臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：東南亞國協的整合與變遷：規範化歷程分析
作者：李佩蓉
作者(外文)：Pei-Jung Li
校院名稱：國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：法律學研究所
指導教授：張文貞
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2022
主題關鍵詞：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；Association of Southeast Asian Nations；regional organization；regional integration；Transnational Legal Process；Transnational Constitutionalism
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
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。
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.
中文文獻
（一）專書
1.阿米塔．阿查亞（著），王正毅、馮懷信（譯）（2004）。《建構安全共同體：東盟與地區秩序》。上海：上海人民出版社。
2.陳隆志（1999）。《當代國際法引論》。臺北：元照。
3.葉俊榮（1999）。《全球環境議題－台灣觀點》。臺北：巨流。
4.葉俊榮（2000）。《珍惜憲法時刻》。臺北：元照。
5.葉俊榮（2003）。《民主轉型與憲法變遷》。臺北：元照。
6.戴維信（Jamie S. Davidson）（著），鄺健銘（譯）（2019）。《印尼模式：國家民主化二十年史（1998-2018）》。臺北：季風帶文化。
（二）專書篇章與期刊論文
1.吳瑟致（2010）。〈邁向開放？抑或走入封閉？東協主義與十加三的發展〉，《亞太研究通訊》，8期，頁33-67。
2.宋興洲、林佩霓（2009）。〈東南亞國協與區域安全〉，《全球政治評論》，25期，頁1-52。
3.巫佩蒂（2021）。〈2021年上半年東協重要會議與展望〉，《東協瞭望》，24期，頁1-8。
4.李佩蓉（2022）。〈《國際捕鯨管制公約》的變遷與停滯－跨國規範化歷程的關鍵因素分析〉，《中研院法學期刊》，30期，頁291-340。
5.李明勳（2022）。〈歐盟印太戰略布局與對東協的意涵〉，《東協瞭望》，25期，頁6-12。
6.李明勳、何宗諭（2021）。〈全球主要國家對緬甸政變的反應與制裁措施〉，《東協瞭望》，24期，頁24-33。
7.李瓊莉（2015）。〈亞太區域經濟構築中的「東協中心性」〉，《遠景基金會季刊》，16卷4期，頁71-114。
8.林若雩（2016）。〈東協共同體內外安全治理之困境〉，《新區域主義的觀點》，5卷1期，頁1-43。
9.孫采薇（2017）。〈印尼民主化與政黨政治發展〉，收於：孫采薇、吳玉山（編），《優勢政黨與民主：亞洲經驗的省思》，頁121-153。臺北：巨流。
10.徐遵慈（2010）。〈東協區域整合對兩岸之影響與機遇：兩岸合作新契機〉，《東協瞭望》，創刊號，頁14-19。
11.張文貞（2012）。〈NGO與跨國憲政主義的發展：以台灣加入國際人權公約的實踐為例〉，《台灣國際法季刊》，9卷3期，頁47-72。
12.郭俊麟（2008）。〈東南亞區域整合經驗－「東協模式」的實踐與檢討〉，《台灣國際研究季刊》，4卷1期，頁99-126。
13.陸建人（2010）。〈中國－東盟自由貿易區：經驗、問題及對兩岸簽訂ECFA的啟示〉，《東協瞭望》，創刊號，頁20-27。
14.游雅雯（2017），〈國民陣線與馬來西亞的政治發展：憲政體制、政黨政治與選舉制度之影響〉，收於：孫采薇、吳玉山（編），《優勢政黨與民主：亞洲經驗的省思》，頁155-176，臺北：巨流。
15.黑快明（2016）。〈東協共同體的安全複雜化邏輯：強權政治與南海問題〉，《台灣東南亞學刊》，10卷3期，頁73-104。
16.楊昊（2010）。〈同舟如何共濟？東協區域災難合作的集體行動邏輯〉，《台灣東南亞學刊》，7卷2期，頁21-62。
17.葉俊廷（2013）。〈東協五國經濟崛起對全球經濟之影響初探〉，《東協瞭望》，7期，頁13-19。
18.廖福特（2011）。〈東南亞國協政府間人權委員會之研究－歷史、組織、職權〉，《台灣國際法季刊》，8卷3期，頁113-178。
19.戴萬平（2006）。〈印尼民主化進程與挑戰〉，《中山人文社會科學期刊》，14卷1期，頁37-63。
（三）研討會論文
1.李佩蓉（2021年10月）。〈疫情時代下區域整合的概念重塑－歐盟與東協的比較分析〉，發表於：《第十三屆發展研究年會「後疫情時代的區域發展轉型與大學社會實踐」學術研討會》。國立臺北教育大學社會與區域發展學系（主辦），臺北。
（四）學位論文
1.李佩蓉（2014）。《程序環境人權在區域組織的建構與發展：歐盟與東協的比較與反思》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文（未出版），臺北。
2.李明勳（2016）。《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》，國立臺灣大學社會科學院政治學系碩士論文（未出版），臺北。
3.陳子珺（2016）。《反核子擴散條約之規範機制：以跨國規範化歷程為分析途徑》，國立臺灣大學科技法律整合研究所碩士論文（未出版），臺北。
4.陳文葳（2015）。《政府間氣候變遷小組的建構、組織與功能演變：以跨國法制歷程觀點分析》，國立臺灣大學科技法律整合研究所碩士論文（未出版），臺北。
5.謝雨修（2018）。《形塑國際刑事法院的權威：以跨國規範化歷程與法院研究為方法》。國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文（未出版），臺北。
（五）官方文件
1.中華人民共和國領海及毗連區法（1992）。
（六）網絡資源
1.台灣東南亞國家協會研究中心。《東協加三》。載於：https://www.aseancenter.org.tw/%E6%9D%B1%E5%8D%94%E5%8A%A0%E4%B8%89。
2.台灣東南亞國家協會研究中心。《東協發展簡介》。載於：https://www.aseancenter.org.tw/%E6%9D%B1%E5%8D%94%E7%99%BC%E5%B1%95%E7%B0%A1%E4%BB%8B。
3.李酉潭（2020）。《21世紀全球民主浪潮的省思》。載於：https://www.sef.org.tw/article-1-129-5229。
4.經建會經濟研究處（2007）。《第12屆東協領袖高峰會議及相關會議之簡析（新聞稿）》。載於：http://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL3JlbGZpbGUvNjIwMC8xODcwNS8wMDAwOTIyLnBkZg%3D%3D&n=YXNlYW5AMTc0MDc0LjQ4NjY4ODU5MzVALnBkZg%3D%3D&icon=..pdf。
