學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 國際人權規範與賦權：以實驗法檢證CEDAW第5條在台灣的有效性
International Human Rights Norms and Empowerment: Testing the Effectiveness of CEDAW`s Article 5 in Taiwan with a Survey Experiment作者 王思涵
Wang, Szu-Han貢獻者 楊婉瑩<br>翁燕菁
Yang, Wan-Ying<br>Weng, Yen-Ching
王思涵
Wang, Szu-Han關鍵詞 調查實驗
消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約
第5條
國際人權規範
公約效用
CEDAW
Empowerment
Article 5
International human rights law
Effectiveness of convention
Survey experiment日期 2020 上傳時間 3-Aug-2020 18:10:17 (UTC+8) 摘要 我國加入《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》逾十年，性別統計數據卻仍揭露出「男主外、女主內」的傳統性別分工樣態，顯見性別刻板印象持續阻礙我國婦女人權推展。此一傳統社會文化對婦女造成不利影響的處境，正是CEDAW第5條規範旨欲積極矯正的難題，作為整部CEDAW的中心條款與指導原則，第5條規範的落實能否協助台灣破除性別刻板印象，遂成為本文主要關注之處。有別於既往對公約效用的討論多聚焦在國家層次，本文主張，公約對個人的賦權效果，更是評斷公約效用理應注重的核心。研究發現，知會CEDAW第5條規範內涵對女性具有顯著的正向賦權效果，然而，同樣的實驗處置卻對男性產生顯著的負向剝奪效果，兩性對CEDAW第5條規範內涵的不同理解，加劇了其在性別平權態度上的原有落差。透過調查實驗之建構，本文首度於台灣驗證「知會CEDAW第5條規範內涵」具有「賦權權利主體」的正向影響，對我國公約效用的討論以及實驗設計運用皆有所補充。此外，調查問卷的施測過程亦同時達到向受試者知會CEDAW及第5條規範的教育宣導效果，具有促進社會效益的功能。循本文研究成果所見，女性對CEDAW第5條規範內涵的普遍陌生、以及男性對CEDAW第5條規範內涵的不同理解，在在彰顯了我國政府履行CEDAW國家義務的積極作為仍顯不足，尚未能透過一切適當措施，向民眾進行「有效」的教育宣導—特別是針對在婦女權益推進路上，感到自身權益遭受剝奪、轉而更加依賴傳統父權文化的男性群體，政府更須發展相應且有效的教育宣導模式。
Taiwan has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) over 10 years, yet from the gender statistics and the relevant reports, we found ourselves still live in a society without true gender equality. It is questionable whether the international human rights law (IHRL) has the actual effect on protecting human rights within sovereign states. Most of the existing literature discusses such an effect on the state level, in contrast, we believe that IHRL like CEDAW could have an empowerment effect on citizens, thus achieve its aim to protect human rights. Following Chilton and Tingley`s (2013) call for using experiments to study international law, we conduct a survey experiment to test our empowerment hypothesis. By doing surveys, we could not only supply new evidence to international law`s effectiveness but also facilitate social benefits by advocating the essence of CEDAW. Meanwhile, we also aim to encourage academics to utilize experiment methodology in various study fields.Our findings show that informing citizens with the essence of CEDAW’s article 5 enhances women`s gender consciousness, but hinder men’s at the same time. This indicates that government must beware of the different reactions between women and men while promoting the essence of article 5. Obviously, simply text notification is not a good way to acquire supports for women’s right from men, and it looks like our government has not taken all appropriate measures for undertaking obligations from CEDAW. Apart from the negative effects shown on men, our study claims that even Taiwan could only ratify CEDAW unilaterally, the power of CEDAW still holds, and keep providing empowerment resources for women to protect their human rights.參考文獻 王舒芸、王品，2014，〈台灣照顧福利的發展與困境：1990-2012〉，陳瑤華主編，《台灣婦女處境白皮書：2014年》：29-76，台北：女書文化。王舒芸、余漢儀，1997，〈奶爸難為—雙薪家庭之父職角色初探〉，《婦女與兩性學刊》，（8）：115-149。王曉丹、宋靈珊，2018，〈女性主義如何介入法律？〉，黃淑玲與游美惠主編，《性別向度與臺灣社會》：171-191，高雄：巨流。行政院性別平等會，2017，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》中華民國第3三次國家報告專要文件。姜貞吟，2018，〈性別化的習俗與文化〉，黃淑玲與游美惠主編，《性別向度與臺灣社會》：3-23，高雄：巨流。教育部，2010，〈性別平等教育白皮書〉，https://www.gender.edu.tw/web/index.php/m1/m1_01_01?sid=258，查閱時間：2020/04/06。陳隆志，2015，〈性別平權理念在國際法上的發展〉，張文貞與官曉薇主編，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》：9-34，台北：財團法人台灣新世紀文教基金會。陳瑤華，2015，〈CEDAW在台灣的落實〉，張文貞與官曉薇主編，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》：65-96，台北：財團法人台灣新世紀文教基金會。翁燕菁，2017，〈對話與爭議：從歐洲人權法圖像論臺灣施行人權公約之實質意涵〉，《臺大法學論叢》，46：1115-1201。張文貞，2015，〈反歧視與國家義務〉，張文貞與官曉薇主編，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》：97-140，台北：財團法人台灣新世紀文教基金會。