Social law is highly important for people in their daily lives, as their existence is ensured and enhanced in many ways by social benefits. The individual therefore needs access to social benefits in the first place. In order to be entitled to a certain social benefit, the legally regulated conditions for benefits receipt must be fulfilled. Therefore, these conditions act as "guardians" for access to social benefits. However, if access is restricted or blocked, this has a corresponding effect on the individual's availability of social benefits.
Social legislation is divided into laws on benefit systems that have their own classification and pursue a specific benefit purpose, which is reflected in the design of access to the respective social benefits. There are two main types of access criteria in Taiwanese social law, one based on the type of system and the purpose of the benefit, and another that is neither system-related nor purpose-oriented. With the help of the latter, the entitlement to social benefits can be expanded or restricted. For example, a foreign spouse of a Taiwanese citizen who has been residing in Taiwan for many years is not allowed to join the national pension insurance system and therefore has no pension entitlement, although (s)he is not insured with any other statutory pension insurance system in Taiwan and his/her pension entitlement ought to be covered by this national pension insurance system. Membership as one of the criteria for access to national pension insurance benefits requires Taiwanese citizenship, and foreigners are therefore cast out. This example shows that certain people are excluded from social benefits in Taiwan as a result of the non-targeted eligibility criteria, even though they actually need social benefits. The disparity between status-related requirements and the need for social protection raises constitutional concerns. The laws with which the legislator created such exclusions must be in line with the constitution in order to be legitimate. The purpose of this study is therefore to examine whether the preconditions in social law created on the basis of criteria that are alien to the system or the purpose violate the constitution.
This doctoral thesis, which has been completed, is divided into two main parts, one relating to the analysis of the access criteria to social benefits in Taiwan and the other to the examination of the constitutionality of these criteria. Firstly, the necessary institutional prerequisites for the enforcement of social rights in social law are discussed and serve as the essential basis for the study. Subsequently, an overview of the Taiwanese social law system is given. For this purpose, labor law, alien’s law, family law, and other legal frameworks in Taiwan related to the access criteria are studied. The subsequent examination of the different access criteria in Taiwanese social law carves out which access criteria are used in the social law system and what barriers result from them. Thirdly, the constitutional principles, especially the welfare state principle and the rule of law, are used to examine the extent to which access to social rights in Taiwan is protected under the constitution. Finally, this study examines the constitutionality of the access criteria used in Taiwanese social law. This review is conducted by way of using the constitutional principles according to the categories of access to different types of benefits.
The investigation shows that some of the non-systemic or non-purpose oriented benefit conditions can be considered justified, whereas most of them are unconstitutional. The results make it clear, for example, that the access to benefits under Taiwanese social law, especially tax-financed benefits, is severely restricted or even blocked for foreigners. This can be attributed to the fact that the legislature misjudges the system of social law and neglects its purpose. If the legislature cannot give valid and cogent reasons for non-system-based or non-purpose-oriented benefit prerequisites, it must then change these prerequisites in the light of the constitutional requirements.