外文文獻
（一）專書
1.Aman, Jr., A. C. & Greenhouse, C. J. (2017). Transnational Law: Cases and Problems in an Interconnected World. Carolina Academic Press.
2.Caballero-Anthony, M. (2005). Regional Security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the ASEAN Way. ISEAS Publications.
3.Cataldo, B. F., Kempin, Jr., F. G., Stockton, J. M., & Weber, C. M. (1980). Introduction to Law and the Legal Process (3rd ed.). Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company.
4.Chang, W.-C., Thio, L.-A., Tan, K. YL. & Yeh, J.-r. (2014). Constitutionalism in Asia: Cases and Materials. Hart Publishing.
5.Direktorat Jenderal Kerjasama ASEAN. (2008). ASEAN Selayang Pandang (18th ed.). Departemen Luar Negeri. (in Indonesian)
6.Harding, A. & Leyland, P. (2011). The Constitutional System of Thailand: A Contextual Analysis. Hart Publishing.
7.Hathaway, O. A. & Koh, H. H. (2005). Foundations of International Law and Politics. Foundation Press.
8.Katsumata, H. (2009). ASEAN’s Cooperative Security Enterprise: Norms and Interests in the ASEAN Regional Forum. Palgrave Macmillan.
9.Kuijper, P. J., Mathis, J. H. & Morris-Sharma, N. Y. (2015). From Treaty-Making to Treaty-Breaking: Models for ASEAN External Trade Agreements. Cambridge University Press.
10.Lindseth, P. L. (2010). Power and Legitimacy: Reconciling Europe and the Nation-State. Oxford University Press.
11.Nguitragool, P. (2011). Environmental Cooperation in Southeast Asia: ASEAN’s Regime for Transboundary Haze Pollution. Routledge.
12.Roberts, C. B. (2012). ASEAN Regionalism: Cooperation, Values and Institutionalization. Routledge.
13.Severino, R. C. (2006). Southeast Asia in Search of an ASEAN Community: Insights from the Former ASEAN Secretary-General. ISEAS Publishing.
14.Severino, R. C. (2008). ASEAN. ISEAS Publications.
15.Sidel, M. (2009). The Constitution of Vietnam: A Contextual Analysis. Hart Publishing.
16.Southgate, L. (2019). ASEAN Resistance to Sovereignty Violation: Interests, Balancing and the Role of the Vanguard State. Bristol University Press.
17.Tan, H.-L. (2011). The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights: Institutionalizing Human Rights in Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press.
18.Tan, K. YL. (2005). An Introduction to Singapore’s Constitution. Talisman Publishing.
19.The ASEAN Secretariat. (2003). ASEAN Regional Forum: Documents Series 1994-2002. ASEAN Secretariat.
20.Vago, S. (2009). Law and Society (9th ed.). Pearson Education.
21.Wunderlich, J.-U. (2007). Regionalism, Globalisation and International Order: Europe and Southeast Asia. Ashgate Publishing Limited.
22.Yeh, J.-r. (2016). The Constitution of Taiwan: A Contextual Analysis. Hart Publishing.
（二）專書篇章與期刊論文
1.Abdel-Monem, T. (2012). ASEAN’S Gradual Evolution: Challenges and Opportunities for Integrating Participatory Procedural Reforms for the Environment in an Evolving Rights-Based Framework. UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 29(2), 234-280.
