||Not only is it the case that goods and merchandise transfer more easily under globalization but persons travel more freely as well. As a result, certain external costs have emerged, with criminal activities being one such cost. With the development of trade development between Taiwan and mainland China (hereinafter referred to in terms of “cross-strait”), the interaction between trade, the economy, social and cultural activities have enhanced over time, and external costs have resulted. Among such external costs, fugitives and extra-territorial organization crimes have slowed the pace of cooperative development. The two sides signed the Cross-strait Joint Crime-Fighting and Judicial Mutual Assistance Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Cross-strait Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement) in April 2009. Whether the two sides can continue their mutual assistance in criminal matters based on the existing foundation of their judicial cooperation has been attracting attention since May 2016.|
The People’s Republic of China has been transforming into one of the most influential powers in Asia and the world. Meanwhile, cross-strait relations have grown closer following the signing of 20 economic related agreements and the Cross-strait Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement. As a result, some have attempted to explore and discuss cross-strait relations from different aspects, such as Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism.While trade relations have been strengthening, both sides across the strait have faced the challenge of combating cross-strait and international crimes. As the issue of fugitives transcends borders, this study focused on the cross-strait extradition and repatriation of fugitives in the frame work of the relevant mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.
By adopting empirical legal research methods, this paper researched relevant rules relating to international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, before analysing and comparing these with the main extradition and repatriation issues in cross-strait relations. Furthermore, by adopting the "Constructivism" approach of international relations, especially one based on Alexander Wendt’s theory, this paper attempted to observe whether common knowledge and cultural change, as well as the four variables of collective identity, have emerged in cross-strait cooperation in criminal matters.
Wendt has proposed that there are three different types of culture and that each culture has three different degrees of internalization (compliance, self-interest and legitimacy), which determines how deeply embedded states are in that culture. Therefore, this study explored different types of culture depending on different ruling periods, evaluated what factors caused cultural structural change and which degree of internalization describes the Cross-strait Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement. Based on these observations, this study discussed whether four variables of identity have the potential to emerge in this judicial cooperation field.
Vertically, this paper studied historical changes of different ruling periods with regard to legal assistance in criminal matters; horizontally, this paper explored the structures of mutual legal assistance across the strait and of regional political organizations, as well as tested this paper’s hypothesis that mutual cooperation in criminal matters has constructed common knowledge and shared beliefs using practical examples and relevant verdicts. Finally, observations and suggestions concerning the trends in cross-strait criminal judicial cooperation were proposed.