東南亞國協的整合與變遷：規範化歷程分析

東南亞國家協會（亦稱東南亞國協或東協）自成立以來，致力於推動區域經濟及貿易整合的發展，並轉型成為關係更緊密、且具有獨立國際法人格的區域組織。東協相關討論至今已累積許多文獻，且多聚焦於東協本身的歷史、現況或未來發展，或將東協與其他區域組織進行比較及評價。然而，傳統國際法研究，更著重於規範效力的探討；而在政治科學領域的國際關係研究，則側重以國家為主體的政治權力競逐或國際勢力消長的脈絡分析。兩大傳統學科領域壁壘分明，往往忽視規範與脈絡間互動以及非國家行動者的角色等，必須以跨學科領域的視角，才能觀察到的議題面向。為了跳脫上述侷限，本研究採取跨國規範化歷程理論（Transnational Legal Process）作為研究框架，投射到東協的整合進程與規範形塑途徑上，並以跨國憲政主義（Transnational Constitutionalism）以及區域研究視角而為補充，以貼合區域發展脈絡。本研究從跨國規範化歷程理論中界定出「行動者互動結構」以及「特定國際事件」，輔以跨國憲政主義所關注的「內國憲政價值」以及體現區域研究視角的「區域特色」共四個關鍵要素，作為本研究觀察東協規範形塑途徑的切入點。本研究擇定東協四大領域的整合進程作為觀察客體。其中包括東協從成立之初便相當重視的經濟與安全領域，以及近年來開始逐漸發展的人權與環境領域。本研究發現，儘管同屬東協整合進程，上述四個關鍵要素在經濟、環境、安全與人權領域的運作及發揮的比重都不相同，從而展現具多元面貌的規範形塑途徑，進而發展出具多元面貌的規範機制。在經濟領域中，東協經濟領域的行動者互動結構，雖然一貫由會員國佔據主導地位，但東協亦容許非國家行動者例如智庫、跨國企業等協助推動整合進程。且因經貿合作議題本質所趨，東協於此領域中對外積極形塑合作機制，對內則按會員國需求形塑出次區域結構。另外，綜觀東協在經濟領域的重要發展，都與區域內外發生的特定事件有所關聯，例如金融風暴促使東協積極打造經濟共同體、亞太經濟合作會議則促使東協建構東協自由貿易區，可見特定國際事件在經濟領域的規範化效應。另外，儘管東協會員國憲政結構彼此相異且各自的民主化進程亦不相同，但這些足以影響國家與私人經濟活動的憲政價值差異，並未在區域層級帶來影響。最後，東協在經濟領域的法制化，顯示過去一貫強調非正式性的區域特色－「東協模式」（ASEAN Way）－出現變化。與此同時，由於東協積極在亞太區域經濟發展趨勢中建構自身的主導地位，因此也彰顯了東協的另一項特色，亦即東協中心性。在環境領域中，東協環境領域的行動者互動結構依然由會員國主導，且東協也會依據會員國及整合需求形成次區域結構，但在此領域當中，有更多的公民社會團體參與。公民社會團體在東協體制內的參與固然受東協規範，但也會在會員國內國層級積極發揮功能（同樣取決於內國層級的公民參與途徑），甚至透過司法訴訟形成重要環境論述。另就東協會員國對於環境議題的理解，受各會員國憲政文本保守立場所限，在文字意義上多採取偏向經濟發展與資源利用的內容。但與此同時，東協會員國多數積極參與國際環境規範機制，亦在內國發展相應的環境規範機制。在這樣的條件之下，東協環境規範大多採用宣言、決議等柔性規範形式，且內容多是重述或架接國際環境法原則或為政治性宣示。只有在區域內發生重大環境災害時，東協才會積極形塑規範。東協在環境領域的規範形塑表現，顯示「東協模式」持續獲得實踐，但並未形塑出其他特殊區域價值對外輸出，從而並未彰顯東協中心性。在安全領域中，其行動者互動結構同樣由會員國所主導，但東協於此領域並未形成次區域結構，而是由全體會員國共同參與整合進程。