2.Acharya, A. (1999). Southeast Asia’s Democratic Moment. Asian Survey, 39(3), 418-432.
3.Acharya, A. (2003). Democratisation and the Prospects for Participatory Regionalism in Southeast Asia. Third World Quarterly, 24(2), 375-390.
4.Acharya, A. (2006). Constructing Security and Identity in Southeast Asia. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 12(2), 155-163.
5.Acharya, A. (2017). The Myth of ASEAN Centrality? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 39(2), 273-279.
6.Ahamat, H., & Abdul Rahman, N. (2013). Closer Cooperation and Coordination in Competition Regulation in ASEAN and Their Impact on Trade Liberalization. Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law & Policy, 8(2), 543-564.
7.Allen, T. (2014). The Right to Property in Asia. In R. Dixon & T. Ginsburg (Eds.), Comparative Constitutional Law in Asia (pp. 250-276). Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
8.Avbelj, M. (2016). Global Constitutionalism as a Grammar of Global Law? Critical Quarterly for Legislation and Law, 99(3), 217-233.
9.Bagulaya, J. D. (2019). ASEAN as Wayang Kulit: A Critique of the Constitutional, Extra-constitutional, and Practical Fetters of ASEAN. Asian Journal of International Law, 9(2), 275-297.
10.Best, E. (2011). Assessing Regional Governance: An Indicative Framework for Developing Indicators. In P. de Lombaerde, R. G. Flôres Jr., P. L. Iapadre, & M. Schulz (Eds.), The Regional Integration Manual: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods (pp. 1-23). Routledge.
11.Bitas, B. C. (2014). Legal Convergence, Transnational Rule-Making and Regional Integration in ASEAN - From Regionalism to Open Legal Architecture. Lawasia Journal, 2014, 1-24.
12.Bohman, J. (2007). Institutional Reform and Democratic Legitimacy: Deliberative Democracy and Transnational Constitutionalism. Revue européenne des sciences sociales, 2007, 95-110.
13.Bui, N. S. (2016). Contextualizing the Global Constitution-Making Process: The Case of Vietnam. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 64(4), 931-979.
14.Bui, N. S. (2019). Constitutions in Ethnically Plural Societies: Laos and Vietnam. In J. L. Neo & N. S. Bui (Eds.), Pluralist Constitutions in Southeast Asia (pp. 203-223). Hart Publishing.
15.Bünte, M. & Croissant, A. (2011). Introduction. In M. Bünte & A. Croissant (Eds.), The Crisis of Democratic Governance in Southeast Asia (pp. 1-15). Palgrave Macmillan.
16.Caserta, S. (2017). Regional Integration through Law and International Courts – The Interplay between De Jure and De Facto Supranationality in Central America and the Caribbean. Leiden Journal of International Law, 30(3), 579-601.
17.Chalmers, D. (2019). Regional Organizations and the Reintegrating of International Law. European Journal of International Law, 30(1), 163-167.
18.Chander, A. (2005). Globalization and Distrust. Yale Law Journal, 114(6), 1193-1236.
19.Chang, W.-C. & Yeh, J.-r. (2012). Internationalization of Constitutional Law. In M. Rosenfeld & A. Sajó (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (pp. 1165-1184). Oxford University Press.
20.Chang, W.-C. & Yeh, J.-r. (2017). The Impacts of Regional Integration on National Constitutional Laws in Asia. In I. Notoc, P. Pinto de Albuquerque, & K. Wojtyczek (Eds.), New Developments in Constitutional Law: Essays in Honor of András Sajó (pp. 21-40). Eleven International Publishing.
21.Chang, W.-C. (2010). Strategic Judicial Responses in Politically Charged Cases: East Asian Experiences. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8(4), 885-910.
22.Chang, W.-C. (2011). The Convergence of Constitutions and International Human Rights: Taiwan and South Korea in Comparison. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulations, 36(3), 101-132.
23.Chang, W.-C. (2019). Asian Exceptionalism? Reflections on “Judicial Review in the Contemporary World”: Afterword to the Foreword by Doreen Lustig and J.H.H. Weiler. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(1), 31-39.
24.Chang, W.-C. (2019). Back into the Political? Rethinking Judicial, Legal, and Transnational Constitutionalism. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 453-460.
25.Chen, L.-C. (1993). Perspectives from the New Haven School. American Society of International Law Proceedings, 87, 407-411.
26.Cheok, C.-K., & Chen, Y.-C. (2019). Assessing ASEAN’s Relevance: Have the Right Questions Been Asked? Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 36(1), 11-24.
27.Ciorciari, J. D. (2012). Institutionalizing Human Rights in Southeast Asia. Human Rights Quarterly, 34(3), 695-725.
28.Cogburn, D. L. (2017). CRPD Implementation in ASEAN: A Cross-Case Comparative Analysis. In D. L. Cogburn & T. K. Reuter (Eds.), Making Disability Rights Real in Southeast Asia: Implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in ASEAN (pp. 197-220). Lexington Books.
