國家權威與國際規範——合法性因素對國際人權法

Abstract

人權向來對國家權威構成挑戰。隨著國際人權法在普世化、制度化與內國化上的擴展與深化，重新檢視國家權威所恃之主權正當性與國際規範所建構之多邊正當性，以及兩者磨合對主權國家遵從國際人權法的影響日益重要。故本文析論影響國家遵從國際規範與國際人權法實踐的關鍵因素，並解釋國內與國際權威之正當性衝突對多邊人權主義及其規約實踐所造成之影響。本文之論證顯示：權威之正當性是履行國際人權法的主要動因，而且國際人權法之實踐及由此所產生之效力，取決於多邊人權建制及主權國家對正當性問題之妥善處理；縱使國際人權建制具有實質效用，乃仰賴其能否建構人權保障所需之內、外部政治權威及法源，然而，國家利益並非影響其遵從人權規範之意願與強度的決定性因素，國家權威是否具有正當性亦是必要條件。而且，具規範正當性之多邊壓力較遊說與道德勸說更為有效。是故，人權法規之國內實踐取決於多邊建制之正當性與國家權威的相容程度，而非僅為前者施壓或後者（非）自願順從之結果。循此，國際人權研究可兼採理性主義與建構主義之邏輯。亦即結合政治分析所專注的規範適當性與法制途徑所重視的法規效果，方能為相關命題提供更完整之解釋。

Human rights have always challenged the meanings and legitimacy of state authority under the context of sovereignty. The expansion of the international human rights law has reflected a growing need to reex-amine state authority in terms of human rights protection, and to place further consideration on the legitimacy of multilateral efforts. More im-portantly, state compliance with international human rights law varies greatly; yet scholars know little about why some states adhere more closely than others. Therefore, this paper is to assess why states have chosen to ignore or comply with the human rights legal instruments available to them to deal with multilateral pressures on human rights advocacy, and what are the exact factors that exert an influence on the practice of international human rights law on the setting of potential tension between international norms and state authority. This paper, thus, places emphasis on how conflicts pertaining to the domestic and international legitimacy of authority greatly account for the nature of multilateral responses to human rights protection, and provides explana-tions on how the dynamics of legitimacy affect multilateral efforts in a state. This paper (1) argues for the centrality of legitimacy as a driving force for fulfillment of international human rights law. The findings fur-ther suggest that (2) a main determinant of effect in international human rights law concerns how multilateral and state actors addressing the le-gitimate problem determine the practice of human rights norms. (3) In-ternational human rights law and regime will continue to play an impor-tant role in international relations because of the way in which they constitute political legitimacy and a source of legal power for human rights protection. (4) The legitimacy of state authority is a more impor-tant determinant of state compliance. Multilateral pressures with norm legitimacy are more effective than direct lobbying and persuasion, and international efforts should be finely tuned to the state’s compliance to international law, if it is in line with its authority, as well as the building of multilateralism. As a result, (5) scholars should be cautious about claims that enforcement is central to the domestic implementation of international human rights law. As for the implication to human rights studies, (6) many human rights researches from the political perspective are associated with the logic of appropriateness while legal approach places emphasis on the logic of consequences. Future researches might bridge the falsely rationalist-constructivist dichotomy by accepting both logics. As such, richer explanations emerge for determining why states sometimes comply with legal norms and under what conditions.