活動名稱｜2025人口販運防制法修法週年與強迫勞動禁止學術研討會

日期｜2025年4月30日

地點｜陽明交通大學光復校區人社三館HC104教室（中文實體），以及同步線上（英文口譯）

主辦單位｜國立陽明交通大學科技法律學院、國立陽明交通大學文化研究國際中心 （ICCS）

協辦單位｜台灣人權促進會、台灣勞工陣線協會、Work Better Innovations

所屬子計畫｜遷移、不平等公民、批判法律研究

子計畫主持人｜劉紀蕙、邱羽凡、潘美玲

活動錄影｜ 連結

活動實錄（開放下載）｜連結

大會演講：我國推動遠洋漁業移工人權保障的進展與挑戰

講者｜羅秉成（前行政院政務委員）

主持人｜劉紀蕙（陽明交通大學文化研究國際中心主任）

側記作者｜詹耀騏（陽明交大科法所碩士班)

當代奴役的法制包裝與人權主流化的起點

此次研討會由陽明交通大學文化研究國際中心主任劉紀蕙教授擔任開場主持，劉教授從奴役制度的歷史延續談起，指出奴役從未消失，而是透過現代法律與行政語言轉化為更隱蔽的控制形式，潛藏於遠洋漁業、工廠、農場與家庭照護等場域之中。像是「境外聘僱」與「他國領海」的模糊定位，使外籍勞動者被排除於勞動法規之外，反映出台灣現行法制對勞動身分與空間的選擇性規範。劉教授強調法律既是治理的工具，也形塑誰能被視為擁有權利的主體；當制度設計缺乏連貫與整合，就容易成為默許不平等的結構。即使近年出現「性平專法」、「跟騷法」、「人工智慧基本法草案」等進展，數位與AI勞動等新型態工作仍難納入現有保障體系。

在此脈絡下，由前行政院政務委員羅秉成律師擔任大會演講人，從政策與修法經驗出發，回應當前人權制度建構與漁工勞動保障的挑戰與契機。羅律師首先回顧我國政府近八年來在人權制度上的發展，指出我國雖已將多項國際人權公約國內法化，卻長期缺乏具體落實的專責機制。國家人權委員會的設立雖具制度進展意義，但實務上仍需進一步對接行政體系，強化各部會間的人權責任分工與執行架構。此外，羅律師強調推動「人權主流化」應如同性別主流化一般，落實於政策評估、預算編列與法案研擬過程中，並結合外部專家與跨部會協作，才能逐步建構具回應力與透明度的制度網絡。

遠洋漁業人權問題的國際壓力與挑戰

針對我國的遠洋漁業人權問題，羅律師以漁業與人權行動計畫的實施成效及問題為主進行回顧及檢討。台灣雖為全球重要遠洋漁業國家之一，但長期依賴外籍船員，且工作環境封閉、工時冗長、風險極高，導致外籍漁工人權保障問題層出不窮。自2018年起，多艘我國漁船已遭美國海關與邊境保護局（CBP）列入強迫勞動暫扣名單，加上歐盟、美國與日本等市場對進口水產品要求日趨嚴格，這些壓力不僅衝擊我國國際聲譽，也對遠洋漁業治理與制度改革提出重大挑戰。

《漁業與人權行動計畫》的政策進展與落實困境

面對日益嚴峻的國際審視與制度落差，羅律師指出，我國政府於2022年正式推出《漁業與人權行動計畫》，涵蓋七大策略，包括提升最低工資、強化工時與休息保障、補助Wi-Fi與安全裝備、全面推動船上CCTV安裝、建立仲介機構評鑑與管理機制、規範我國人投資的外籍權宜籍漁船勞動條件，並推動國際合作機制等。羅律師說明了這項政策不僅嘗試跳脫傳統由漁業主管機關單一處理的治理框架，改以跨部會協作與勞資對話為基礎，也逐步建構了制度化人權保障網絡。然而，在具體落實層面仍遭遇多重困難，例如工資標準與ILO海員公約仍有落差、CCTV紀錄保存期限不足、船主申請Wi-Fi補助意願低，以及仲介與雇主責任切割不清等問題，使政策推動難以全面落地。

此外，羅律師指出我國目前仍維持「境內聘僱」與「境外聘僱」的雙軌制度，導致同樣於台灣籍漁船上從事勞動的船員，卻適用不同勞動條件與法律規範，產生制度上的不對等與實質不公平。若是要真正落實移工勞動人權保障，制度應朝向一元化發展，以消除因聘僱來源不同所造成的待遇差距。對此農業部已於2025年展開第二期行動計畫研擬作業，並啟動ILO-C188公約施行法的立法進程，預計透過法制化與政策延續，進一步整合現行制度，提升治理一致性與透明度。