29.Cogburn, D. L. (2017). The "Grand Challenge" of Disability and Development in ASEAN. In D. L. Cogburn & T. K. Reuter (Eds.), Making Disability Rights Real in Southeast Asia: Implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in ASEAN (pp. 3-12). Lexington Books.
30.Davidson, P. J. (2004). The ASEAN Way and the Role of Law in ASEAN Economic Cooperation. Singapore Year Book of International Law, 8, 165-176.
31.Davies, M. (2013). The ASEAN Synthesis: Human Rights, Non-intervention, and the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 14(2), 51-58.
32.Desierto, D. A. (2008). Postcolonial International Law Discourses on Regional Developments in South and Southeast Asia. International Journal of Legal Information, 36(3), 387-431.
33.Desierto, D. A. (2011). ASEAN’s Constitutionalization of International Law: Challenges to Evolution under the New ASEAN Charter. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 49(2), 268-320.
34.Dhont, F. (2016). A Holistic View of the Japanese Occupation of Southeast Asia. Suvannabhumi, 8(1), 77-94.
35.Dibb, P. (2001). Indonesia: The Key to South-East Asia’s Security. International Affairs, 77(4), 829-842.
36.Doyle, N. (2014). The ASEAN Human Rights Declaration and the Implications of Recent Southeast Asian Initiatives in Human Rights Institution-building and Standard-setting. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 63(1), 67–101.
37.Fuller, L. L. (1978). Law and Human Interaction. In H. M. Johnson (Ed.), Social System and Legal Process: Theory, Comparative Perspectives and Special Studies (pp. 59-89). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
38.Ginsburg, T. (2011). Eastphalia and Asian Regionalism. UC Davis Law Review, 44, 859-877.
39.Goodroad, S. L. (1998). The Challenge of Free Speech: Asian Values v. Unfettered Free Speech, an Analysis of Singapore and Malaysia in the New Global Order. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 9(1), 259-318.
40.Harvey, C., Morison, J. & Shaw, J. (2000). Voices, Spaces, and Processes in Constitutionalism. Journal of Law and Society, 27(1), 1-3.
41.Hemmer, C. & Katzenstein, P. J. (2002). Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism. International Organization, 56(3), 576-607.
42.Hirschl, R. & Shachar, A. (2019). Spatial Statism. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 387-438.
43.Hirschl, R. (2014). Comparative Constitutional Law and Religion in Asia. In R. Dixon & T. Ginsburg (Eds.), Comparative Constitutional Law in Asia (pp. 316-337). Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
44.Holmes, P. (2014). The Politics of Law and the Laws of Politics: The Political Paradoxes of Transnational Constitutionalism. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 21(2), 553-583.
45.Huntington, S. P. (1991). Democracy’s Third Wave. Journal of Democracy, 2(2), 12-34.
46.Ishikawa, K. (2021). The ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Economic Integration. Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies, 10(1), 24-41.
47.Jodoin, S., & Mason-Case, S. (2016). What Difference Does CBDR Make? A Socio-Legal Analysis of the Role of Differentiation in the Transnational Legal Process for REDD+. Transnational Environmental Law, 5(2), 255-284.
48.Jones, D. M. (2016). ASEAN’s Imitation Economic Community: The Primacy of Domestic Political Economy. In B. Jetin & M. Mikic (Eds.), ASEAN Economic Community: A Model for Asia-wide Regional Integration (pp. 11-31). Palgrave Macmillan US.
49.Jones, L. (2008). ASEAN’s Albatross: ASEAN’s Burma Policy, from Constructive Engagement to Critical Disengagement. Asian Security, 4(3), 271-293.
50.Jones, L. (2011). Beyond Securitization: Explaining the Scope of Security Policy in Southeast Asia. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 11(3), 403-432.
51.Khoo, N. (2004). Rhetoric vs. Reality: ASEAN’s Clouded Future. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 5(2), 49-56.
52.Kliem, F. (2021). ASEAN and the EU amidst COVID-19: overcoming the self-fulfilling prophecy of realism. Asia Europe Journal, 19(1), 371-389.
53.Koh, H. H. (1996). Transnational Legal Process. Nebraska Law Review, 75(1), 181-207.
54.Koh, H. H. (1998). The 1998 Frankel Lecture: Bringing International Law Home. Houston Law Review, 35, 623-681.
55.Koh, H. H. (2007). Is there a “New” New Haven School of International Law? Yale Journal of International Law, 32, 559-573.
56.Koh, H. H. (2009). Michael Reisman, Dean of the New Haven School of International Law. Yale Journal of International Law, 34, 501-504.
57.Koh, K.-L. (2007). ASEAN Environmental Protection in Natural Resources and Sustainable Development: Convergence versus Divergence. Macquarie Journal of International & Comparative Environmental Law, 4(1), 43-70.
58.Koh, K.-L. (2012). The Discourse of Environmental Security in the ASEAN Context. In B. Jessup & K. Rubenstein (Eds.), Environmental Discourses in Public and International Law (pp. 218-237). Cambridge University Press.
