亞洲價值與人權規範社會化：從東協人權建制的發展與挑戰分析東南亞的人權政治

Asian Values and Socialization of Human Rights Norms：The Analysis of Human Rights Politics in Southeast Asia from the Development and Challenges of ASEAN Human Rights Regime

李明勳(Ming-Hsun Lee)

指導教授 ： 蔡季廷

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201600911

摘要

既存的區域人權建制（歐洲、美洲與非洲）有助於將國際人權規範逐步落實於地方，但幅員廣大的亞洲迄今仍未形成一個有效的區域人權建制。事實上，東協於2009年成立東協政府間人權委員會（AICHR），並於2012年通過《東協人權宣言》（AHRD），在在顯示一個東協人權建制正逐漸浮現。有鑑於東南亞在1990年代初期盛行抵抗人權普世性的「亞洲價值」之論調，因而使該建制近年來的發展格外驚艷。然而，許多證據顯示東協國家的人權保障程度並未因此提升，反而停滯或下降，造成形式制度與實質人權保障之間的脫鉤困境。因此，本文試圖探討東協為什麼及如何開始建構東協人權建制？該建制是如何影響東南亞的人權政治？目前遭遇的挑戰可能反映了目前國際人權政治上的什麼問題？本文將東協人權建制的發展進程區分成亞洲價值時期（1991年至1997年）、東協人權建制形成期（1997年至2007年）和深化期（2007年以後）。結果發現，東協人權建制議程其實是鑲嵌在東協區域整合進程之中，藉以提升東協於1997年亞洲金融危機之後一落千丈的名聲與國際地位。總的來說，東協人權建制的發展可能反映了人權規範社會化的涵化機制，因為西方國家並未以物質性懲罰來施壓東協必須推動該建制，或是即便施予經濟制裁，也可能導致適得其反效應；相對的，國際社會環境和（區域間、區域內）參考團體所發揮的認知與社會壓力可能才是促發東協對於其他區域人權建制的從眾效應。此外，東協內部的推動國（印尼、菲律賓、泰國）、觀望國（馬來西亞、新加坡）和被領導國（後進國）之間的地位消長與分配狀態也能解釋該建制的發展與挑戰。而更重要的是，中國模式投射在東南亞的陰影，讓那些政治轉型進程不順利的國家可能轉而將中國模式視為替代的參考團體，從而影響這些國家對人權政治的態度及該建制所能發揮的效益。總之，本研究試圖透過東協人權建制的發展與挑戰來辨析潛在的涵化機制，從而豐富國際關係理論和國際人權政治之間的對話。

關鍵字

東協人權建制 ； 1997年亞洲金融危機 ； 亞洲價值 ； 中國模式 ； 涵化 ； 參考團體 ； 人權脫鉤

並列摘要

Human rights norms and values can be incrementally internalized into the local context by the regional human rights regime. So far, three major regional human rights regimes have existed in the world, namely European Union (EU), America, and Africa. Although none of the regional human rights regimes exists in Asia, a weak Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) human rights regime is emerging, such as the establishment of the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) in 2009 and ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children (ACWC) in 2010, and the signature of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD) in 2012. This institutionalizing tendency has had many scholars investigate why ASEAN started to build this regime in the late 2000s. However, as the evolution of this regime, the protection of human rights in most ASEAN states has less improvement, which is the so-called human rights decoupling between formal institutionalization and practical human rights protection. But few studies have reported on the impacts of this regime upon human rights politics in Southeast Asia.
As a result, the purpose of this thesis is to further analyze why ASEAN starts to promote ASEAN human rights regimes and why these ASEAN states change their attitude toward human rights from Asian Values to universal human rights. And I also attempt to clearly analyze what the impact of this regime on human rights politics is in Southeast Asia. Through the acculturation mechanism in the socialization theory, I argue that transnational socialization and regional integration in ASEAN could clarify these puzzles by analyzing the evolution and the challenge of this regime.
This article divides this evolution into three periods: the Asian values period (1991-1997), becoming period (1997-2007), and deepening period (2007-). This finding shows that the agenda of the ASEAN human rights regime was actually embedded into the re-setting process of ASEAN integration in order to elevate its reputation and international status that severely frustrated in the 1997 financial crisis. Generally speaking, the Western powers possibly failed to use material incentive mechanism to pressure ASEAN to promote its human rights regime; in contrast, the development of this regime could reflect potential acculturation mechanism because the cognitive and social pressure from international social environment, as well as inter-regional and intra-regional human rights regime, could make ASEAN conform to other regional human rights regimes.
Furthermore, the balance of promoting states (Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand), wait-and-see states (Malaysia, Singapore), and following states (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, Brunei) in ASEAN could also shed lights on the development and challenges of this regime. Most importantly, the shadow of the China model projecting into Southeast Asia since 2010 seems to have those states whose political transition faced some impediments regard the China model as the alternative reference group. Not only could it influence those states’ attitude toward human rights, but also its benefits that this regime initially exerted.
All in all, this research may provide an alternative to the problem about human rights politics in Southeast Asia, notable for resisting the human rights issues in the past. And the implications of this study may suggest a broader approach for future research into the effects of regional human rights regimes, thereby enriching the existed theoretical explanations about the interaction between international politics and international human rights.

並列關鍵字

ASEAN Human Rights Regime ； 1997 Asian Financial Crisis ； Asian Values ； China Model ； Acculturation ； Reference Group ； Human Rights Decoupling

參考文獻

顏永銘，2015，〈羅興亞難民問題與東南亞區域安全〉，《戰略安全研析》，122: 21-29。

蕭文軒、顧長永，2014，〈第24屆東協高峰會之評析〉，《戰略安全研析》，113: 38-46。

楊昊，2011，〈東協峇里宣言三部曲：邁向集體外交的全球新戰略〉，《戰略安全研析》，80: 29-36。

李瓊莉，2007，〈我國參與東協區域人權議題之可能途徑〉，《戰略安全研析》，25: 44-47。

陳瑤華，2010，《人權不是舶來品：跨文化哲學的人權探究》，台北：五南出版社。