讓制度落地：從產業治理走向人權保障

演講的最後，羅律師以一段政策定位作結，強調漁業不僅屬於產業政策的範疇，更應被納入國家人權政策的整體架構。遠洋漁業高度依賴外籍移工，其勞動條件與法制保障直接反映出台灣對人權治理的實踐深度。制度若無法在現場真正落實，即便政策設計再完整，仍無法有效回應長期存在的勞動失衡。面對全球供應鏈日益重視人權責任與勞動透明的趨勢，產業治理若無明確回應，將不僅影響國際聲譽，也衝擊漁產品的市場競爭力。要實現對內保障與對外回應並行的政策目標，關鍵在於能否透過具體執行機制與跨部門協力，轉化為穩定且具透明度的保護結構，使台灣漁業朝向可持續、公平且負責任的方向前進。

場次一：台灣移工制度是否違反國家消除強迫勞動之人權義務？

主講人｜楊雅雯（中央研究院法律學研究所助研究員）

與談人｜翁燕菁（國立政治大學政治系副教授）、王幼玲（監察院監察委員）、林小刊（臺灣臺北地方檢察署檢察官）

主持人｜孫友聯（台灣勞工陣線秘書長）

側記作者｜吳易儒（陽明交大科法所碩士班）

在本場次的專題演講中，主持人台灣勞工陣線孫友聯秘書長開場即分享近期一件移工職災案件，該案件中移工面臨只有完全不加班與加班無限時的兩種選擇，然而為了在微薄薪資外賺取加班費，移工只能選擇加班無限時，最終導致職業災害發生。該案例凸顯本場次核心議題：強迫勞動中的意願及能力模式，究竟何謂移工真正的選擇與自由？主講人中央研究院法律學研究所雅雯老師則從國際勞工組織第29號公約（下稱ILO C29公約）出發，探討台灣移工制度中的強迫勞動的風險，並針對台灣現行法制及法院實務見解提出批判性反思。

強迫勞動在台灣的隱形化

雅雯老師指出，即使國際上早已關注我國強迫勞動的現象多年，例如2020年34個跨國NGO聯合呼籲台灣改善遠洋漁工處境，並落實ILO C29公約的意旨，但我國勞動部卻長期認為現行法制已涵蓋ILO C29公約的所有核心標準，而忽視我國存在強迫勞動的問題。然而，根據2022年ILO的報告，全球有超過2500萬人受強迫勞動影響，其中半數位於中高所得國家，主要集中在建築、農業、漁業及家戶照護等產業，正是台灣引進移工的產業，尤其移工遭遇強迫勞動的風險是非移工的三倍。我國移工壟罩在強迫勞動高風險的現狀與政府的樂觀說法形成明顯落差，凸顯我國人口販運防制與強迫勞動消除的現行法制，及勞動主管機關的政策推動，與國際標準仍有距離。

為何台灣應實踐ILO C29號公約？

儘管台灣並非ILO會員國，也未批准ILO C29公約，楊雅雯助研究員主張該公約在我國仍具有法律上與政策上的拘束力。不僅因ILO C29公約被視為國際習慣法，更因聯合國人權體系中的各條約應整全地詮釋，當聯合國條約機構在兩公約一般性意見中引用ILO核心公約的內容，以作為兩公約的解釋依據時，該等標準即應成為通過兩公約施行法的我國應負的人權義務之一。

因此，無論台灣是否為正式會員，ILO C29公約所揭示的國際勞工標準都應納入台灣法律秩序的一部分，這是台灣作為主權國家應有的法治自覺。台灣在被中國排除於國際組織體系的情況下，更應主動與國際人權規範接軌，實踐「世界的台灣」與「人權的國家」的理念。

不自由勞動的兩種理論模式

雅雯老師在本次演講中進一步區分兩種對「不自由勞動」的理解方式，並直指以「意願」作為區辨強迫勞動的制度性問題。首先，傳統的自由主義觀點認為只要個人在沒有遭受脅迫、暴力或欺騙的情況下自願工作，即可視為自由勞動，將強迫勞動的判斷標準限於「違反意願」與「懲處威脅」，屬於「意願模式」。而受到沈恩與馬克思主義的影響，另一種「能力模式」認為真正的自由需建立在實質的選擇能力之上，若個人處於赤貧與制度性脆弱的處境，即使表面自願接受工作，其實是「無選擇中的選擇」，難以稱為自由。