59.Kurus, B. (1993). Agreeing to Disagree: The Political Reality of ASEAN Economic Cooperation. Asian Affairs: An American Review, 20(1), 28-41.
60.Land, M. (2013/14). Reflections on the New Haven School. New York Law School Law Review, 58, 919-928.
61.Landauer, C. (2011). Regionalism, Geography, and the International Legal Imagination. Chicago Journal of International Law, 11(2), 557-595.
62.Law, D. S., & Chang, W.-C. (2011). The Limits of Global Judicial Dialogue. Washington Law Review, 86(3), 523-577.
63.Limsira, P. (2009). Thailand: The ASEAN Charter. Journal of East Asia and International Law, 2, 299-301.
64.Lin, C.-H. (2010). ASEAN Charter: Deeper Regional Integration under International Law? Chinese Journal of International Law, 9(4), 821-837.
65.Linton, S. (2008). ASEAN States, Their Reservations to Human Rights Treaties and the Proposed ASEAN Commission on Women and Children. Human Rights Quarterly, 30(2), 436-493.
66.Loo, G. J. X. (2019). ASEAN and Janus-faced Constitutionalism: The Indonesian Case. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(1), 177-204.
67.Lye, L.-H. (2002). Public Participation in the Environment: A South-East Asian Perspective. In D. Zillman, A. Lucas, & G. Pring (Eds.), Human Rights in Natural Resource Development: Public Participation in the Sustainable Development of Mining and Energy Resources (pp. 651-678). Oxford University Press.
68.McDowell, M. A. (1989). Development and the Environment in ASEAN. Pacific Affairs, 62(3), 307-329.
69.Moorthy, R., & Benny, G. (2012). Is an “ASEAN Community” Achievable? Asian Survey, 52(6), 1043-1066.
70.Mushkat, R. (2016). Loose Regionalism and Global Governance: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Factors. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 17(1), 238-256.
71.Naldi, G. J. (2010). The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights: A ‘Damp Squib’? Sri Lanka Journal of International Law, 22(2), 1-38.
72.Narine, S. (1997). ASEAN and the ARF: The Limits of the “ASEAN Way”. Asian Survey, 37(10), 961-978.
73.Narine, S. (1998). ASEAN and the Management of Regional Security. Pacific Affairs, 71(2), 195-214.
74.Neo, J. L. & Bui, N. S. (2019). Pluralist Constitutions and the Southeast Asian Context. In J. L. Neo & N. S. Bui (Eds.), Pluralist Constitutions in Southeast Asia (pp. 1-23). Hart Publishing.
75.Neuvonen, P. J. (2019). Transforming Membership? Citizenship, Identity and the Problem of Belonging in Regional Integration Organizations. European Journal of International Law, 30(1), 229-255.
76.Oegroseno, A. H. (2013). ASEAN as the Most Feasible Forum to Address the South China Sea Challenges. American Society of International Law Proceedings, 107, 290-293.
77.Olsen, S. H., Teoh, S., & Miyazawa, I. (2015). ASEAN Community and the Sustainable Development Goals: Positioning Sustainability at the Heart of Regional Integration. In Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (Ed.), Greening Integration in Asia (pp. 59-77). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.
78.Onzivu, W. (2006). Globalism, Regionalism, or Both: Health Policy and Regional Economic Integration in Developing Countries, an Evolution of a Legal Regime? Minnesota Journal of International Law, 15(1), 111-187.
79.Park, C.-m. (2011). Associations and Social Networks in Southeast Asia: School of Democracy. In A. Croissant & M. Bünte (Eds.), The Crisis of Democratic Governance in Southeast Asia (pp. 39-56). Palgrave Macmillan.
80.Phan, H. D. (2008). The Evolution towards an ASEAN Human Rights Body, The Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law, 9(1), 1-12.
81.Phan, H. D. (2009). A Blueprint for a Southeast Asian Court of Human Rights. Asia-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, 10(2), 384-433.
82.Phan, H. D. (2013). Procedures for Peace: Building Mechanisms for Dispute Settlement and Conflict Management within ASEAN. UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, 20(1), 47-73.
83.Phan, H. D. (2014). Promoting Compliance: An Assessment of ASEAN Instruments Since the ASEAN Charter. Syracuse Journal of International Law & Commerce, 41(2), 379–447.
84.Ramraj, V. V. (2014). Constitutions and Emergency Regimes in Asia. In R. Dixon & T. Ginsburg (Eds.), Comparative Constitutional Law in Asia (pp. 200-224). Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
85.Ratana, T. (2019). Pluralist Constitution in Cambodia. In J. L. Neo & N. S. Bui (Eds.), Pluralist Constitutions in Southeast Asia (pp. 169-202). Hart Publishing.
86.Reisman, W. M. (1984). International Incidents: Introduction to a Genre in the Study of International Law. Yale Journal of International Law, 10(1), 1-20.
