BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Migration, Unequal Citizens, and Critical Legal Studies - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Migration, Unequal Citizens, and Critical Legal Studies
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Shanghai
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20250101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260413T080000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20261231T170000
DTSTAMP:20260420T051258
CREATED:20260413T072848Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260415T144814Z
UID:55153-1776067200-1798736400@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:Journal Publish: Special Issue: Making Unfree Labour: Consent\, Exploitation\, and the Law
DESCRIPTION:Journal: Innovation In The Social Science \nType: Special Issue \nSpecial Issue Title: Making Unfree Labour: Consent\, Exploitation\, and the Law \nVolume & Issue: Volume 4\, Issue 1\, 2026 \nGuest Editor: Ya-Wen Yang \nPublisher: Brill \nISSN: 2773-0611 \nAccess: https://brill.com/view/journals/iss/4/1/iss.4.issue-1.xml  \nArticles Included: \n\nYa-Wen Yang\, What Is Wrong with Forced Labour: Coercion or Exploitation? Reflections on Taiwan’s Temporary Migrant Worker Scheme\, 4 Innovation in the Social Sciences 5 (2026)\, https://brill.com/view/journals/iss/4/1/article-p5_2.xml\nFabiana Kutsche & Ulrike Lindner\, Between Work Regulation\, Integration into the Capitalist Economy and ‘African Laziness’: The International Labour Organization and African Workers\, 1927–1930\, 3 Innovation in the Social Sciences 31 (2025)\, https://brill.com/view/journals/iss/4/1/article-p31_3.xml\nHao-Yu Cho\, Transformation and Exploitation: The Impact of Labor Policies in Mexico’s Maquiladora Industry\, 4 Innovation in the Social Sciences 45 (2026)\, https://brill.com/view/journals/iss/4/1/article-p45_4.xml\nJonathan Parhusip\, Johanna Lee & Danielle Douglas\, The Kasbon System and the Paradox of Voluntary Entry into Unfree Labor in Taiwan’s Distant Water Fisheries\, 4 Innovation in the Social Sciences 67 (2026)\, https://brill.com/view/journals/iss/4/1/article-p67_5.xml\n\n  \nIntroduction: Making Unfree Labour: Consent\, Exploitation and the Law \nBy Guest Editor Ya-Wen Yang \nThis special issue originated in the workshop ‘The Production and Reproduction of Social Inequalities’\, held on 20–21 September 2024 in Hsinchu\, Taiwan. One of the workshop’s central themes was the relationship between inequality and exploitation. All the articles in this special issue fall within this broad topic. \nMore specifically\, however\, they address the complexities of the conceptualisation of unfree labour through law in particular contexts and historical moments and reflect on the visible and invisible duress that leads to exploitation. They explore how workers’ consent and its absence are managed in the workplace and how efforts to combat forced labour can\, paradoxically\, perpetuate exploitation. \nWhile the contributors take distinctive approaches to the exploration of a range of case studies\, they engage in dialogue with one another on two overarching perspectives. First\, they trace the legal expression of unfree labour as it emerges from political contestation. Second\, they analyse different techniques used to legitimise institutionalised labour control. \nKutsche and Lindner reveal the early controversies of the International Labour Organization (ILO) during its efforts to combat the forced labour imposed on ‘native labour’ in colonies\, which eventually led to ILO Convention No. 29 (1930). The Convention was the first international instrument to tackle forced labour and has been the backbone of the worldwide ban on this inhuman form of labour extraction to this day. \nIn this regard\, the Convention is a political achievement. However\, its creation was overshadowed by racism and colonialism. European colonial powers presumed that forcing Africans to work was a civilising mission to educate the locals in a positive work ethic. The legal formation of forced labour reflects the historical limitation that it required the support of the European powers\, who relied upon and defended the use of forced labour. It thus focuses on managing direct coercion\, while institutions that created economic duress driving indigenous people into poorly paid wage work\, such as poll taxes\, were largely left untouched. \nYang points out how this limitation underlying the