Jurisdiction rule: Foreign constitutional decisions, international-law materials and ROC (Taiwan) authorities are catalogued by source jurisdiction. Comparative authority is persuasive only where explained; it is never presented as current mainland-China law merely because it informs a future mainland legal design.
This branch collects international-law and comparative constitutional authorities used in FCM legal research where controlling ROC precedent is absent, incomplete or requires contextual analysis.
Comparative authority is persuasive, not controlling. Each use must explain the foreign legal problem, institutional differences, the foreign rule, why the authority is or is not persuasive under ROC law, and what FCM adopts, modifies or rejects.
Topics include governmental continuity and succession, effective control, civil validity under disputed authority, constitutional emergencies, transitional justice, judicial independence, representation, democratic transition and remedies.
Where no controlling ROC precedent is identified, the analysis proceeds through constitutional text, structure, history, applicable statutes, analogous ROC jurisprudence, historical practice, applicable international law, comparative jurisprudence, the strongest opposing interpretation and an expressly non-binding FCM determination.