東協於安全領域中積極與區域外國家保持接觸，非國家行動者的參與則明顯較少，但東協認證的智庫仍會向東協提出建議。東協會員國憲政價值於安全領域整合進程的影響，較為明顯，因會員國對主權的維護或鞏固，都會壓縮東協的整合空間。至於特定國際事件的發生在安全領域亦有規範化效應，但僅有部分如此。例如恐怖主義及流行疫病，都引動區域內（包括區域與內國層級）的規範化歷程；但近期的緬甸軍事政變，則未於東協引發明顯的規範化效應。最後，東協在安全領域的規範形塑表現，顯示「東協模式」的持續運作。而經由聚集區域外部國家，邀請其加入由東協主導的區域對話機制，東協持續對外輸出「東協模式」以及東協的安全理念，體現東協中心性。最後，在人權領域中，在會員國主導行動者互動結構的同時，亦有公民社會團體經由東協體制內管道或會員國內的公民參與途徑，一同建構區域規範機制。儘管東協在此領域成功設置人權專責機關，但此人權專責機關至今僅具備諮商與建議的功能。另外，由於東協部分會員國為亞洲價值理論（Asian Value）的倡議者，內國憲政價值對東協人權規範機制的影響相對明顯，迫使東協需要一邊注意國際人權規範機制的發展，同時也要關注會員國需求。在權衡區域特殊性及普世人權標準後，東協最終形成專屬東南亞區域的區域人權標準－《東協人權宣言》。值得注意的是，東協在此領域並未因任何國際事件而有規範化效應，即便區域內曾發生多起人權侵害事件，亦是如此。這一點顯示「東協模式」在人權領域的實踐並無太多變化。而東協儘管成功形塑出專屬東南亞區域的區域人權標準，但東協在對外主張區域特殊性的同時，並未因此強調東協中心性。在對東協四大領域的規範形塑途徑為脈絡性觀察後，本研究就東協的規範化歷程提出幾點主張。首先，東協規範形塑經驗顯示，行動者互動結構、特定國際事件、會員國憲政價值以及區域特色等四大關鍵要素都會帶來規範化效應，包括啟動規範形塑歷程或是在歷程中發揮作用。而這些關鍵要素的表現方式與比重，會依據個別領域的議題脈絡而有不同。第二，上述四大關鍵要素的運作除了會因議題本質受影響之外，其自身的時間性、空間性，以及要素間依存關係，亦會影響其在個別領域中的表現方式與比重。第三，在東協脈絡下，另有三個環境要素會從旁影響規範化歷程的運作，分別是區域內外的規範基礎、民主化進程以及主權論述。既有的區域內外規範基礎將會影響東協整合進程的起點、區域內外民主化進程則會影響行動者互動結構以及可進入區域層級的議題，至於區域內外的主權論述發展則會影響區域組織與會員國之間的權限分配。最後，東協規範形塑途徑展現多元並進與彈性的特色，東協常經由調整議題順序、進程以及參與的行動者，策略性掌握規範機制的發展進程及方向。而作為本研究對理論的回饋，本研究以東協的規範形塑經驗為基礎，反思並重建專屬區域層級的規範化歷程理論框架。本研究主張：跨國規範化歷程理論投射至區域層級時，既有的理論結構不足以貼合區域脈絡，而須為調整。為此，本研究驗證了跨國規範化歷程理論以及跨國憲政主義在區域規範機制研究中的適配性，並認為這兩部理論可互為補充。跨國憲政主義提供了內國憲政價值與國際、區域規範機制間可能彼此滲透並產生匯流效應的觀點，跨國規範化歷程理論則以關鍵要素分析方法使跨國憲政主義對規範匯流趨勢的描述更加細緻。除此之外，區域研究視角更進一步為上述理論於區域層級的應用進行補充。區域層級的規範化歷程應納入多層級規範雙向流動的視角，亦應掌握個別區域用於區分「內外」的獨特脈絡要素，其中如有獨特脈絡要素具備規範化效應，則應將其視為區域特色納入分析框架當中。