Convention has become a contemporary encumbrance in the fight against human trafficking for labour exploitation in Taiwan. The narrow notion of forced labour led domestic judges ruling on human trafficking cases within the Taiwan–Philippines migration corridor to take migrant workers’ signatures on illegal debt agreements with intermediaries at face value. Migrant workers’ apparent consent\, in the eyes of the judges\, legitimised the illegal conduct of the intermediaries. This legal reasoning frustrated the initial purpose of Taiwan’s anti-human trafficking law and further consolidated the exploitative fee structure in place throughout the migration process. \nParhusip\, Lee and Douglas similarly seek to explain the paradoxical voluntariness of debt-financed migration and the deep-rooted coercion beneath it. They study the pervasiveness and burdens of the debts incurred to finance Indonesian fishers’ migration and personal necessities prior to and during their employment by Taiwanese employers—namely\, the kasbon system. Kasbon usually leads to a vicious spiral of debt; an initial debt tricks Indonesian fishers into agreeing to multiple rounds of debt and migration\, causing them to submit to abuses in the workplace. \nParhusip et al. observe that the ILO\, after a long development\, has established the principle of fair recruitment—that migrant workers should not bear the costs and expenses of their migration and employment. The Taiwanese government has also claimed to adhere to this principle under international pressure. However\, it has only performed a gesture of governance\, issuing formalist bans on illegal fee collections. Meanwhile\, the discriminatory laws against migrant fishers\, as well as the business model and profit structures of the intermediaries\, have been left intact. \nFinally\, Cho studies the changing dynamics between maquiladora workers and managers in Mexico following the loosening of regulations on dispatched workers in 2012. This legal change led to a surge of such workers\, who replaced a high percentage of formally employed factory staff. This\, in turn\, caused a shift in the management strategies at the author’s field site. The originally more family-like atmosphere on the production line was replaced by the distant relationships that necessarily accompany the nomadic nature of dispatched work. Dispatched workers also found it harder to organise themselves in the workplace. It thus turns out that the regulatory changes that make the workplace more fragmented function as an indirect means of strengthening control over labour. \nThe four articles represent different intensities of unfreedom on the spectrum of unfree labour. At one pole\, Kutsche and Lindner expose the violent oppression and the exploitation of African indigenous communities under European colonialism. At the other\, Cho documents factory wage-labourers who experience no direct coercion\, despite being threatened by the reserve army of dispatched workers created by neoliberal deregulatory trends. \nBetween these two poles\, Yang and Parhusip et al. highlight the plight of migrant workers. These workers are trapped in the double bind of discriminatory immigration regulations and a snare of debt structures. Because the pole of forced labour under colonialism appears so obviously wrong\, other forms of control over labour may appear less harmful\, less wrong and ultimately ‘not forced’. \nHowever\, the trajectory of long-term efforts to recognise how the institutional deprivation of people’s reasonable options constitutes coercion is precisely the lesson we can learn from the juxtaposition of the case studies here. It is exactly because unfreedom and exploitation can come in different shapes and degrees—and because their recognition is always a political struggle—that we need to analyse how coercion is read as benign and how the law is used to legitimise economic duress as consent. This special issue seeks to do just that. \nThe original workshop was a collaboration between the International Centre for Cultural Studies (ICCS) at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University\, the Social Inequalities Research Unit at the University of Cologne and the Africa–China Research Network at Academia Sinica. We thank those whose contributions made this collection possible. Among them are Professor Poe Yu-ze Wan\, Chief Editor of this journal\, and Professor Joyce C.H. Liu\, Director of the ICCS.