87.Reuter, T. K. (2017). CRPD Implementation in ASEAN: Implications for Human Rights. In D. L. Cogburn & T. K. Reuter (Eds.), Making Disability Rights Real in Southeast Asia: Implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in ASEAN (pp. 221-258). Lexington Books.
88.Sadat, L. N. (2010). The Nuremberg Paradox. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 58(1), 151-204.
89.Sarfaty, G. A. (2005). The World Bank and the Internalization of Indigenous Rights Norms. Yale Law Journal, 114(7), 1791-1818.
90.Saunders, C. (2014). Judicial Engagement. In R. Dixon & T. Ginsburg (Eds.), Comparative Constitutional Law in Asia (pp. 80-101). Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
91.Schreuer, C. (1995). Regionalism v. Universalism. European Journal of International Law, 6(3), 477-499.
92.Shaffer, G. & Ginsburg, T. (2012). The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship. The American Journal of International Law, 106(1), 1-46.
93.Shaffer, G. (2012). Transnational Legal Process and State Change. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 229-264.
94.Shin, D. C. & Cho, Y. (2011). Contours and Barriers to Democratization in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Analysis of How Southeast Asians View Democracy. In A. Croissant & M. Bünte (Eds.), The Crisis of Democratic Governance in Southeast Asia (pp. 16-38). Palgrave Macmillan.
95.Stone, A., Chowdhury, R., & Clark, M. (2014). The Comparative Constitutional Law of Freedom of Expression in Asia. In R. Dixon & T. Ginsburg (Eds.), Comparative Constitutional Law in Asia (pp. 227-249). Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
96.Tan, A. K.-J. (2004). Environmental Laws and Institutions in Southeast Asia: A Review of Recent Developments. Singapore Year Book of International Law, 8, 177-192.
97.Tang S.-M. (2017). Is ASEAN Due for a Makeover? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 39(2), 239-244.
98.Tiwari, S. (1994). Legal Implications of the ASEAN Free Trade Area. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 1994, 218-233.
99.Wahyuningrum, Y. (2021). A Decade of Institutionalizing Human Rights in ASEAN: Progress and Challenges. Journal of Human Rights, 20(2), 158-175.
100.Wanandi, J. (1995). ASEAN’s Domestic Political Developments and Their Impact on Foreign Policy. The Pacific Review, 8(3), 440-458.
101.Wenham, C. (2018). Regionalizing Health Security: Thailand’s Leadership Ambitions in Mainland Southeast Asian Disease Control. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 40(1), 126-151.
102.Wijayabahu, K. (2016). Imposed Obedience versus Expressed Obedience: Rethinking on Transnational Legal Process. IAFOR Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(2), 5-14.
103.Wirajuda, N. H. (2015). ASEAN’s Community-building Process. Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development, 2015(2), 126-135.
104.Yamakage, S. (2012). ASEAN and Asia-Pacific Security. In G. J. Ikenberry, Y. Yamamoto, & K. Haba (Eds.), Regional Integration and Institutionalization: Comparing Asia and Europe (pp. 113-125). Shoukadoh.
105.Yeh, J.-r. & Chang, W.-C. (2008). The Emergence of Transnational Constitutionalism: Its Features, Challenges and Solutions. Penn State International Law Review, 27(1), 89-124.
106.Yeh, J.-r. & Chang, W.-C. (2011). The Emergence of East Asian Constitutionalism: Features in Comparison. American Journal of Comparative Law, 59(3), 805-840.
107.Yeh, J.-r. & Chang, W.-C. (2015). Conclusion: Challenges and Prospects for Asian Courts. In J.-r. Yeh & W.-C. Chang (Eds.), Asian Courts in Context (pp. 566-581). Cambridge University Press.
108.Yeh, J.-r. & Chang, W.-C. (2015). Introduction: Asian Courts in Context: Tradition, Transition and Globalization. In J.-r. Yeh & W.-C. Chang (Eds.), Asian Courts in Context (pp. 1-74). Cambridge University Press.
109.Yeh, J.-r. (2015). Marching towards Civic Constitutionalism with Sunflowers. Hong Kong Law Journal, 45(1), 315-330.
110.Yukawa, T. (2018). European Integration through the Eyes of ASEAN: Rethinking Eurocentrism in Comparative Regionalism. International Area Studies Review, 21(4), 323-329.
（三）官方文件與判決
1.Agreement Among the Government of Brunei Darussalam, The Republic of Indonesia, Malaysia, The Republic of the Philippines, The Republic of Singapore and the Kingdom of Thailand for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (1987).
2.Agreement on ASEAN Preferential Trading Arrangements (1977).
3.ASEAN 2025: Forging Ahead Together (2015).
4.ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (2002).
5.ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (2009).
6.ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint (2009).
7.ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (1995).
8.ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (2012).
9.ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism (2004).
10.ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (2009).
11.ASEAN Vision 2020 (1997).
12.Bangkok Declaration on the ASEAN Environment (1984).
13.Brunei Darussalam’s Constitution of 1959 with Amendments through 2006 (1959).
14.Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2007).
15.Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1965).
16.Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II) (2003).
17.Declaration of the Special ASEAN Summit on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (2020).