婦女新知基金會，2013，〈刑法通姦罪，早該廢了！〉，https://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/73288，查閱時間：2019/07/4。游美惠，2014，〈性別教育向前行〉，陳瑤華主編，《台灣婦女處境白皮書：2014年》：209-240，台北：女書文化。游美惠，2018，〈親密關係〉，黃淑玲與游美惠主編，《性別向度與臺灣社會》：103-124，高雄：巨流。黃紀，2016，〈2012年至2016年『選舉與民主化調查』四年期研究規劃(4/4)：民國一百零五年總統與立法委員選舉調查面訪案〉，http://teds.nccu.edu.tw/data1/super_pages.php?ID=data201，查閱時間：2020/04/06。黃囇莉，2018，〈性別歧視的多重樣貌〉，黃淑玲與游美惠主編，《性別向度與臺灣社會》：125-145，高雄：巨流。湯京平，2015，〈2010 世界價值觀調查－台灣〉，https://srda.sinica.edu.tw/datasearch_detail.php?id=1220，查閱時間：2020/04/06。楊婉瑩、林珮婷，2011，〈當「男女有別」變成「男女不平等」－性別角色認知與政治效能感〉，《女學學誌：婦女與性別研究》，（29）：121-172。廖福特，2015，〈消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約的歷史發展與監督機制〉，張文貞與官曉薇主編，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》：35-64，台北：財團法人台灣新世紀文教基金會。蕭昭君，2015，〈消除文化習俗上的歧視〉，張文貞與官曉薇主編，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》：141-180，台北：財團法人台灣新世紀文教基金會。Anjum, Gulnaz, Zahid Usman and Adam S. Chilton. 2016. “United Nations Endorsement & Support for Human Rights: An Experiment on Women`s Rights in Pakistan” Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers.Chilton, Adam S. 2014. “The Influence of International Human Rights Agreements on Public Opinion: An Experimental Study” Chicago Journal of International Law 15(1):110-37.Chilton, Adam S. 2017. “Experimentally Testing the Effectiveness of Human Rights Treaties” Chicago Journal of International Law 18(1):164-85.Chilton, Adam S. and Dustin H. Tingley. 2013. “Why the Study of International Law Needs Experiments” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 52(1): 173-237.Clark, Ann Marie and Kathryn Sikkink. 2013. “Information Effects and Human Rights Data: Is the Good News about Increased Human Rights Information Bad News for Human Rights Measures?” Human Rights Quarterly 35(3): 539-68.Druckman, James N. 2003. “The Power of Television Images: The First Kennedy- Nixon Debate Revisited” The Journal of Politics 65(2): 559-71.Druckman, James N. and Cindy D. Kam. 2011. “Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base’ ” in Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia . 2011a. “Experimentation in Political Science” in Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia . 2011b. “Experiments: An Introduction to Core Concepts” in Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Eichenhofer, Eberhard. 2015. “Social security as a human right: A European perspective” in Research Handbook on European Social Security Law, eds. Frans Pennings and Gijsbert Vonk. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Fariss, Christopher J. 2014. “Respect for Human Rights Has Improved Over Time: Modeling the Changing Standard of Accountability” American Political Science Review 108(2): 297-318.Fariss, Christopher J. 2017. “The Changing Standard of Accountability and the Positive Relationship between Human Rights Treaty Ratification and Compliance” British Journal of Political Science 48(1): 239-271.Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Edward H. Kaplan. 2004. “The illusion of learning from observational research” in Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics, eds. Ian Shapiro, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Glick, Peter and Susan T. Fiske. 1996. “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(3): 491-512.Goldsmith, Jack L. and Eric A. Posner. 2005. The Limits of International Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Goodman, Ryan and Derek Jinks. 2003. “Measuring the Effects of Human Rights Treaties” European Journal of International Law 14(1): 171-83.Goodman, Ryan and Derek Jinks. 2013. Socializing States: Promoting Human Rights through International Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2008. “Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming the Human Enforcement Problem” International Organization 62(4): 689-716.Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Brad L. LeVeck, and David G. Victor. 2016. “How Activists Perceive the Utility of International Law” The Journal of Politics 78(1): 167-80.Harrison, Brian F. and Michelson Melissa R. 2017. Listen, We Need to Talk: How to Change Attitudes about LGBT Rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Hathaway, Oona. 2002. “Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?” The Yale Law Journal 111(8): 1935-2042.Helfer, Laurence R. and Anne-Marie Slaughter. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication” The Yale Law Journal 107(2): 273-391.Hill, Daniel W. 2010. “Estimating the Effects of Human Rights Treaties on State Behavior” The Journal of Politics 72(4): 1161-74.Hillebrecht, Courtney. 2014. Domestic Politics and International Human Rights Tribunals: The Problem of Compliance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Holland, Paul W. 1986. “Statistics and Causal Inference.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 945–60.Holtmaat, Rikki. 2011. “Article 5” in The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: A Commentary, eds. Marsha A. Freeman, Christine Chinkin, and Beate Rudolf. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Inglehart, Ronald and Pippa Norris. 2003. Rising Tide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Iacus, Stefano M., Gary King, and Giuseppe Porro. 2019. “A Theory of Statistical Inference for Matching Methods in Causal Research.” Political Analysis 27(1): 46-68.Iversen, Torben and Rosenbluth Frances. 2010. Women, Work, & Politics. CT: Yale University Press.Kelley, Judith G. and Beth A. Simmons. 2015. “Politics by Number: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations” American Journal of Political Science 59(1):1146-61.LaCour, Michael J. and Donald P. Green. 2014. “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality” Science 346(6215): 1366-69.Lebovic, James H. and Erik Voeten. 2009. “The Cost of Shame: International Organizations and Foreign Aid in the Punishing of Human Rights Violations” Journal of Peace Research 46(1): 79-97.Lupu, Yonatan. 2015. “Legislative Veto Players and the Effects of International Human Rights Agreements” American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 578-94.Morton, Rebecca B. and Kenneth C. Williams. 2010. “Ethical Decision Making and Political Science Experiments” in Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Mutz, Diana Carole. 2011. “Treatments for population-based experimental designs” in Population-based survey experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Neumayer, Eric. 2005. “Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(6) : 925-953.Neuman, W. Lawrence. 2011. “Survey Research” in Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 7th ed. New York, NY: Pearson.Nielsen, Richard A. 2013. “Rewarding Human Rights? Selective Aid Sanctions Ag ainst Repressive States” International Studies Quarterly 57:791-803.Pietilä, Hilkka. 2002. Engendering the Global Agenda: The Story of Women and the United Nations. Geneva: UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service.Posner, Eric A. 2014. The Twilight of International Human Rights Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Putnam, Tonya L. and Jacob N. Shapiro. 2017. “International Law and Voter Preferences: The Case of Foreign Human Rights Violations” Human Rights Review 18(3): 243-62.McDermott, Rose. 2011. “Internal and External Validity” in Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Sepper, Elizabeth. 2008. “Confronting the sacred and unchangeable: The obligation to modify cultural patterns under the women`s discrimination treaty” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 30(2): 585-640.Simmons, Beth A. 2009. Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Tomz, Michael R., and Jessica L. P. Weeks. 2013. “Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace” American Political Science Review 107(4): 849-65.Tsutsui, Kiyoteru, Claire Whitlinger, and Alwyn Lim. 2012. “International Human Rights Law and Social Movements: States’ Resistance and Civil Society’s Insistence” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8(1):367-96.Wallace, Geoffrey P. R. 2014. “Martial Law? Military Experience, International Law, and Support for Torture” International Studies Quarterly 58(3): 501-14.WEF. 2018. “The Global Gender Gap Report.” (Accessed on March 9, 2019) 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
政治學系
106252003資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106252003 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 楊婉瑩<br>翁燕菁 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Yang, Wan-Ying<br>Weng, Yen-Ching en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 王思涵 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wang, Szu-Han en_US dc.creator (作者) 王思涵 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Wang, Szu-Han en_US dc.date (日期) 2020 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-Aug-2020 18:10:17 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-Aug-2020 18:10:17 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Aug-2020 18:10:17 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0106252003 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131173 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 政治學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 106252003 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 我國加入《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》逾十年，性別統計數據卻仍揭露出「男主外、女主內」的傳統性別分工樣態，顯見性別刻板印象持續阻礙我國婦女人權推展。此一傳統社會文化對婦女造成不利影響的處境，正是CEDAW第5條規範旨欲積極矯正的難題，作為整部CEDAW的中心條款與指導原則，第5條規範的落實能否協助台灣破除性別刻板印象，遂成為本文主要關注之處。有別於既往對公約效用的討論多聚焦在國家層次，本文主張，公約對個人的賦權效果，更是評斷公約效用理應注重的核心。研究發現，知會CEDAW第5條規範內涵對女性具有顯著的正向賦權效果，然而，同樣的實驗處置卻對男性產生顯著的負向剝奪效果，兩性對CEDAW第5條規範內涵的不同理解，加劇了其在性別平權態度上的原有落差。透過調查實驗之建構，本文首度於台灣驗證「知會CEDAW第5條規範內涵」具有「賦權權利主體」的正向影響，對我國公約效用的討論以及實驗設計運用皆有所補充。此外，調查問卷的施測過程亦同時達到向受試者知會CEDAW及第5條規範的教育宣導效果，具有促進社會效益的功能。循本文研究成果所見，女性對CEDAW第5條規範內涵的普遍陌生、以及男性對CEDAW第5條規範內涵的不同理解，在在彰顯了我國政府履行CEDAW國家義務的積極作為仍顯不足，尚未能透過一切適當措施，向民眾進行「有效」的教育宣導—特別是針對在婦女權益推進路上，感到自身權益遭受剝奪、轉而更加依賴傳統父權文化的男性群體，政府更須發展相應且有效的教育宣導模式。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Taiwan has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) over 10 years, yet from the gender statistics and the relevant reports, we found ourselves still live in a society without true gender equality. It is questionable whether the international human rights law (IHRL) has the actual effect on protecting human rights within sovereign states. Most of the existing literature discusses such an effect on the state level, in contrast, we believe that IHRL like CEDAW could have an empowerment effect on citizens, thus achieve its aim to protect human rights. Following Chilton and Tingley`s (2013) call for using experiments to study international law, we conduct a survey experiment to test our empowerment hypothesis. By doing surveys, we could not only supply new evidence to international law`s effectiveness but also facilitate social benefits by advocating the essence of CEDAW. Meanwhile, we also aim to encourage academics to utilize experiment methodology in various study fields.Our findings show that informing citizens with the essence of CEDAW’s article 5 enhances women`s gender consciousness, but hinder men’s at the same time. This indicates that government must beware of the different reactions between women and men while promoting the essence of article 5. Obviously, simply text notification is not a good way to acquire supports for women’s right from men, and it looks like our government has not taken all appropriate measures for undertaking obligations from CEDAW. Apart from the negative effects shown on men, our study claims that even Taiwan could only ratify CEDAW unilaterally, the power of CEDAW still holds, and keep providing empowerment resources for women to protect their human rights. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第壹章 CEDAW與其在台灣的落實 1第一節 研究源起：國際人權規範的興起與婦女人權保障 1第二節 研究背景：台灣的國家義務擴張與目標設定 3第三節 研究問題：CEDAW第5條規範在我國之效力 5第貳章 文獻回顧與理論建構 12第一節 難以撼動的性別分工遺緒 12第二節 影響國際人權公約有效性的兩種途徑 14一、外部影響 15二、國內政治 18第三節 因果機制與研究假設 22第參章 建構實驗設計之必要 26第一節 觀察資料的侷限 26一、主要解釋變數不具變異 27二、國際公約與國內憲法效用的重疊 28三、現有觀察資料的適用性不足 29第二節 實驗設計優勢 29第三節 調查實驗設計 31一、施作對象 33二、實驗處置設計 34三、問卷設計 37四、問卷施作流程 41五、變數操作化與分析方法 43第肆章 CEDAW第5條的賦權效果 45第一節 實驗處置效果分析 45一、施測背景與資料結構 45二、處置隨機性與處置效果 46第二節 實驗處置對兩性的不同影響 52一、CEDAW第5條對女性的賦權效用 52二、CEDAW第5條對男性的剝奪效果：親善型歧視的展現 55第三節 兩性的性別平權態度差距 57第伍章 結語與討論 65參考文獻 68【附件一】調查實驗問卷：第一實驗組（第5條）【附件二】問卷封面【附件三】問卷發放標準作業程序 zh_TW dc.format.extent 5703030 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106252003 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 調查實驗 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 第5條 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 國際人權規範 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 公約效用 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) CEDAW en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Empowerment en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Article 5 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) International human rights law en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Effectiveness of convention en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Survey experiment en_US dc.title (題名) 國際人權規範與賦權：以實驗法檢證CEDAW第5條在台灣的有效性 zh_TW dc.title (題名) International Human Rights Norms and Empowerment: Testing the Effectiveness of CEDAW`s Article 5 in Taiwan with a Survey Experiment en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王舒芸、王品，2014，〈台灣照顧福利的發展與困境：1990-2012〉，陳瑤華主編，《台灣婦女處境白皮書：2014年》：29-76，台北：女書文化。王舒芸、余漢儀，1997，〈奶爸難為—雙薪家庭之父職角色初探〉，《婦女與兩性學刊》，（8）：115-149。王曉丹、宋靈珊，2018，〈女性主義如何介入法律？〉，黃淑玲與游美惠主編，《性別向度與臺灣社會》：171-191，高雄：巨流。行政院性別平等會，2017，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》中華民國第3三次國家報告專要文件。姜貞吟，2018，〈性別化的習俗與文化〉，黃淑玲與游美惠主編，《性別向度與臺灣社會》：3-23，高雄：巨流。教育部，2010，〈性別平等教育白皮書〉，https://www.gender.edu.tw/web/index.php/m1/m1_01_01?sid=258，查閱時間：2020/04/06。陳隆志，2015，〈性別平權理念在國際法上的發展〉，張文貞與官曉薇主編，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》：9-34，台北：財團法人台灣新世紀文教基金會。陳瑤華，2015，〈CEDAW在台灣的落實〉，張文貞與官曉薇主編，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》：65-96，台北：財團法人台灣新世紀文教基金會。翁燕菁，2017，〈對話與爭議：從歐洲人權法圖像論臺灣施行人權公約之實質意涵〉，《臺大法學論叢》，46：1115-1201。張文貞，2015，〈反歧視與國家義務〉，張文貞與官曉薇主編，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》：97-140，台北：財團法人台灣新世紀文教基金會。婦女新知基金會，2013，〈刑法通姦罪，早該廢了！〉，https://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/73288，查閱時間：2019/07/4。游美惠，2014，〈性別教育向前行〉，陳瑤華主編，《台灣婦女處境白皮書：2014年》：209-240，台北：女書文化。游美惠，2018，〈親密關係〉，黃淑玲與游美惠主編，《性別向度與臺灣社會》：103-124，高雄：巨流。黃紀，2016，〈2012年至2016年『選舉與民主化調查』四年期研究規劃(4/4)：民國一百零五年總統與立法委員選舉調查面訪案〉，http://teds.nccu.edu.tw/data1/super_pages.php?ID=data201，查閱時間：2020/04/06。黃囇莉，2018，〈性別歧視的多重樣貌〉，黃淑玲與游美惠主編，《性別向度與臺灣社會》：125-145，高雄：巨流。湯京平，2015，〈2010 世界價值觀調查－台灣〉，https://srda.sinica.edu.tw/datasearch_detail.php?id=1220，查閱時間：2020/04/06。楊婉瑩、林珮婷，2011，〈當「男女有別」變成「男女不平等」－性別角色認知與政治效能感〉，《女學學誌：婦女與性別研究》，（29）：121-172。廖福特，2015，〈消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約的歷史發展與監督機制〉，張文貞與官曉薇主編，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》：35-64，台北：財團法人台灣新世紀文教基金會。蕭昭君，2015，〈消除文化習俗上的歧視〉，張文貞與官曉薇主編，《消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約》：141-180，台北：財團法人台灣新世紀文教基金會。