第五章 反多邊投資協定運動網絡的組成
第二節 檢討與建議
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
權的民族主義。因此，反多邊投資協定運動無法被證明是一種基於世界主義的、
跳脫傳統政治的全球社會運動新型態。但是，Gordon Laxer也解釋對抗經濟全球 化的行動並非代表著在歷史上蒙上惡名的民族主義（經常與帝國主義或種族主義 相連結）之復活，行動者現在追求的民族主義與過去民族主義的差別在於，它是 包容的而非排外的、追求多元化價值與深層民主的、以及促進人與人之間相連結 的民族主義。264
第二節 檢討與建議
一、如何運用資訊科技以幫助國際社會的民主發展
儘管「網路殺了多邊投資協定」（The Internet killed the MAI）這句話太過簡 化反多邊投資協定運動成功的理由，卻也點出了這個反對運動的重要特徵，就是 行動者透過便利與快速的網路連結極有效地進行社會動員，以及向大眾教育這個 議題的重要性。由於這個反對運動的成功，以及越來越多運用網路科技發動的草 根運動，引發學者開始對「網路治理」（Internet governance）、「虛擬公共空間」
（virtual public spheres）及「網路行動主義」（cyberactivism）等議題的高度研究 興趣，由於網路空間具有的民主特質，這些研究都會特別著重在資訊科技與民主 政治發展的關聯性。對於國際關係的研究者而言則要問的是：是否有可能運用資 訊科技為以權力為主宰的傳統國際政治注入民主參與的理念？
資訊科技的便利性使得政府已經無法壟斷資訊的獨佔權，也更難藉資訊的 蒐集與操控以實現其統治目標。資訊是公民的權力來源，跨國倡議運動透過低成 本且即時的網路傳輸科技，得以將資訊迅速地散佈於更為廣大的跨國溝通網絡，
使得為數更為眾多的、遠距離的行動為者之間得以進行密集的交流，以及招募更 多的追隨者。Jessica T. Mathews指出，國家力量的相對降低與非國家角色的相對
264 Gordon Laxer, op.cit. pp. 110-111.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
提高，這種改變的主因就是來自電腦與資訊科技的創新，資訊科技瓦解了傳統的 層級結構，將資訊及因資訊所帶來的權力分散給更多的公民社會團體，促使各地 公民之間可以依不同的議題與目的進行合作。265 因此，非政府組織很容易透過 網路空間使其關心的議題成為全球公共空間討論的議題，進而影響政府間國際會 議的議程。
資訊科技促進了分權化的、靈活移轉的網絡結構之形成，個人或組織可以 在這個網絡中相互聯繫甚至採取集體行動。世界各地的非政府組織與公民行動者 藉由網路匯聚他們的知識、專長與資源，以共同建構一個超越國界的運動。266 這 種以網路為基礎的公民運動，它所花費的政治成本低，它的動員結構更具流動 性。在反多邊投資協定運動之後，更多的反經濟全球化抗議活動在世界各地不斷 發生，都可以看到這種強大的網路動員力量。但是，在看到公民社會團體頻頻運 用資訊科技以追求國際社會的民主化時，更不能忽略到在世界上有更多的地方與 人民並無法使用資訊科技來發聲，這種「資訊落差」現象正在「有者」（“have”）
與「無者」（“have not”）之間創造另一種權力階級。
二、建立民主參與型的國際政治決策過程的可能性
非政府組織的倡議角色已經被視為公民社會中不可或缺的一部分，並表現 出其強烈企圖心，以改變在國際政治舞台不平等的權力關係。這種全球公民行動 主義的興起使得政府間國際組織的決策過程不能再以這是主權國家的場合為 由，將非政府組織拒於門外，OECD 及其他政府間國際組織都在非政府組織反多 邊投資協定運動案例上學到了重要的一課。事實上，非政府組織已經在實質上非 正式地參與了許多公共領域的國際政治決策過程，政府間國際組織有必要建立一 種民主的形態來納入非政府組織的參與，以解決這些政府間國際組織或機構為人 垢病的民主赤字問題，並尋求與非政府組織建立夥伴關係的可能性。
265 Jessica T. Mathews, op.cit., p. 52.
266 Ronald J. Deibert, op.cit., p. 271.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
接受更開放政策 拒絶更開放政策 民族國家
政府間 國際組織 跨國
公司
非政府 組織
G-20、WTO、OECD IMF、世界銀行…
平行會議 街頭抗議 吸引媒體
… 敵對倡議
倡議運動
國際政治決策產出 環境、勞工、貿易、
投資、金融…等 政策領域
圖6-1：在全球經濟治理下的國際政治決策過程
資料來源：作者改編並擴大適用Ramesh Mishra 的「全球行為者與社會政策」圖，
收錄在Ramesh Mishra 著 Globalization and the Welfare State 書中，頁 123。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
附圖6-1 呈現出在全球經濟治理下涉及國際政治決策過程的主要行為者之 間的互動關係。誠如在本論文第三章第一節的討論，非政府組織已經成為全球經 濟治理的行為者，與國家、政府間國家組織和跨國公司在全球性議題上競爭發言 權。圖中粗黑線箭頭顯示出，非政府組織企圖影響國家與政府間國際組織，在國 際政治決策過程中追求自己的政策目標，包括環境、勞工、貿易、投資、金融等 這些會影響到各個國家公民社會生活的政策領域。推行運動已經是非政府組織影 響政治決策常見的方法，非政府組織的平行會議則是嘗試建立自己的公共政策議 程的前瞻性做法，而吸引媒體及街頭抗議也是非政府組織擅於使用的抗爭手法。
至於同為非國家行為者的跨國公司，在是否採取更開放的經濟政策上往往是與非 政府組織處於敵對倡議狀態（非粗黑線部分是另外的研究主題，並不在本論文的 研究範圍內）。
實證研究指出，非政府組織的倡議活動在一定程度上確實影響到國際政治 決策的結果。在非政府組織反對多邊投資協定談判的運動過程中，我們發現到 OECD 從最初堅拒將環境與勞工議題與多邊投資協定作任何形式的連結，到後來 態度改變而願意將公民社會對這兩大議題的關心放進這個協定的附錄，顯示非政 府組織的訴求已經影響到OECD 的決策。許多政府間國際組織已經開始體認到 建立與公民社會交往的議程，是國際組織無法迴避的課題，尤其像是OECD、
WTO、國際貨幣基金與世界銀行等國際貿易金融組織或機構。國家與政府間國 際組織應該根據不同非政府組織的專長與優勢，將他們融入國際政治決策過程。
對這個問題的討論不再是應該與否的問題，而是要如何做的問題。
‧
600 International Organizations Oppose the Multilateral Agreement on Investment
附錄一
(MAI)
Joint NGO Statement
Drafted: 27 October, 1997 / Updated: 11 February, 1998 INTRODUCTION
As a coalition of development, human rights, labour, environment and consumer groups from around the world, with representation in over 70 countries, we consider the draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) to be a damaging agreement which should not proceed in its current form, if at all.