18.Framework Agreement on the ASEAN Investment Area (1998).
19.General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) (Dec. 14, 1962).
20.Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) Strategic Framework and IAI Work Plan 2 (2009-2015).
21.Jakarta Resolution on Sustainable Development (1987).
22.Manila Declaration (1987).
23.Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025 (2016).
24.Minors Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 33 I.L.M. 173 (1994).
25.Protocol to the ASEAN Charter on Dispute Settlement Mechanisms (2010).
26.Roadmap for an ASEAN Community 2009-2015 (2009).
27.Rules of Procedure and Criteria for Engagement for Entities Associated with ASEAN (2016).
28.Singapore Resolution on Environment and Development (1992).
29.Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, Indonesia v Malaysia, Judgment, Merits, [2002] ICJ Rep 625, ICGJ 54 (ICJ 2002).
30.Term of Reference of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (2009).
31.The ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) (1967).
32.The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (1987).
33.The Declaration of ASEAN Concord (1976).
34.Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (1976).
35.Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (1945). (In Indonesian).
36.Vientiane Action Programme (2004).
（四）網絡資源
1.Angeles, M. M., & Yusingco, M. (2017). ASEAN Charter: Deepening constitutionalism in Southeast Asia. Asian Studies Association of Australia. https://asaa.asn.au/asean-charter-deepening-constitutionalism-southeast-asia/
2.ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity. (n.d.). About ACB. https://www.aseanbiodiversity.org/about-acb/
3.ASEAN Secretariat. (2017). ASEAN Cooperation on Environment: At A Glance. The ASEAN Secretariat. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/50.-December-2017-ASEAN-Cooperation-on-Environment-At-A-Glance.pdf
4.ASEAN. (2021). ASEAN Chairman’s Statement on The Developments in the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. https://asean.org/asean-chairmans-statement-on-the-developments-in-the-republic-of-the-union-of-myanmar-2/
5.ASEAN. (2021). Chairman’s Statement on the ASEAN Leaders’ Meeting, 24 April 2021 and Five-Point Consensus. https://asean.org/chairmans-statement-on-the-asean-leaders-meeting-24-april-2021-and-five-point-consensus-2/
6.ASEAN. (n.d.). Overview – Competition. https://asean.org/our-communities/economic-community/competitive-innovative-and-inclusive-economic-region/competition/
7.ASEAN. (n.d.). Overview – Environment. https://asean.org/our-communities/asean-socio-cultural-community/environment/
8.ASEAN. (n.d.). Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) – Overview. https://asean.org/our-communities/asean-political-security-community/outward-looking-community/treaty-of-amity-and-cooperation-in-southeast-asia-tac/
9.Asian Development Bank. (n.d.). The Great Mekong Subregion. https://www.adb.org/what-we-do/themes/regional-cooperation/overview/gms
10.Association of Municipalities Ontario. (2022). Municipal Role in Enviroment Protection. https://www.amo.on.ca/advocacy/energy-climate-change/municipal-role-environment-protection
11.Baviera, A. (n.d.) Preventing War, Building a Rules-based Order: Challenges Facing the ASEAN Political-Security Community. https://www.eria.org/ASEAN_at_50_4A.0_Baviera_final.pdf
12.Behr, T., & Jokela, J. (2011). Regionalism & Global Governance: The Emerging Agenda. Notre Europe. https://institutdelors.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/regionalism_globalgovernance_t.behr-j.jokela_ne_july2011_01-3.pdf
13.Berger, B. H. (2019). ASEAN Connectivity and China-Japan Infrastructure Export Competition Challenges facing ASEAN Integration. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. https://asiasociety.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/Chapter%2014%20ASEAN%20Connectivity%20and%20China%E2%80%93Japan%20Infrastructure%20Export%20Competition.pdf
14.Cardoso, J. da C. (2021). Is Timor-Leste Ready to Join ASEAN? The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2021/08/is-timor-leste-ready-to-join-asean/
15.Chalk, P. (2015). ASEAN Ascending: Achieving “Centrality” in the Emerging Asian Order. Australian Strategic Policy Institute. https://ad-aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/import/ASEAN_ascending.pdf?VersionId=VNasyUWpiT4FJqgeLCHbzt8VGJJiSUGo
16.Chandra, A. C., & Astriana, F. (2015). Environmental Protection in the Post-2015 ASEAN Economic Community. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. https://www.boell.de/en/2015/10/28/umweltschutz-der-asean-wirtschaftsgemeinschaft-nach-2015
17.Chin, J. (2021). Democracy has always been fragile in Southeast Asia. Now, it may be sliding backwards. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/democracy-has-always-been-fragile-in-southeast-asia-now-it-may-be-sliding-backwards-157510
18.Constitutionnet. (n.d.) Constitutional history of Myanmar. https://constitutionnet.org/country/myanmar
19.Constitutionnet. (n.d.) Constitutional history of Vietnam. https://constitutionnet.org/country/vietnam
20.Cook, M. (2018). ASEAN-Australia Relations: The Suitable Status Quo. Lowy Institute for International Policy. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/asean-australia-relations-suitable-status-quo
21.Croissant, A. (2018). Democratization, National Identity, and Foreign Policy in Southeast Asia. The Asan Forum. https://theasanforum.org/democratization-national-identity-and-foreign-policy-in-southeast-asia/