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/journal-publish-special-issue-making-unfree-labour-consent-exploitation-and-the-law/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/coverimage.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260416T080000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260416T170000
DTSTAMP:20260420T051258
CREATED:20260416T105708Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260416T105734Z
UID:55187-1776326400-1776358800@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:The “Yu Fu” Forced Labor Civil Case – Third Hearing Court Observation
DESCRIPTION:The “Yu Fu” Forced Labor Civil Case – Third Hearing Court Observation\nApril 1\, 2026 \n \nIn September 2024\, eight Indonesian fishers who had previously been employed on the Taiwanese distant-water fishing vessel Yu Fu filed a civil lawsuit before the Pingtung District Court with the assistance of lawyers and labor organizations. They sought payment of wage differentials in accordance with the minimum wage protections under the Labor Standards Act (LSA). The case was first heard in August 2025 and again in November 2025. However\, due to the reassignment and retirement of the presiding judge\, the proceedings were renewed\, and a new judge conducted the first hearing of the case. The third hearing took place yesterday (March 31\, 2026). \nIn addition to four of the plaintiff fishers appearing in court\, members of the Taiwan Business and Human Rights Project\, the Taiwan Association for Human Rights\, the Taoyuan Migrant Workers’ Service Association\, the Stella Maris International Service Center\, Greenpeace\, as well as legal professionals and individuals concerned with migrant worker issues in Taiwan\, were present to observe the proceedings. \n \nWhat Is at Issue in the “Yu Fu” Forced Labor Civil Case? \nThe eight plaintiff fishers worked aboard the Yu Fu between 2023 and 2024\, during which they were subjected to 15 months of unpaid wages and treatment amounting to forced labor. Although the vessel owner later paid the outstanding wages after the case came to light\, the calculation was based on a monthly wage of USD 550 per person (approximately NTD 17\,800). \nThe vessel owner claimed that the USD 550 standard was based on the Act for Distant Water Fisheries and the Regulations on the Authorization and Management of Overseas Employment of Foreign Crew Members by Offshore Fishing Vessels (hereinafter the “Overseas Employment Regulations”). However\, the legislature has never authorized the Ministry of Agriculture to set a minimum wage lower than that prescribed under the LSA. As such\, the Overseas Employment Regulations\, being merely administrative rules\, cannot exclude the application of the LSA. \nThe vessel owner further argued that the Indonesian fishers in this case were “overseas employment” and therefore not subject to the LSA. However\, under the principles of territoriality and flag state jurisdiction\, foreign fishers working on Taiwanese-flagged distant-water vessels are deemed to be working within Taiwan’s jurisdiction. Accordingly\, fishers working aboard the Taiwanese-flagged Yu Fu should be protected under the LSA. \nNote: For further background on the “Yu Fu” civil litigation\, please refer to the dedicated case webpage. \nDo Overseas-Hired Foreign Fishers in Distant-Water Fisheries Fall Under the LSA? \nDuring this hearing\, the court focused on clarifying whether foreign fishers employed through overseas hiring arrangements in distant-water fisheries are still subject to the LSA. \nCounsel for the plaintiffs