are multilateral efforts to face the challenges of an important issue, Taiwan has often been left out. This article discusses Taiwan’s engagement with the world tax order.

Part I sets out Taiwan’s legal rules regarding income tax. Part II discusses Taiwan’s thirty-five bilateral treaties or agreements with its friends. Part III introduces the P.R.C. tax law and the U.S. tax law for cross-border activities that implicate Taiwan. Part IV discusses some major multilateral efforts to reform the international tax system, and the creativity that may be required for Taiwan to be included. Overall, this article discusses Taiwan’s engagement with the world tax order.

This article analyzes the High Court of American Samoa’s 1980
ruling in Craddick v. Territorial Registrar and compares the decision’s
reasoning with preceding cases that had also evaluated the constitutionality
of racial restrictions under the equal protection guarantees of the
Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. The article then compares
the legal analysis used by the High Court in Craddick with the legal
analysis used by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Wabol v. Villacrusis,
a case that was based on similar facts and had a similar outcome to
Craddick, but which relied on a different and completely incompatible
analysis of the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees. Finally, this
article compares the legal analysis in Craddick with the Supreme Court’s
recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard and concludes
that if a challenge to Craddick were to make it into a federal court
today, the Supreme Court’s analysis in Harvard would require that Craddick
be overturned.

This Article provides the first detailed description of gambling in American Samoa. In addition to being one of just five inhabited U.S. territories, American Samoa is one of only four U.S. jurisdictions that bans all forms of commercial gambling. As such, it offers a rare opportunity to examine gambling in an anti-gambling society. The fact that American Samoa is located thousands of miles from the U.S. mainland; relies heavily on customs that are quite foreign to most Americans; lacks any sort of system for reporting judicial decisions despite having courts that are precedent-based; and permits charitable gaming (even though it has become a cover for large-scale gambling operators) makes studying the territory even more valuable.