22.Directorate-General for Environment. (2020). ASEAN and EU hold 2nd High-Level Dialogue on Environment and Climate Change. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/news/asean-and-eu-hold-2nd-high-level-dialogue-environment-and-climate-change-2020-11-30_en
23.Dorman, B., & Olsen, T. J. (2019). The ASEAN Way Out? Toward Cooperative Environmental Governance in Southeast Asia. https://www.e-ir.info/pdf/79678
24.Ebbighausen, R. (2017). The ASEAN way: Where is it leading? Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/the-asean-way-where-is-it-leading/a-39998187
25.European Union. (n.d.). Types of Legislation. https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/types-legislation_en
26.Human Rights in ASEAN. (n.d.). ASEAN Committee on Migrant Workers. https://humanrightsinasean.info/mechanism/asean-committee-on-migrant-workers/
27.Karim, M. F. (2020). Why Indonesia’s human rights advocacy at the United Nations is often inconsistent and half-hearted. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/why-indonesias-human-rights-advocacy-at-the-united-nations-is-often-inconsistent-and-half-hearted-143005
28.Kofi Annan Foundation. (2017). Democracy in Southeast Asia: Achievements, Challenges and Prospects. https://www.kofiannanfoundation.org/app/uploads/2018/04/Democracy-in-Southeast-Asia.pdf
29.Kurlantzick, J. (2012). ASEAN’s Future and Asian Integration. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Inc. http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/IIGG_WorkingPaper10_Kurlantzick.pdf
30.Kwek, I. (2020). ASEAN: Perceptions of Power and Security. The Interpreter. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/asean-perceptions-power-and-security
31.Lorch, J., & Sombatpoonsiri, J. (2020). Southeast Asia Between Autocratization and Democratic Resurgence - Coronavirus as a Catalyst for Global Civil Society. Carnegie Europe. https://carnegieeurope.eu/2020/12/07/southeast-asia-between-autocratization-and-democratic-resurgence-pub-83139
32.Maude, R. (2020). COVID-19, Government and Security in Southeast Asia. Asia Society Policy Institute. https://southeastasiacovid.asiasociety.org/covid-19-government-and-security-in-southeast-asia/
33.Ministry of Environment of Japan. (n.d.). ASEAN-Japan Dialogue on Environmental Cooperation. International Environmental Cooperation toward Sustainable Development. https://www.env.go.jp/earth/coop/coop/english/dialogue/asean_j.html
34.Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (2009). Tokyo Declaration of the First Meeting between the Heads of the Governments of Japan and the Mekong region countries. https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/mekong/summit0911/declaration.html
35.Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. (n.d.). Japan-Mekong Cooperation. https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/mekong/cooperation.html
36.Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia. (2019). Human Rights Institution in ASEAN and OIC. https://kemlu.go.id/portal/en/read/104/halaman_list_lainnya/human-rights-institutions-in-asean-and-oic
37.Pepinsky, T. (2017). Democracy isn’t receding in Southeast Asia, authoritarianism is enduring. East Asia Forum. https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/11/04/democracy-isnt-receding-in-southeast-asia-authoritarianism-is-enduring/
38.Seah, S., Martinus, M., Qian, A. S., & Qiu, J. (2020). Southeast Asia Climate Outlook: 2020 Survey Report. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Southeast-Asia-Climate-Outlook-2020-Survey-Report.pdf
39.Simandjuntak, D. (2018). The State of Democracy in Southeast Asia. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. https://th.boell.org/en/2018/10/19/state-democracy-southeast-asia
40.Speech of H.E. Ong Keng Yong Secretary-General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations at the Gala Dinner to Commemorate the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN-New Zealand Dialogue Relations Wellington (2005). https://www.proquest.com/reports/speech-h-e-ong-keng-yong-secretary- general/docview/192397684/se-2?accountid=14229
41.The World Bank. (n.d.). ASEM Trust Fund Home. http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01039/WEB/0__PAGEP.HTM
42.United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner. (n.d.). Enhancing Cooperation between United Nations and Regional Human Rights Mechanisms. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/NHRI/Pages/RHRM.aspx
43.United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner. (n.d.). Status of Ratification Interactive Dashboard. https://indicators.ohchr.org/
44.United Nations Treaty Collection (n.d.). Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&lang=en
45.United Nations Treaty Collection (n.d.). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-4&src=IND
46.United Nations Treaty Collection (n.d.). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&clang=_en
47.Vu, K. (2020). ASEAN Economic Prospects amid Emerging Turbulence: Development Challenges and Implications for Reform. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/FP_20200710_asean_economic_prospects_vu.pdf
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1335（臺灣：1322，外國：13） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1972506 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67781370
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上