Anjum, Gulnaz, Zahid Usman and Adam S. Chilton. 2016. “United Nations Endorsement & Support for Human Rights: An Experiment on Women`s Rights in Pakistan” Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers.Chilton, Adam S. 2014. “The Influence of International Human Rights Agreements on Public Opinion: An Experimental Study” Chicago Journal of International Law 15(1):110-37.Chilton, Adam S. 2017. “Experimentally Testing the Effectiveness of Human Rights Treaties” Chicago Journal of International Law 18(1):164-85.Chilton, Adam S. and Dustin H. Tingley. 2013. “Why the Study of International Law Needs Experiments” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 52(1): 173-237.Clark, Ann Marie and Kathryn Sikkink. 2013. “Information Effects and Human Rights Data: Is the Good News about Increased Human Rights Information Bad News for Human Rights Measures?” Human Rights Quarterly 35(3): 539-68.Druckman, James N. 2003. “The Power of Television Images: The First Kennedy- Nixon Debate Revisited” The Journal of Politics 65(2): 559-71.Druckman, James N. and Cindy D. Kam. 2011. “Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base’ ” in Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia . 2011a. “Experimentation in Political Science” in Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia . 2011b. “Experiments: An Introduction to Core Concepts” in Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Eichenhofer, Eberhard. 2015. “Social security as a human right: A European perspective” in Research Handbook on European Social Security Law, eds. Frans Pennings and Gijsbert Vonk. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Fariss, Christopher J. 2014. “Respect for Human Rights Has Improved Over Time: Modeling the Changing Standard of Accountability” American Political Science Review 108(2): 297-318.Fariss, Christopher J. 2017. “The Changing Standard of Accountability and the Positive Relationship between Human Rights Treaty Ratification and Compliance” British Journal of Political Science 48(1): 239-271.Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Edward H. Kaplan. 2004. “The illusion of learning from observational research” in Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics, eds. Ian Shapiro, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Glick, Peter and Susan T. Fiske. 1996. “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(3): 491-512.Goldsmith, Jack L. and Eric A. Posner. 2005. The Limits of International Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Goodman, Ryan and Derek Jinks. 2003. “Measuring the Effects of Human Rights Treaties” European Journal of International Law 14(1): 171-83.Goodman, Ryan and Derek Jinks. 2013. Socializing States: Promoting Human Rights through International Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. 2008. “Sticks and Stones: Naming and Shaming the Human Enforcement Problem” International Organization 62(4): 689-716.Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Brad L. LeVeck, and David G. Victor. 2016. “How Activists Perceive the Utility of International Law” The Journal of Politics 78(1): 167-80.Harrison, Brian F. and Michelson Melissa R. 2017. Listen, We Need to Talk: How to Change Attitudes about LGBT Rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Hathaway, Oona. 2002. “Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?” The Yale Law Journal 111(8): 1935-2042.Helfer, Laurence R. and Anne-Marie Slaughter. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication” The Yale Law Journal 107(2): 273-391.Hill, Daniel W. 2010. “Estimating the Effects of Human Rights Treaties on State Behavior” The Journal of Politics 72(4): 1161-74.Hillebrecht, Courtney. 