The citation format of National Taiwan University Law Review conforms to The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (20th Edition). Besides, a list of references shall be attached to the end of submitted manuscript. The reference format of National Taiwan University Law Review follows American Psychological Association format (APA).  Only academic sources shall be included in the list. The attachment provides a few basic examples for citation and reference. For citations and references to Taiwanese legal material, please provide romanization in Hanyu Pinyin.

(Download NTU Law Review Citation & Reference Format)

The NTU Law Review invites the submission of original articles, student notes and book reviews on any law related topic concerning Taiwan, China, Asia or any other jurisdiction of the author’s choice.

Submission:
1. The NTU Law Review presumes that any manuscript received has not been, and will not be, submitted elsewhere at the same time. If a paper is under review or has been published or accepted elsewhere, the NTU Law Review will have the right to reject the submission.

2. The submitted manuscript shall include approximately five keywords and an abstract of no more than 250 words. The citation format shall conform to The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. A detailed reference list following the American Psychological Association format shall be attached to the manuscripts.
Starting from Vol. 6, No. 1 (Mar. 2011), the NTU Law Review adopts consecutive pagination. It is advised that articles published with the NTU Law Review will be cited as consecutively paginated throughout the entire volume, including symposiums, if any, in accordance with the Bluebook format, for example:
Jaw-Perng Wang, The Current State of Capital Punishments in Taiwan, 6 NTU L. REV. 143, 143 (2011).

However, articles published prior to Vol. 6 are required to indicate their publishing dates, for example: Cing-Kae Chiao, Sexual Harassment in the Workplace in Taiwan, NTU L. REV., Mar. 2006, at 97, 97.

3. In transliterating non-English characters, where well-established forms do not exist, authors are advised to follow the Wade-Giles system for Chinese characters and the Hepburn system for Japanese.

4. Once a manuscript is published, responsibility for the factual accuracy of the paper rests upon its author(s). The NTU Law Review provides no payment for contribution; however, twenty off-prints will be supplied to the authors free of charge.

5. The manuscripts must be typewritten, in Microsoft Office if possible. Electronic submissions are preferred. All submissions shall be addressed to: National Taiwan University College of Law, No.1, Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd. Taipei 10617, Taiwan.
Email: Email住址會使用灌水程式保護機制。你需要啟動Javascript才能觀看它

6. Authors are advised to have their manuscripts edited by English-speaking colleagues or professional editors before submission.

Review:

Submissions are reviewed on a rolling basis. Manuscripts that pass desk review will undergo the peer review process.

Copyright:

Every author whose manuscript is accepted must agree to the proper use of the manuscript by the National Taiwan University College of Law and the NTU Law Foundation by signing the Letter of Authority. The NTU Law Review may exclude the manuscript of any author who refuses to sign the Letter of Authority from publication.

Internet Address:

The NTU Law Review’s homepage is located at https://www.law.ntu.edu.tw/center/index.php/lawreview 

Address: NTU Law Review, College of Law, No.1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei City, 10617, Taiwan

Phone Number: +886-2-3366-8962

Fax: +886-2-3366-8924

E-Mail:Email住址會使用灌水程式保護機制。你需要啟動Javascript才能觀看它

臺北市 10617 羅斯福路四段1號（臺大法律學院霖澤館6樓出版室）

電話：02-3366-8962

傳真：02-3366-8924

信箱：Email住址會使用灌水程式保護機制。你需要啟動Javascript才能觀看它

One Size Fits All? Improving Acces to Justice for Small Claims: An Empirical Study of Taiwan

Jing-Huey Shao (downloads)

By means of the 2019 Taiwan Legal Culture and Social Change Survey (“the 2019 survey”), this research examined the reasons that discourage Taiwanese citizens from making small claims in general, and what might motivate them to change their minds and to pursue justice. The study identified the obstacles to seeking small dispute resolution, whether people’s attitudes can be changed, and if so, under what conditions. The results show that socioeconomically disadvantaged people are more vulnerable to stress and lack of knowledge issues. Also, an aggregation possibility to claim together does effectively change their attitudes from not making any claims to joining group claims. However, people who are weaker psychologically may need more assistance in solving their doubts and ensuring their personal interests. On the other hand, those who lack knowledge are willing to make claims not only for their own benefit but also to seek retribution against the wrongdoer. This study demonstrates that overall, dealing with small claims requires another way of thinking. If addressing concerns diversely is not practical, nudging all the claimants to join group claims as a default rule unless they opt out is an alternative solution.

A Comparative Study of Pure Economic Loss: Where Is Taiwan on the Map?

Tsai-Ping Tang (download)

This paper explores the complex issue of tort liability for pure economic loss in various jurisdictions, with a focus on Taiwan. Traditionally, many legal systems have denied recovery for pure economic loss in negligent torts, except under specific regulations. However, the ever-changing landscape of society and technology necessitates a reevaluation of established norms. The paper emphasizes that the prevailing view has often overextended its application, misinterpreting leading cases and wrongly denying recovery in situations where the leading cases did not require such denial. The problem lies in the interpretation of court decisions rather than the decisions themselves. The paper advocates for a comprehensive examination of the underlying premises of each precedent, including the facts, issues, assumptions, and relevant factors, to assess the soundness of justifications. The study then delves into how Germany, France, the U.K., the U.S., and Taiwan address pure economic loss. It also acknowledges the unique challenges in the U.S., where different states have distinct perspectives and judgments. As a result of the comparative study, the paper provides a comparative table summarizing the perspectives of different jurisdictions on various categories of pure economic losses, offering a comprehensive overview of the multifaceted legal scenarios

Applying Privacy as Trust in the Emerging Digital Welfare State

Yi-Chen Huang (download)

With the emergence of the digital welfare state, social protection and assistance are increasingly driven by digital big data, artificial intelligence, and related technologies. The implementation of a conventional rights-based framework within the context of the digital welfare state involves examining the interaction between the state and its citizens from a human rights perspective. This approach emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy and the ability to make choices while adhering to the principles of accountability, non-discrimination, and equality.

The analysis of the 2020 Dutch SyRI case is the beginning of a rights-based judicial review in the digital welfare state in the Netherlands. Coincidentally, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court’s recent 2022 judgment of the Taiwan National Insurance Health Database case relates to just these kinds of privacy concerns. Although the constitutional system and political structure of the Netherlands and Taiwan are quite different, both the Dutch SyRI case and the Taiwan NIHD approached the issue of privacy from the traditional, rights-based perspectives, highlighting the problems of focusing on invasion rather than creating values and existing asymmetrical information relationships.

This paper aims to contribute by incorporating the concept of trust as a fundamental privacy value into the context of information relationships within the digital welfare state. It advocates for the introduction of a public trust model as well as the establishment of an independent supervision mechanism to carry out ex-ante risk assessments. This mechanism serves as an empowering tool to foster the creation of values and to address the information asymmetry that exists between individuals and the government in the digital welfare state.