關鍵字

東南亞國協；區域組織；區域整合；跨國規範化歷程；跨國憲政主義

並列摘要

Since the establishment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), this regional organization has focused on promoting regional growth, and has slowly transformed into a more integrated regional organization with international legal personality. Past studies on ASEAN primarily focused on its history, current status and future prospects, or compared it with other regional organizations. In this regard, traditional international legal study tends to examine the validity and force of its regulatory mechanism, while the study of political science tends to focus on the power politics in the region. The barrier between these two approaches seems to be unbreakable, and hinders the observation on issues such as the interaction between norms and contexts as well as the role of state and non-state actors from normative perspective, which can only be analyzed by using interdisciplinary approach. To get out of the box, this research applies the theory of Transnational Legal Process, and projects it onto the ASEAN integration path and its legal process. And in order to dive into the regional context, this research further adopts the views of Transnational Constitutionalism and regional study. This research retrieves four determining factors based on the theoretical framework mentioned-above: the interaction structure of (state and non-state) actors, international incidents, constitutional norm of member states as well as regional features. This research selects four sectors to conduct the observation, including economy and security sectors that have been major concerns of ASEAN since establishment, as well as human rights and environment sectors that are relatively new to ASEAN. This research submits that all four determining factors deriving from the theoretical framework have shown different performances in shaping the legal processes in these sectors. In the economy sector, the interaction structure of actors has been dominated by states with limited participation by non-state actors. Due to the nature of economy cooperation, ASEAN adjusted its interaction structure both externally and internally, including constructing cooperation framework that is open to external partners, and forming sub-regional frameworks within region. Further, there have been some international incidents in the region that stimulated the legal process; and although ASEAN member states upheld different views on economy, this phenomenon did not affect the integration at regional level. Lastly, the legal process in the economy sector has shown that the “ASEAN Way” as one of the regional features has gradually transformed, and as ASEAN has been active in securing its leadership beyond the region, ASEAN centrality has been emphasized. In the environment sector, the member states dominated the interaction structure in the legal process, and sub-regional framework was formed based on needs. Yet in this sector, more civil society organizations were involved, some of them could even initiate key environmental discourse in the region through domestic litigation. While the ASEAN member states seemed to be confined in the pro-development stance as shown in constitutions, in practice they have been relatively active in participating in the international environmental regulatory mechanisms. In this regard, ASEAN has had less drive to formulate regional environmental norms, and hence most of its instruments simply re-emphasized international principles or contained political statements. However, when disaster occurred in the region, ASEAN would still actively formulate norms. Lastly, this legal process in environment sector has shown that the “ASEAN Way” remains relevant, and no unique regional norms have been formulated in this sector. In the security sector, member states dominated the interaction structure. There was no key sub-regional framework formed, but ASEAN has established dialogue mechanism that is open to external partners. The participation of non-state actors was more confined in this sector, and most of them were think-tanks associated with ASEAN. The impacts of constitutional norms of member states have been obvious in the legal process, as the emphasis on sovereignty would unavoidably affect the space of ASEAN in conducting integration. Further, only some incidents appeared to stimulate the legal process such as terrorism and pandemic. Other incidents such as coup in member state, on the other hand, have not affected ASEAN’s legal process in this sector. Lastly, “ASEAN Way” has been retained in this sector, and at the same time, ASEAN centrality has been emphasized. Lastly, in the human rights sector, while the ASEAN member states have been dominating the interaction structure, civil society organizations were more active in this sector. ASEAN has had its own human rights body; however, its functions were limited to consultation and recommendation only. Further, the discourse of “Asian Value” rooted in the constitutional culture of member states interacted and competed with universal norms of human rights. The interaction between both resulted in the ‘regional version’ of human rights, as stated in the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. In addition, the international incidents in this region have not caused impacts on the legal process, and the norms formulated have shown that the “ASEAN Way” remains relevant in this particular sector. And despite the fact that ASEAN has formulated its own standard of human rights and deemed it as form of regional particularism, ASEAN has not shown ASEAN centrality in this sector. Based on the findings, this research makes the following submissions. Firstly, the four determining factors (namely, the interaction structure of actors, international incidents, constitutional norm of member states and regional features) have performed differently carrying different weights in all these sectors observed. Secondly, the performances of these four determining factors have been primarily affected by the inherent nature of issue or sector, the traits of time and space rooted in each determining factor, and the relation between the determining factors. Thirdly, there are three contextual factors that could also affect the legal process, including: normative foundation, level of democratization, and the discourse on sovereignty within and beyond the region. Lastly, the legal process of ASEAN has shown the characters of progressive diversity and flexibility. As the theoretical contribution, this research argues that it is essential to modify the theory of Transnational Legal Process when projected onto the regional level, as it finds that the original framework may be insufficient to reflect the flow of norms and that it might oversight the regional context. To deal with such shortcomings, this research reconstructs the theoretical framework of regional legal process, and further makes the following submissions. Firstly, this research has verified that the theories of Transnational Legal Process and Transnational Constitutionalism fit with each other in describing regional legal process. Transnational Constitutionalism could provide the perspective of norm convergence at multiple levels, while Transnational Legal Process could contribute by performing an analysis of determining factors. Secondly, as part of regional study, the regional legal process analysis shall possess basic understanding on the penetration of norms at multiple levels, and when a unique feature deriving from regional context tends to bring normative impact, it should be included in the research framework as regional feature that could shape the legal process.