2014. Domestic Politics and International Human Rights Tribunals: The Problem of Compliance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Holland, Paul W. 1986. “Statistics and Causal Inference.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 945–60.Holtmaat, Rikki. 2011. “Article 5” in The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: A Commentary, eds. Marsha A. Freeman, Christine Chinkin, and Beate Rudolf. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Inglehart, Ronald and Pippa Norris. 2003. Rising Tide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Iacus, Stefano M., Gary King, and Giuseppe Porro. 2019. “A Theory of Statistical Inference for Matching Methods in Causal Research.” Political Analysis 27(1): 46-68.Iversen, Torben and Rosenbluth Frances. 2010. Women, Work, & Politics. CT: Yale University Press.Kelley, Judith G. and Beth A. Simmons. 2015. “Politics by Number: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations” American Journal of Political Science 59(1):1146-61.LaCour, Michael J. and Donald P. Green. 2014. “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality” Science 346(6215): 1366-69.Lebovic, James H. and Erik Voeten. 2009. “The Cost of Shame: International Organizations and Foreign Aid in the Punishing of Human Rights Violations” Journal of Peace Research 46(1): 79-97.Lupu, Yonatan. 2015. “Legislative Veto Players and the Effects of International Human Rights Agreements” American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 578-94.Morton, Rebecca B. and Kenneth C. Williams. 2010. “Ethical Decision Making and Political Science Experiments” in Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Mutz, Diana Carole. 2011. “Treatments for population-based experimental designs” in Population-based survey experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Neumayer, Eric. 2005. “Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(6) : 925-953.Neuman, W. Lawrence. 2011. “Survey Research” in Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 7th ed. New York, NY: Pearson.Nielsen, Richard A. 2013. “Rewarding Human Rights? Selective Aid Sanctions Ag ainst Repressive States” International Studies Quarterly 57:791-803.Pietilä, Hilkka. 2002. Engendering the Global Agenda: The Story of Women and the United Nations. Geneva: UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service.Posner, Eric A. 2014. The Twilight of International Human Rights Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Putnam, Tonya L. and Jacob N. Shapiro. 2017. “International Law and Voter Preferences: The Case of Foreign Human Rights Violations” Human Rights Review 18(3): 243-62.McDermott, Rose. 2011. “Internal and External Validity” in Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Sepper, Elizabeth. 2008. “Confronting the sacred and unchangeable: The obligation to modify cultural patterns under the women`s discrimination treaty” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 30(2): 585-640.Simmons, Beth A. 2009. Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Tomz, Michael R., and Jessica L. P. Weeks. 2013. “Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace” American Political Science Review 107(4): 849-65.Tsutsui, Kiyoteru, Claire Whitlinger, and Alwyn Lim. 2012. “International Human Rights Law and Social Movements: States’ Resistance and Civil Society’s Insistence” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8(1):367-96.Wallace, Geoffrey P. R. 2014. “Martial Law? Military Experience, International Law, and Support for Torture” International Studies Quarterly 58(3): 501-14.WEF. 2018. “The Global Gender Gap Report.” (Accessed on March 9, 2019) zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202000922 en_US