雅雯老師指出，ILO C29公約的文字定義基本上採意願模式，但隨著實踐的演進，ILO專家委員會的建議逐步傾向能力模式，例如要求提升移工拒絕剝削的能力及改善處境的選項，而非僅僅打擊明顯的脅迫行為。基此，在能力模式下思考如何消除強迫勞動，不僅需要全面性的勞動法令的保護，建立工作與生活條件的最低標準，始能減少人因為經濟危脆進入惡劣工作的可能性，亦應遵守公平招募一般原則，避免海外移工因為高額的國際遷徙費與招募費而落入現代債務拘束的困境，政府必須採取積極有效的措施落實招聘與仲介費用由雇主負擔的移工聘雇原則。

台灣法制與司法實務在消除強迫勞動的侷限

台灣現行法制對於強迫勞動的處罰力道顯著不足，難以與國際標準接軌。刑法第296條使人為奴隸罪的成罪案例往往是被害人受到長期的剝奪自由，伴隨大量的身體凌虐，強制搾取勞力反而非必要，台灣司法對於奴隸的想像不再視為一種生產模式，而是一種失去尊嚴的比喻，致使本罪失去了處罰最惡劣形態強迫勞動的性質。勞基法第5條禁止強迫勞動的規定則源於蔣介石政權的反共意識形態，政治性重於實質性，實際上並未發揮消除強迫勞動的功能。

2011年新竹地方法院一起人口販運案件凸顯台灣司法實務對強迫勞動的制度性忽視。多位移工陳述招募過程中面臨不實承諾、惡劣工作與生活條件、護照被扣留等情形，明顯符合強迫勞動與人口販運指標，法院卻以移工「知情同意」為由判決被告無罪。法官認定移工自願簽署文件且未遭脅迫，否認強迫存在，並以「市場行情」合理化業者超收費用與高利放貸，否定債務約束成立，甚至認為仲介並非雇主，未直接剝削勞力不具法律責任。判決援引移工簽署的中英文薪資切結書作為其合法同意的依據，無視部分移工無法讀取英文的語言障礙，並認為菲律賓政府既未對造假文件盡查證義務，我國即不應處罰仲介業者。法院在判決中甚至指出，因本案的移工適用勞基法，導致雇主人事成本提高，仲介無法向雇主收取的費用只好向移工加收。法院雖在判決中引用ILO C29公約，卻認為移工的經濟壓力不構成強迫，將「知情同意」當作唯一判準，忽略公平招募原則與勞動條件標準，抹除移工於制度性不平等中的脆弱處境，反映司法對勞動人權的輕慢與懈怠。

最後，雅雯老師提到，我國法院與政府往往以移工的意願來回應改善我國移工制度及強化移工選擇能力的訴求，然而「免於剝削」與「選擇能力」在制度上息息相關。強迫勞動自古以來是剝削邊緣族群的生產模式，其盛行往往有制度的間接支持，而非僅是少數惡劣雇主的犯行，所以國家對消除強迫勞動有非常強烈的人權義務需要承擔。

與談與討論

本場次與談人國立政治大學政治系翁燕菁副教授提出，勞動部在我國建立與推行消除強迫勞動法制與政策中應扮演更積極的角色，建立跨部會小組協調協作，在制度上則應針對涉及強迫勞動輕重不一的情狀，訂立不同的處罰規範，避免遺漏邊緣案件。王幼玲監察委員則分享監察院近年調查移工受強迫勞動的案例，直指當前我國的行政措施無法解決制度上移工受到強迫勞動的風險，呼應主講人提及我國法制及主管機關力有未逮之處。臺灣臺北地方檢察署林小刊檢察官則從偵查人口販運案件的實務經驗中，指出法院對於該等案件定罪率低的因素，包含取證困難、被害人難以對外求助或說詞反覆，以及司法人員不熟悉人口販運罪的情形，提供理論與實務接軌的更多思考。針對樣態不一的強迫勞動，邱羽凡副教授提出應如何聚焦立法？雅雯老師指出，對於高風險的強迫勞動行為，例如扣留護照，也許得以危險犯的方式訂入刑法，將構成要件更細緻地拆分，以規範典型的強迫勞動風險行為。翁燕菁副教授則強調實證研究對歸類強迫勞動樣態的重要性，說明在討論修法與立法前，應先了解實務上各式強迫勞動的情狀及個案背後的其他弱勢因素。

場次二：遠洋漁工境外聘僱制度之檢討

主講人｜邱羽凡（國立陽明交通大學科技法律學院副教授）

與談人｜林良榮（國立政治大學法律系副教授）、紀惠容（國家人權委員會委員）、施逸翔（台灣人權促進會資深研究員）、凌怡華（Work Better Innovations 執行長）

主持人｜凌怡華（Work Better Innovations 執行長）

側記作者｜張雅祺（陽明交大科法所碩士班）

本場次以「遠洋漁工境外聘僱制度之檢討」為主題進行研討，來自各界的學者與實務工作者齊聚一堂，針對台灣在遠洋漁工之勞動人權保障上之制度困境進行深入討論。本場次之活動由深耕國際人權與強迫勞動多年之國際學者，Work Better Innovations 凌怡華執行長擔任主持人和與談人，並由多年致力於勞動法研究與外籍漁工權益保障之國立陽明交通大學科技法律學院的邱羽凡副教授擔任主講人，更邀請國立政治大學法律系的勞動法領域專家林良榮副教授、實務經驗豐富的國家人權委員會紀惠容委員，以及長期投入勞工與移工權益倡議的台灣人權促進會施逸翔資深研究員作為本場次之與談人，共同深入探討台灣之外籍漁工於實務上所遭受之困境，藉由嚴謹之法律分析， 剖析遠洋外籍漁工適用台灣勞基法的議題。

 「不宜」並非法源依據，農業部亦無權限公告排除遠洋漁工適用勞基法

於本場次之專題演講中，邱羽凡副教授直指台灣長年以來對遠洋漁工勞動權保障的制度性錯誤與違法行政，並以嚴謹的法律分析指出，勞動部僅以新聞稿形式發布意見，認為「尚不宜以抽象之管轄觀念，將境外海域之漁船視為我國領土之延伸」，及勞動部認為掛台灣船旗的遠洋漁船不應視為台灣領土，致使遠洋漁工被排除在勞基法適用範圍之外，進而使遠洋漁工陷入強迫勞動的風險。邱副教授指出，依據現行勞基法第三條第三項的明文規定：「本法適用於一切勞雇關係」，只要在台灣境內而為勞雇關係，即有勞基法之適用，毋庸經勞動部公告，反而是在「欲排除適用時，才需由勞動部公告」！現行制度下，遠洋漁業行業與外籍漁工身分皆未被公告排除，因此依法應適用勞基法。但勞動部與農業部長年卻以「不宜」或「未納入」為由，排除外籍遠洋漁工的勞基法適用範圍。邱副教授嚴正指出，農業部無權公告法律排除事項，即使曾發布公告或行政命令，亦無法取代勞動部的法定公告權限；勞動部亦從未發布排除外籍漁工適用的正式公告，其透過新聞稿或函釋回覆監察院，均不構成法律上有效的排除依據，完全是違背現行勞基法適用原則的解釋，根本地悖離依法行政原則。

此外，行政機關排除外籍移工適用勞基法的理由，包括外籍移工乃於境外締結勞雇契約之境外僱用，惟深究外籍漁工的實際提供勞務之地點，卻係在懸掛台灣船旗的漁船上。是以縱使外籍漁工係於我國境外地點簽署勞動契約，其契約履行的場所仍是在我國籍漁船上，船隻懸掛台灣船旗，屬我國領土之延伸，當有我國勞基法之適用。而依法行政是最低原則，是以本議題非政策問題，而應回歸法律適用問題，行政機關若認有實務上有適用之困難，應依法修法，而不是透過部會函釋或新聞稿擅自將遠洋漁工排除於勞基法適用範圍之外。故在未經正式修法前，現行法律即應完整適用，現行行政機關將遠洋漁工排除於勞基法適用範圍外之處理難謂合法，本質上當屬違法行政。

境外僱用導致遠洋漁工之勞動條件惡化

邱副教授接著以具體案例與法條說明，指出這種行政作為不僅導致外籍漁工長時間超時工作、工資遠低於我國勞基法所定之基本工資，卻無法依勞基法主張權利之保護，致使直接落入國際勞工組織定義的強迫勞動指標之一：「苛刻的工作與生活條件」。就漁工的國籍間的差異，此造成同一艘台灣船旗的遠洋漁船上，台籍漁工適用勞基法，外籍漁工卻適用行政機關制定的低標準規範，形成「同工不同酬」的問題。此外，雖由就業服務法和漁業法所建構的聘僱雙軌制確實存在，但由此制度的歷史沿革可知，其本意在於引進遠洋漁業的補充勞動力，而不在於提供另訂遠洋漁業勞動條件標準的法源，更遑論排除勞基法中的基本工資與工時保護，目前遠洋移工的基本工資從450美元「調升」為550美元，但實際上與我國現行基本工資折合約878美元相比，漁工仍處於被剝削的處境卻被當成政策成果，實屬諷刺。

與談和討論

本場次之與談人，國立政治大學法律系林良榮副教授指出，遠洋漁工是否適用勞基法，其實牽涉到我國整體勞動法體系的制度設計與歷史演變。但林副教授強調，無論是否認同外籍漁工有勞基法之適用，都不應排除其他勞動法的保障。且台灣的勞基法因與多數法律高度聯動，稍有變動即會影響整個法律體系，是以更應審慎處理適用對象問題，並警示若不隨時調整勞基法之適用對象與規範內容，將導致勞基法的功能失效。林副教授並進一步解析台灣勞基法的發展歷史，指出勞基法本質為一種管制型立法，過去乃透過公告逐步擴大適用對象，反映出國家以人（國籍）與工作（行業）為基準進行差別管制的治理思維。在此脈絡下，外籍遠洋漁工處於「外國人與海上勞動」雙重邊緣地位，形成制度上最複雜、保護最薄弱的群體。現行所謂「境內與境外聘僱」制度原意僅在於人力引進政策，但在實務中卻被錯置為勞動條件適用的區分依據，造成法律適用體系混亂。並指出原應由勞基法涵蓋的基本保障，被切割進不同系統，導致遠洋漁工權益依其聘僱模式、海域區分而有天壤之別。而現行制度卻未能處理漁工整體社會保障與勞資爭議等問題，使得遠洋漁業治理僅停留在「個別勞動關係」的處理層次，形同僅以片面政策支撐整體結構，潛藏嚴重人權風險。

國家人權委員會之紀惠容委員則從監察與人權政策角度出發，指出法律與主管機關混亂之切割是導致遠洋漁工之權益保障不足之最大問題，並列舉數據指出，目前有超過1.8萬名境外聘僱的漁工未受勞基法保障，即使在同一港口（如屏東東港）工作的漁，卻因為境內、境外聘僱的不同導致適用不同勞動標準，進一步造成薪資待遇與勞動保障顯著差異，此亦是導致逃逸與失聯的結構原因之一。紀委員最後進一步呼籲政府應從薪資提升、Wi-Fi通訊、進行人權盡職調查等面向，推動具體改革，真正落實C188精神，縮短台灣與國際人權標準間的落差，避免遠洋漁工持續處於勞動保障的灰色地帶。

而施逸翔資深研究員則以人權工作者的實務經驗指出，聘僱雙軌制是造成遠洋漁工處於高強迫勞動風險的重要制度性因素。他直言，從2015年至今政府雖推動多項改革措施，但皆未觸及雙軌制度的核心問題，也未有效保障遠洋漁工的基本勞動權利，其主張應徹底廢除境外聘僱制度，讓所有在台灣船旗之下工作的外籍漁工全面適用勞基法。此外亦強調兩公約施行法已明確要求政府保障所有境內人員之人權，政府若公告排除勞基法適用，將會構成對兩公約保障人權義務之違反。

最後凌怡華執行長則從國際法與實務觀察出發，強調海上勞動的法域錯綜複雜，但不應成為人權保障真空的藉口。並指出聯合國海洋法公約早已明定船旗國對懸掛其船旗之船舶應負完全的法律責任與有效管轄義務，因此不論遠洋作業多遙遠，船上勞工的人權皆應受到法律保護。凌執行長指出台灣作為規模不大的國家，反而應利用這種靈活性成為制度創新的試驗場，提出改革性方案，台灣亦應主動承擔國際責任，消除制度縫隙，不應再容忍「看不見就不存在」的剝削現象。

 Event：Anniversary of the Human Trafficking Prevention Act Amendment & the Prohibition of Forced Labor Academic Symposium 2025

Date：April, 30th, 2025

Venue：Room HC104, Human Art & Social Sciences Building III, Guangfu Campus, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University（In-person session in Chinese）, with simultaneous online interpretation（in English）

Organizers：School of Law, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University; International Center for Cultural Studies （ICCS）, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University

Co-organizers：Taiwan Association for Human Rights; Taiwan Labor Front; Work Better Innovations

Subproject：Migration, Unequal Citizenship, and Critical Legal Studies

Subproject Principal Investigators：（Joyce C.H. Liu）, Yu-Fan, Chiu, and Mei-Ling, Pan

Event Recording：Link

Event Transcript （Download Available）：Link

Keynote Speech：Progress and Challenges in Advancing Human Rights Protection for Migrant Workers in Taiwan’s Distant-Water Fisheries

Speaker：Lawyer Ping-Cheng, Lo （Former Minister without Portfolio, Executive Yuan）

Moderator：Professor Joyce C.H. Liu, Director, International Center for Cultural Studies National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University

Session Note Author：Yao-Chi, Chan （Master’s Student, School of Law, NYCU）

The symposium opened with remarks by Prof. Liu, Director of the International Center for Cultural Studies at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University. Prof. Liu emphasized that despite its transformation throughout the history, slavery still persists in modern forms through legal and administrative frameworks, and are showcased in hidden forms of exploitation in distant-water fisheries, factories, agriculture, and domestic care sectors in Taiwan. She further underscored how the ambiguous legal classifications, such as “offshore employment” and “foreign territorial waters,” systematically exclude migrant workers from domestic labor protections in Taiwan. The selective application of legal norms creates structural inequalities. She stressed that laws not only serve as a governance tool but also determines who should be recognized as subjects of rights. When institutional design lacks coherence and integration, it easily becomes a structure that tacitly permits inequality. In spite of Taiwan’s recent efforts in legislation protections for emerging labor sectors, such as digital and AI-based work, remain inadequate.

In the keynote speech delivered by Mr. Lo, Former Minister without Portfolio of the Executive Yuan and a practicing lawyer, reflected on Taiwan’s human rights infrastructure and labor protections for migrant fishery workers. He noted that although Taiwan has incorporated most of the international human rights conventions, it has long lacked dedicated mechanisms for effective implementation. The establishment of the National Human Rights Commission is a milestone. However, further inter-ministerial coordination is required for meaningful policy implementation. Lo further emphasized that the promotion of “human rights mainstreaming” should follow the example of gender mainstreaming to become a core component of policy assessment, budget allocation, and legislative drafting processes. With the engagement of external experts and inter-ministerial collaboration, Taiwan could gradually construct an institutional framework enough responsive and transparent.

Addressing human rights issue regarding Taiwan’s distant-water fisheries, Lo offered a critical review on implementation and shortcomings of Action Plan for Fisheries and Human Rights. As a leading distant-water fishing nation, Taiwan heavily relies on migrant crews enduring hazardous, isolated, and overworked conditions, which leads to recurring violations of migrant fishers’ human rights. Since 2018, several Taiwanese vessels have been subjected to Withhold Release Orders （WRO） by U.S. Customs and Border Protection （CBP） due to forced labor concerns. Furthermore, heightened scrutiny regarding labor conditions in seafood supply chains from major markets, including EU, the U.S., and Japan, has intensified pressure on Taiwan’s human rights governance in seafood supply chain.

In response, Taiwan introduced the Action Plan for Fisheries and Human Rights in 2022, featuring seven core strategies： raising minimum wages, regulating working hours and rest, subsidizing onboard Wi-Fi and safety equipment, mandating CCTV installation, monitoring recruitment agencies, improving oversight of foreign-flagged vessels invested by Taiwanese nationals, and promoting international cooperation.

However, Lawyer Ping-Cheng Lo noted that plan implementation encountered multiple challenges, including wage gaps relative to ILO Maritime Labour Convention standards, insufficient CCTV data retention, low interest from vessel owners in Wi-Fi subsidies, and ambiguous accountability between recruitment agencies and employers. He also pointed out that Taiwan’s dual-track employment system—comprising “domestic employment” and “overseas employment”—created inequality by applying different labour standards to fishers working on the same Taiwanese-flagged vessels based solely on their recruitment location. Lo therefore called for unifying these standards to eliminate the disparities. In response, the Ministry of Agriculture has initiated the development of a second-phase action plan in 2025 and has commenced legislative work on the implementation act for the ILO C188 Convention. These efforts aim to further integrate the existing legal framework through formal legislation and policy continuity to enhance regulatory coherence and transparency.

At the end of the session, Mr. Lo concluded the keynote speech by stressing that Taiwan must no longer view fisheries solely as an industrial concern but as an integral part of broader framework of national human rights policy. He noted that without effective implementation, even the most well-designed policies cannot adequately address the long-standing structural imbalances in labor relations. As global supply chains increasingly emphasize human rights duty and labor transparency, a lack of clear and responsive industry governance risks not only damages Taiwan’s international reputation but also undermines the global competitiveness of seafood products. Effective implementation and coordination are key to building a transparent framework that advances sustainable and fair fisheries in Taiwan.”

Session 1：Does Taiwan’s Migrant Worker System Violate the State’s Human Rights Obligations to Eliminate Forced Labor？

Speaker： Ya-Wen, Yang, Assistant Researcher. Institutum Iurisprudentiae Academia Sinica

Moderator： Yu-Lien Sun, Secretary-General, Taiwan Labour Front

Discussants：

• • Vivianne Weng, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, National Chengchi University
  • Yu-Ling Wang, Member of the Control Yuan
  • Hsiao-Kan Lin, Prosecutor, Taipei District Prosecutors Office

Session Note Author：Yi-Ju, Wu （Master’s Student, School of Law, NYCU

Moderator Mr. Yu-Lien Sun, opened the session with a case involving a migrant worker forced to choose between no overtime or unlimited overtime work, and ultimately led to injury due to over-loaded working. The case highlighted the session’s core discussion： what constitutes true freedom and consent in the context of forced labor？

In the keynote speech, Dr. Ya-Wen Yang analyzed the issue through ILO Convention No. 29 （ILO C29）, criticizing Taiwan’s legal framework for its inadequate protections and flawed assumptions about voluntariness. She noted that despite years of international concern over the prevalence of forced labor in Taiwan, the Ministry of Labor continues to assert that the existing legal framework already fully incorporates the core standards of ILO C29. This stance has led to a systemic neglect of the forced labor issues that persist domestically. She also pointed out that migrant workers are three times more likely to face forced labor than their non-migrant counterparts, a reality that remains unacknowledged in government responses. The state’s optimistic assertions highlight the gap between Taiwan’s current legal and policy frameworks for combating human trafficking and forced labor. Yang emphasized that although Taiwan is not an ILO member, ILO C29 retains normative value due to its status as customary international law and its integration into broader UN treaty interpretations. Since Taiwan has implemented the ICCPR and ICESCR—both of which are interpreted in conjunction with ILO C29—the obligations derived from such interpretations should likewise be considered part of the country’s human rights commitments. Accordingly, the international labour standards articulated in C29 should be integrated into Taiwan’s legal system. Given Taiwan’s exclusion from formal international organizations due to political pressure from China, she stressed that it is even more imperative for Taiwan to proactively align itself with global human rights norms to fulfill its “Taiwan for the World” and “human rights-based nation” vision. She also compared two theoretical approaches to defining “unfree” labor. In the consent-based model, workers are considered free if no coercion is present, whereas the capability-based model—drawing on Amartya Sen and Marxist theory—considers workers genuinely free only when they have the substantive capacity to make choices. The ILO Committee of Experts has increasingly adopted the latter approach. In this light, she argued that eliminating forced labor requires more than banning explicit coercion. Comprehensive protections and minimum standards for working and living conditions are essential to prevent workers—particularly migrants—from accepting exploitative jobs out of economic desperation. For instance, debt bondage due to excessive recruitment fees remains a major problem. Governments must take proactive steps to implement the employer-pays principle to ensure that these costs do not fall on migrant workers.

Yang further noted that Taiwan’s current legal framework lacks the penal force necessary to address forced labor in accordance with international standards. Although articles such as Article 296 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act prohibit forced labor, they are rarely applied effectively. She illustrated this with a 2011 Hsinchu court case in which the defendants were acquitted based on superficial interpretations of consent, while factors such as debt bondage, language barriers, and excessive recruitment fees were overlooked. Although the court cited ILO C29, it failed to acknowledge that language and economic constraints constitute forced labor. Alarmingly, the court even noted that applying the Labor Standards Act to migrant workers increased employer costs, thereby prompting agents to shift financial burdens onto the workers. Yang emphasized that this narrow legal reasoning exposes the structural vulnerability of migrant workers and reflects broader judicial indifference to labour rights. She concluded that Taiwan’s institutions often fixate on whether migrant workers appear “willing” while ignoring their lack of real alternatives. The government bears a serious human rights obligation to proactively eliminate forced labor, not merely to punish individual perpetrators.

In the panel discussion, Prof. Vivianne Weng advocated for the creation of a cross-ministerial task force and a system of tiered penalties. Ms. Yu-Ling Wang, Member of the Control Yuan, pointed out that Taiwan’s current administrative measures are insufficient to address the systemic risks migrant laborers face. Ms. Hsiao-Kan Lin, a Prosecutor at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, identified key factors behind low conviction rates, including difficulties in evidence collection, victims’ limited ability to seek help or inconsistent testimonies, and a general lack of familiarity among judicial personnel with the legal components of trafficking offenses.

In the panel discussion, Prof. Vivianne Weng, Associate advocated for a cross-ministerial task force and tiered penalties. Ms. Yu-Ling Wang, Member of the Control Yuan, pointed out that Taiwan’s current administrative measures are inadequate for addressing the systemic risks faced by migrant laborers. Ms. Hsiao-Kan Lin, as a Prosecutor at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, pointed out the key factors of low conviction rate include difficulties in evidence collection, victims’ limited ability to seek help or inconsistent testimonies, and a general lack of familiarity among judicial personnel with the legal elements of trafficking offenses. 

Session 2：A Review of the Overseas Employment System for Migrant Fishers

Speaker： Yu-Fan Chiu, NYCU Law

Moderator： Bonny Ling, Director, Work Better Innovations

Discussants：

• • Liang-Jung Lin, College of Law, National Chengchi University
  • Hui-Jung, Chi, Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission
  • Bonny Ling, Director, Work Better Innovations
  • Yi-Hsiang Shih, Senior Researcher, Taiwan Association for Human Right

Session Note Author：Ya-Chi, Zhang （Master’s Student, School of Law, NYCU

In the keynote speech, Yu-Fan Chiu, Associate Prof., NYCU Law, criticized Taiwan’s longstanding institutional failures and unlawful administrative practices regarding labor protections for distant-water fishers. Prof. Chiu noted that Ministry of Labor has relied on press releases to argue that Taiwan-flagged vessels operating in international waters are not part of national territory, and thus excludes migrant fishers from Labor Standards Act application. However, under Article 3（3） of the Labor Standards Act （LSA）, the Act applies to all employment relationships within Taiwan. Therefore, she pointed out that since no formal legal exclusion has ever been issued by the Ministry of Labor （MOL）, distant-water fishers is still protected by LSA. Therefore, the claim that such workers are “not yet included” lacks legal basis and violates the principle of the “rule of law in administration.

Prof. Chiu further noted that both MOL and the Ministry of Agriculture （MOA） have overstepped their authority by using informal statements to deny LSA application. MOA, in particular, has no power to issue binding interpretations of labor law. Even if contracts are signed abroad, if works are performed on Taiwan-flagged vessels, such employment relationship falls into Taiwan’s jurisdiction. If current laws create administrative difficulty, the proper course is legal amendment, not unofficial policy interpretations for application exclusion.

Furthermore, Prof. Chiu presented concrete cases to illustrate that these administrative practices and dual-tract employment system cause migrant workers often subjected to excessively long working hours and wages far below the minimum standards set by LSA while unable to claim legal protections under the act, which fully meets one of the ILO indicators of forced labor：“abusive working and living conditions.”Eventually, she pointed out that although the minimum monthly wage for distant-water migrant fishers has recently been “raised” from 450 to 550 USD  such number remains significantly below Taiwan’s statutory minimum wage. It is ironic that the continued exploitation of these workers is being presented as a policy achievement.

During the panel discussion, Prof. Liang-Jung Lin emphasized that whether distant-water fishers are covered by Taiwan’s Labor Standards Act reflects deeper issues in the institutional design of Taiwan’s labor law. Regardless of one’s stance, he outlined the law’s regulatory nature and how its past expansions reflected a governance mindset based on nationality and sector. In this system, foreign distant-water fishers are especially marginalized, caught between being “foreign” and “maritime,” making them one of the most vulnerable groups. He also noted that “domestic versus overseas employment” system is originally a labor import tool, but is now misused to determine labor standards. This misuse has fragmented protections and created serious disparities.

Ms. Hui-Jung Chi, Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission, cited data showing that over 18,000 distant-water fishers hired are currently not covered by the LSA despite working side by side in the same ports. They are subjected to entirely different labor standards simply due to the legal classification of their employment as “domestic” or “overseas.” This discrepancy has led to significant disparities in wages and labor protections and has become one of the structural drivers of migrant worker absconding and disappearance. She called on the government to implement concrete reforms in multiple areas, to essentially fulfill the spirit of ILO Convention No. 188 to narrow the gap between Taiwan’s practices and international human rights standards, and to avoid distant-water fishers remain excluded from meaningful labor protection.

Mr. Yi-Hsiang Shih from Taiwan Association for Human Right, based on his practical experience as a human rights advocate, identified the dual-track employment system as a key structural factor placing distant-water fishers at heightened risk of forced labor. Despite a series of reform measures introduced by the government since 2015, none have addressed the core problem inherent in the dual-track system, nor have they effectively safeguarded the fundamental labor rights of distant-water migrant fishers. He stated that the overseas employment system should be fully abolished, and that all foreign fishers working under the Taiwan flag should be brought under the full protection of the Labor Standards Act.

Eventually, Dr. Bonny Ling, Director, concluded the session by offering reflections grounded in international law and practical observation. While acknowledging the complexity of the jurisdictional landscape of maritime labour, she cautioned that such complexity must not serve as an excuse for creating a human rights protection vacuum. Citing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea （UNCLOS）, Ling noted that a flag state bears full legal responsibility and is obligated to exercise effective jurisdiction over vessels flying its flag. Therefore, regardless of how remote fishing operations may be, the labour rights of workers aboard such vessels must be legally protected. Ling further argued that Taiwan, as a relatively small country, should leverage its institutional flexibility to serve as a testing ground for regulatory innovation by proposing progressive reform models. Rather than tolerating exploitation under the rationale of “out of sight, out of existence,” Taiwan should actively assume its international responsibilities and work to close legal and policy loopholes.