2025 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 7(2) (protection of human rights) and 102 (privacy right) of the Constitution,77 art 8 (privacy right) of the ECHR, 78 and art 17 (privacy right) of the ICCPR.79 The plaintiffs also argued that the UDI’s justification, based on the EU’s One-China policy and diplomatic considerations, lacked substantial evidence of its impact on Norway’s foreign affairs.80 According to the principle of proportionality, the State should not infringe upon individuals’ privacy rights without adequate justification in a democratic society like Norway.81 Privacy rights related to ethnic identity should take precedence over national interests. Nevertheless, in November 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs had no grounds for appeal.82 2 Liu and Others v Norway in the ECtHR Eventually, this case was brought before the ECtHR. 83 In presenting their arguments, the Taiwanese plaintiffs referenced key ECtHR cases to advocate for the protection of the private rights as outlined in art 8 of the ECHR.84 Article 8 states: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.85 Article 8 firstly safeguards individuals from arbitrary intrusions into their private and family life, home and correspondence. 86 Besides this negative obligation, member states also bear responsibility for guaranteeing the positive obligation of art 8 rights, even in interactions between private entities. 87 In situations involving a negative obligation (or a duty not to act), courts are required to evaluate whether the interference aligns with the stipulations of art 8(2). 88 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Norwegian Constitution (n 76) arts 92, 102. ECHR (n 76) art 8. ICCPR (n 76) art 17. Submissions to the Oslo District Court (n 75). See ibid. Joseph Liu, XXX-XXX Hong and XXX-XXX Yin v the State by the Ministry of Justice and Emergency Management, Sak nr 20-147873SIV-HRET (9 November 2020) (Norges Høyesteretts [Norwegian Supreme Court]) [tr TWMNMR, <https://twmnmr.com/2020.11.09_Judgment%20of%20the%20Supreme%20Court_English. pdf>, archived at <perma.cc/G6VS-WUMZ/>. Liu and Others v Norway (n 8). ‘Annex to the Application Pursuant to Article 34 of the European Convention of Human Rights’, Liu and Others v Norway (ECtHR, Application No 24859/21, 4 May 2021), 3–14 (‘Annex to Liu and Others v Norway’), citing ECHR (n 76) art 8. ibid. Libert v France (European Court of Human Rights, Fifth Section, Application No 588/13, 22 February 2018) [40]–[42]. See also ECtHR, Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (updated 31 August 2025) 8 (‘Guide on art 8 of the ECHR’). Bărbulescu v Romania (ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Application No 61496/08, 5 September 2017) [108]–[111]. See Guide on art 8 of the ECHR (n 86) 8. Guide on art 8 of the ECHR (n 86) 8. 116