Taiwanese ship "Maersk Dubai" is a container ship. In May 1996, at Halifax, Canada, some Phillipino crewmembers of the ship went to the police and reported that Taiwanese Officers had thrown in sea three Romanian Stowaways (persons who illegally sail with ship). After investigating the ship's staff Canadian police arrested 6 Taiwanese and kept them in prison for a month before releasing them on bail. Soon after the arrest of Taiwanese Officers, Taiwan Government claimed jurisdiction on the basis of Article 97 of the United Nations Conventions on the International Law of the sea. Taiwan kept the pressure on Canada, through media and official channels and solely fought the case on Jurisdiction issue. In March 1997 the Canadian Court gave a verdict that there is sufficient evidence to charge those 6 persons for manslaughter and second degree murder as per Canadian Law but since the case is not in their Jurisdiction, they cannot do anything and dismissed the case. All 6 Taiwanese were released and sent back to Taiwan where they are free.
In Maersk Dubai case there were more than 10 persons who gave evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Taiwanese seamen and still nothing happened to these people whereas in our case the Court says that I should have known something that I did not know (the alleged collision of our ship with Taiwanese Fishing boat) and for that reason they are punishing me.
1. The authorities in Taipei are seeking the return of six of their nationals who are now held in Halifax, Canada. The six are allegedly implicated in illegal acts that occurred on the high seas aboard the Maersk Dubai, a ship flying the flag of, and registered in, the Republic of China (ROC, located on the island of Taiwan and some offshore islands with governing authorities in Taipei). The authorities in Taipei maintain that it is their right and obligation under international law to bring the six back to Taiwan for thorough investigation; and, if reasonable doubt of guilt is found, for prosecution and trial in accordance with due process of law in the Republic of China.
2. Taipei's request is based on universally accepted rules in International law, in particular Article 11 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and Articles 92 and 97 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, all unequivocally provide that ships on the High sea shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state.
3. The authorities in Taipei are fully aware the fact that the Canadian Government does not diplomatically recognize the Government of the Republic of China. They do not intend to advance, through this case, any kind of Canadian recognition, de jure or de facto.
4. The authorities in Taipei, however, wish to point out the fact that when the Canadian Government recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) on October 13, 1970, it did not recognize the PRC's claim of sovereignty over the territory controlled by the authorities in Taipei. In this regard, the Joint Communiqué between Canada and the PRC, signed after 20 months of recognition, specifically spelt out that the Canadian Government only "takes note of" the PRC's said claim.
5. The authorities in Taipei also wish to point out that the lack of diplomatic relations or recognition with or from a foreign state has not prevented the international community, including Canada, from acknowledging and dealing with the legal reality of a "Republic of China jurisdiction", as evidenced by the conclusion of the "Memorandum of understanding concerning Reciprocal Air Transport Tax Exemption" between the authorities in Taipei and Canada and many other bilateral agreements. Also, the diplomatic inadequacy noted above does not affect Taipei's international personality to sue or to be sued in foreign courts, as evidenced by ample cases including The Republic of China Vs Yu Ping-huan et al. (1987) in Japan, also known as the Kokarya Case, and Carl Zeiss Stiftung Vs Rayner and Keeler, Ltd (1967) in the United Kingdom.
6. The authorities in Taipei strongly hold that the contestant in this case, the Romanian Government, has no legal standing, as:
(I) Except for the testimony of the ship's Filipino crew members, there is no legal proof that such stowaways were on board: or that such stowaways, even if they were once on board, were subsequently thrown overboard.
(II) Regarding the nationality of stowaways, there is no legal proof that they were Romanians.
(III) Even if there were Romanian stowaways thrown overboard, Article 1 of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and Romania would still not be applied; as the Article only provides that "the contracting parties engage to deliver up to each other those persons who, being accused or convicted of a crime or offence committed in the territory of the one party, shall be found within the territory of the other party". By all accounts, however, the alleged crime aboard the Maersk Dubai happened when the ship was on the high seas, did not take place in the territory of either Canada or Romania to invoke the Article.
(IV) The Romanian request for extradition is therefore totally groundless. The entire case should be subject to no other considerations than International Law and International practices, by which the authorities in Taipei should have exclusive jurisdiction over this case.
7. The case against the accused has all been very weak. As a matter of fact, there was initially a seventh accused, Mr. YOU, Chaur-Sheng, the Cassab of the Maersk Dubai, who was discharged on December 19, 1996, after fact-finding investigation and lengthy proceedings for seven months. The discharge was due to a total lack of evidence against Mr. YOU; as Rodolfo Miguel, the defiant Filipino boatswain of the Maersk Dubai whose testimony was the only reason causing Mr. YOU to be detained, admitted during cross-examination in the court that he made a mistake in identifying Mr. YOU. It is indeed most regrettable that it has taken a Canadian Court seven months to reach such a self-evident finding.
8. The evident lack of credible evidence also exists in other cases. For example, Mr Wang, KO-Lung, the cook of the Maersk Dubai who did not start working on the ship until march 31,1996, was detained for such a "crime" allegedly taken place on March 12,1996. The only evidence against him seems, once again, the testimony of the Philippino boatswain. But common sense can dictate that there is no way for Mr.Wang to have been involved in the alleged incident, as he was not on the ship at all when it happened. Mr. Wang's case shows that due process of law has not been in order for him, and his basic human rights have been seriously violated. It is inconceivable that cases of this sort can happen in a country with sound and advanced legal system such as Canada's.
9. The Taipei authorities understand that it is now up to the Canadian judicial authorities to decide to which nation such exclusive jurisdiction will be granted. With due respect to the Canadian judicial system, Taipei sincerely hopes its own judicial system will also be respected by the Canadians with the returning of the six to Taiwan in accordance with International Law.
10. As the case has been dragging on for over half a year, the patience of people on Taiwan has grown thinner and thinner with the current situation. It can be said that this case is the most serious matter in Ottawa-Taipei bilateral relations since 1990. Should any or all of the six ROC nationals be extradited to Romania, or not be returned to Taipei in a timely fashion, such unfortunate occurrence would inevitable lead to serious repercussions in the bilateral relations.