沒有能力還是沒有意願？：從東協國家的人權實踐分析人權脫鉤的成因與挑戰

Incapable or Unwilling? Analysis of the Causes of Human Rights Decoupling in the Human Rights Practices of ASEAN States

雖然東協人權建制逐漸成形，但東協國家似乎並未因此而改善人權，形成「形式上」與「實質上」的人權脫鉤困境。過往認為這可能反映這些國家的心口不一，但筆者認為人權脫鉤也可能是因為沒有能力。因此，筆者試圖分析東協國家的人權脫鉤是「沒有能力」還是「沒有意願」所致？透過貝塔斯曼轉型指數關於「國家能力」和「民主」的指標來檢證之。原則上，國家愈民主應愈有意願順從人權，但若人權保障程度不佳，則可能反映其「沒有能力」；反之，國家能力愈強應愈有能力順從人權，但若人權保障程度不佳，則可能反映其「沒有意願」。研究結果顯示，國家能力屬於鞏固國家的新加坡之人權脫鉤「最有可能是沒有意願」；屬於低度有限國家的馬來西亞，寮國和柬埔寨之人權脫鉤「較可能是沒有意願」；屬於高度有限國家的印尼和菲律賓則「最有可能是沒有能力」；泰國雖然也屬於高度有限國家，但民主程度逐年倒退，顯示它在「沒有能力」之餘，也顯示其「沒有意願」；緬甸雖然屬於脆弱國家而沒有能力落實，但其民主程度逐漸提升，原則上應愈有其意願。整體上，透過釐清這些人權脫鉤成因，能協助東協國家制定更全面性的東協人權建制。

The ASEAN human rights regime has gradually evolved, yet the protection of human rights in most ASEAN states has not improved commensurately, resulting in decoupling between “formal” institutionalization and “practical” implementation of human rights protections. Some argue that such decoupling reveals states’ unwillingness to protect human rights, while Goodman and Jinks have suggested it may be attributed to state incapacity. This article focuses on the question of whether human rights decoupling among ASEAN states results from incapacity or unwillingness. Based on the Bertelsmann Transformation Index, the two variables of capacity and democracy are applied to examine this question. In theory, the more democratic a state is, the more willing it is to protect human rights. Poor human rights records in more democratic states appear to be the result of weak state capacity. Conversely, the stronger a state’s capacity, the more capable it is of protecting human rights. Weak human rights protections in higher capacity states seem to result from unwillingness. The research findings suggest a high likelihood that decoupling in Singapore, a consolidated state, is due to unwillingness and some likelihood that decoupling in the semi-limited capacity states of Malaysia, Laos, and Cambodia also results from unwillingness, while decoupling in the highly-limited capacity states of Indonesia and the Philippines is more likely the result of incapacity. Decoupling in Thailand is likely attributable not only to highly-limited state capacity, but also to unwillingness as democracy has eroded in that country. Myanmar, a fragile state, should in principle show greater willingness to protect human rights as it has recently moved toward democratization. In general, clearly distinguishing the causes of decoupling could help ASEAN states formulate more comprehensive mechanisms for protecting human rights.