reiterated the arguments based on territoriality and flag state principles\, and emphasized that: “The LSA establishes minimum labor standards for all workers within Taiwan. As long as a worker performs labor within Taiwan’s jurisdiction\, they are entitled to protection regardless of nationality. Any exclusion from the LSA must be officially announced by the Ministry of Labor. However\, no such exclusion has ever been announced for distant-water fisheries.” Counsel further noted that while the Overseas Employment Regulations distinguish between offshore and onshore hiring\, such distinctions merely regulate recruitment procedures and do not provide a legal basis for excluding the application of the LSA. \nFor migrant workers employed in Taiwan\, certain categories such as domestic workers\, have been excluded from the application of the LSA since January 1\, 1999\, by a formal announcement of the Ministry of Labor. As a result\, domestic migrant workers are not protected under the LSA. However\, this situation differs from that of distant-water fishers\, who have never been officially excluded by the Ministry of Labor. Accordingly\, fishers working aboard the Taiwanese-flagged Yu Fu should still be entitled to wages that comply with the minimum wage requirements under the LSA\, rather than the USD 550 standard unilaterally set by the Ministry of Agriculture. \nDoes Forced Labor Constitute an Infringement of Personality Rights in Civil Law? \nThe court further addressed the plaintiffs’ claim for damages for non-pecuniary harm arising from alleged violations of personality rights due to forced labor. The judge requested clarification on the definition of “forced labor” and its connection to personality rights infringements. \nIn this case\, the fishers were not only deprived of wages for 15 months\, but also subjected to confiscation of identity documents\, insufficient food and drinking water during voyages\, excessive overtime\, and other harsh working conditions. These circumstances indicate that the fishers were compelled to continue working against their will. Given their isolated and vulnerable situation at sea\, with limited ability to seek help or leave\, their freedom was clearly restricted\, constituting forced labor. \nThe judge also referenced a non-prosecution decision issued by the Pingtung District Prosecutors Office on April 21\, 2025. In response\, plaintiffs’ counsel emphasized that the prosecution had not adequately examined whether the circumstances amounted to forced labor\, focusing instead on whether the labor and compensation were grossly disproportionate. Counsel further argued that it is necessary for the plaintiff fishers to testify in court regarding their experiences of forced labor. \nContinued Public Attention Is Encouraged \nIn recent years\, international reports have repeatedly exposed incidents of forced labor involving Taiwanese enterprises. In 2020\, Taiwan’s distant-water fisheries products were included for the first time in the U.S. Department of Labor’s “List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor\,” and have since been listed three times. \nThe International Labour Organization (ILO) defined forced labor as early as 1930 as: “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.” Among the ILO’s 11 indicators of forced labor are withholding of wages and abusive working and living conditions. These indicators serve as a warning that when workers continue working despite long-term or systematic non-payment or extremely low wages\, it may not be voluntary but rather the result of