There is an obvious need for multilateral regulation of investments in view of the scale of social and environmental disruption created by the increasing mobility of capital. However, the intention of the MAI is not to regulate investments but to regulate governments. As such, the MAI is unacceptable.
MAI negotiations began in the OECD in the Spring of 1995, more than two years ago, and are claimed to be substantially complete by the OECD. Such negotiations have been conducted without the benefit of participation from non-OECD countries and civil society, including non-governmental
organizations representing the interests of workers, consumers, farmers or organizations concerned with the environment, development and human rights.
As a result, the draft MAI is completely unbalanced. It elevates the rights of investors far above those of governments, local communities, citizens, workers and the environment. The MAI will severely undermine even the meagre progress made towards sustainable development since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
The MAI is not only flawed in the eyes of NGOs, but conflicts with international commitments already made by OECD member countries:
The MAI fails to incorporate any of the several relevant international agreements such as the Rio Declaration; Agenda 21; UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection (1985); the UNCTAD Set of Multilaterally Agreed Principles for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices (1981); and the HABITAT Global Plan of Action.
The MAI fails to comply with OECD commitments to integrate economic, environmental and social policies (1).
The MAI removes responsibilities on transnational enterprises which were previously agreed by the OECD under the OECD Guidelines for Multilateral Enterprises 1976 (2).
The exclusion of developing countries and countries in transition from the negotiations is inconsistent with OECD policy on development partnerships (3).
Problems with the MAI stem both from the broad restrictions it places on national democratic action, and from its failure to include sufficient new systems of international regulation and accountability.
As the MAI stands, it does not deserve to gain democratic approval in any country. All the groups signing this statement will campaign against its adoption unless changes, including those cited below, are incorporated into the body of the MAI.
SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS
‧
As drafted, the MAI does not respect the rights of countries - in particular countries in transition and developing countries - including their need to democratically control investment into their economies.
The level of liberalisation contained in the MAI has already been opposed as inappropriate by many developing countries. However, non-OECD countries are under increasing pressure to join.
There are differing investment and development needs of OECD and non-OECD countries. In particular, the potential for economic diversification and
development of the developing countries - especially the least developed countries - and countries in transition would be severely undermined by the provisions of the MAI. The standstill principle would cause particular problems for countries in transition, many of which have not yet developed adequate business regulation.
The MAI's withdrawal provision would effectively bind nations to one particular economic development model for fifteen years; prevent future governments from revising investment policy to reflect their own assessment of the wisest economic course; and force countries to continue to abide by the agreement even if there is strong evidence that its impact has been destructive.
The MAI contains no binding, enforceable obligations for corporate conduct concerning the environment, labour standards and anti-competitive behaviour.
The MAI gives foreign investors exclusive standing under a legally binding agreement to attack legitimate regulations designed to protect the
environment, safeguard public health, uphold the rights of employees, and promote fair competition.
Further, citizens, indigenous peoples, local governments and NGOs do not have access to the dispute resolution system, and subsequently can neither hold multinational investors accountable to the communities which host them, nor comment in cases where an investor sues a government.
The MAI will be in conflict with many existing and future international, national and sub-national, laws and regulations protecting the environment, natural resources, public health, culture, social welfare and employment laws; will cause many to be repealed; and will deter the adoption of new legislation, or the strengthening of existing ones.
The MAI is explicitly designed to make it easier for investors to move capital, including production facilities, from one country to another; despite evidence that increased capital mobility disproportionately benefits multinational corporations at the expense of most of the world's peoples.
WE CALL ON THE OECD AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS TO:
With regard to substantive concerns:
1) Undertake an independent and comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, and development impact of the MAI with full public
participation. The negotiations should be suspended during this assessment.
2) Require multinational investors to observe binding agreements
incorporating environment, labour, health, safety and human rights standards to ensure that they do not use the MAI to exploit weak regulatory regimes.
Ensure that an enforceable agreement on investor responsibilities takes precedence over any agreement on investor rights.
3) Eliminate the investor state dispute resolution mechanism and put into place
‧
democratic and transparent mechanisms which ensure that civil society, including local and indigenous peoples, gain new powers to hold investors to account.
4) While none of the undersigned NGOs object to the rights of investors to be compensated for expropriation by a nation state, there are adequate principles of national law and jurisprudence to protect investors in circumstances such as these. The current MAI exceeds these well accepted concepts of direct
expropriation, and ventures into areas undermining national sovereignty. We
expropriation, and ventures into areas undermining national sovereignty. We