coercion. Otherwise\, why would migrant workers who urgently depend on wages continue working under such conditions? \nInternational efforts to combat forced labor focus on addressing violations of human dignity. In Taiwan\, however\, such issues have often been reduced to mere wage disputes\, overlooking their deeper human rights implications. This case highlights the need for Taiwan to align with international human rights standards\, which would also help maintain the global competitiveness of its distant-water fishing industry. \nThe next hearing is scheduled for June 9\, 2026 (Tuesday) at 4:10 PM at the Pingtung District Court. Members of the public are welcome to attend and continue observing how the judiciary addresses forced labor issues.
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/the-yu-fu-forced-labor-civil-case-third-hearing-court-observation/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/主視覺圖.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260416T080000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260416T170000
DTSTAMP:20260420T051258
CREATED:20260416T105913Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260416T105913Z
UID:55190-1776326400-1776358800@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:
DESCRIPTION:《銪富號》強迫勞動民事案件第三次開庭 法庭觀察\n\n\n2026年4月1日 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2024年9月八位曾受僱於臺灣遠洋漁船《銪富號》的印尼漁工，在律師和勞動團體的協助下，向屏東地方法院提起民事訴訟，要求漁船公司給付符合《勞動基準法》(下稱《勞基法》)保障的最低工資差額，案件在去(2025)年8月第一次開庭、同年11月第二次開庭，然接連因承審法官調任和退休，因此本次開庭更新論，由新的法官就本案第一次開庭。昨日(2026年3月31日)第三次開庭。 \n除了四位原告漁工到場，台灣企業人權方案成員、台灣人權促進會、桃園市群眾服務協會、海星國際移工服務中心、綠色和平與多位法律背景及關注台灣移工議題的人士都到場關注。 \n開庭結束後，當事人、律師、支持團隊和聲援的民眾在法庭外合照。\n《銪富號》強迫勞動民事案件，在爭議什麼？\n八名原告漁工在2023至2024年間在《銪富號》漁船上工作，遭欠薪15個月及歷經涉及強迫勞動的待遇。雖然在案情曝光後，漁船公司隨即補發薪資，但卻是以每人每月 550 元美金（約新台幣17\,800元）計算積欠的薪資。 \n漁船公司聲稱550美元的標準是按照《遠洋漁業條例》與《境外僱用非我國籍船員許可及管理辦法》(下稱《境外僱用辦法》)，但立法者其實未曾在上開規定中授權農業部可以訂立低於《勞基法》的最低工資標準，因此，僅屬行政規則位階的《境外僱用辦法》根本無法排除《勞基法》的適用。 \n《銪富號》漁船又主張本案的印尼漁工是「境外聘僱」，所以不適用《勞基法》，然而，依照屬地原則與船旗國原則，外籍漁工在懸掛台灣旗的遠洋漁船上工作，即形同在台灣境內工作，在懸掛台灣的《銪富號》上工作的漁工，自應受《勞基法》保障。 \n註：關於《銪富號》民事訴訟的詳細背景，請參《銪富號》專屬網頁 \n遠洋漁業境外聘僱的外籍漁工是否適用《勞基法》\n本日開庭，法官首先聚焦於釐清遠洋漁業的漁工，若是「外籍漁工」且是「境外聘僱」，是否仍適用《勞基法》? \n原告漁工的律師除了重申上述屬地原則與船旗國原則的主張之外，更強調：「《勞基法》規範台灣境內所有勞工的勞動條件最低標準，只要勞工在台灣境內工作，不分國籍均受保障；若要排除適用《勞基法》，僅得由勞動部公告，然而，勞動部未曾公告排除遠洋漁業適用《勞基法》。」律師亦強調，縱使《境外僱用辦法》區分境外聘僱和境內聘僱，但這僅是移工境外聘僱方式與流程的規範，而不是排除《勞基法》的依據。 \n對於在我國工作的移工，例如勞動部自1999年1月1日起將家事服務工作者排除適用勞基法，導致家事移工無法獲得勞基法的保障，但這和未曾被勞動部公告排除的遠洋漁工情形不同，在懸掛台灣的《銪富號》上工作的漁工薪資標準自仍應符合《勞基法》最低工資 ，而不是農業部自行創設的550美元。 \n強迫勞動行為是否屬於民事上的人格權侵害行為？\n接續上述的問題，法官對於本案漁工主張因遭受強迫勞動，而請求人格權侵害的精神慰撫金，要求原告說明「強迫勞動的定義」，以及強迫勞動與人格權侵害的關連性。 \n在本案中，漁工在《銪富號》上工作時，不只是遭積欠15個月的薪資，更遭受扣留身分證件、出海期間缺乏足夠的食物和飲用水、超時加班等，惡劣的工作環境等對待，足以顯示這幾位漁工是在於非自願的情形下被迫繼續工作，而在當時孤立與難以求救的脆弱處境中，更無法離開，明顯屬於自由被侵犯的強迫勞動處境。 \n法官當庭提出屏東縣地檢署於2025年4月21日對船東作出不構成《人口販運罪嫌》的不起訴決定。對此，我方律師強調，地檢署在調查過程中，並未就判斷是否構成強迫勞動訊問當事人，而是著重在當事人從事的工作勞動是否有勞動與報酬顯不相當的情形，更有傳訊原告漁工來法庭說明自身被強迫勞動的經歷之必要。 \n歡迎各界持續關注本案， 共同觀察司法界對於強迫勞動的調查程序\n近年來，國際新聞陸續揭露台灣企業中接連發生的各種強迫勞動事件，2020年台灣遠洋漁獲首度被列入美國勞動部發布之「童工及強迫勞動製品清單」，時至今日已三度被列入該清單之中。 \n國際勞工組織（ILO）早在1930年定義強迫勞動為：「以任何懲罰之威脅迫使而致，且非本人自願提供的工作或服務。」在辨識強迫勞動的11項指標中 ，包含扣發薪資（withholding of wages）與苛刻的工作與生活條件（abusive working and living conditions），這是在提醒社會，看到長期或系統性被欠薪或是領取苛刻工資而仍繼續工作的勞工，要有警覺這些勞工可能是遭威脅而非自願工作，否則何以急需工資的移工被欠薪、工資極之下低卻繼續工作？ \n國際間打擊強迫勞動，重點在於對抗這些侵犯人性尊嚴的行為，而台灣各界長期以易將強迫勞動問題簡化為單純的薪資爭議，而未能覺察其中潛藏侵犯人性尊嚴的嚴重問題，本案也在於提醒台灣應接軌國際的人權標準，同時也能有助於維持台灣遠洋漁業在國際間的經濟競爭力。 \n下一次開庭時間預計在2026年6月9日(二)下午16：10屏東地方法院繼續審理此案，歡迎關注案的各界人士到場旁聽。 \n開庭之前，律師和當事人討論案件情況。
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/55190/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/主視覺圖.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR