本文旨在探討卡特政府的人權外交政策，以中共、尼加拉瓜兩個案為例說明卡特政府人權外交政策的運用並據以評估其實施成效。第二章說明卡特政府人權外交政策的形成背景，以羅斯諾的外交政策五因素分析得知，人權外交政策的形成因素眾多，包括冷戰聯盟的瓦解、民意、國會的人權立法及卡特個人對人權的看法等。第三章以中共、尼加拉瓜為例說明卡特政府人權外交政策的實施。章內分兩節，分別論述中共、尼國的人權問題及卡特政府對兩國的人權政策並探討影響人權政策的因素，分析何種原因造成卡特政府對中共的人權問題避而不談卻對尼國的人權問題採取取消軍經援助的政策。第四章承接第三章，根據兩個案評估卡特政府人權外交政策的實施成效。由於卡特政府對人權的看法與他國有異，加上執行政策的工具運用不當、行政部門內的意見衝突及以國家利益來衡量所造成的雙重標準，使得卡特政府的人權外交政策未能達到原先的目標。第五章結論，從卡特政府的經驗使我們了解推行人權外交政策的困難所在，雖然短期未見成效，但長期觀之，漸有進展。對人權的關懷是美國的立國精神之一，人權因素仍會影響美國的外交政策。

本研究目的在探討國民中學學生對基本人權及校園人權的認知程度，瞭解現況外，並分析不同背景變項的學生對基本人權及校園人權認知的差異性，及基本人權與校園人權認知的相關性。 本研究採文獻分析及調查法，針對桃園縣國民中學二、三年級學生進行問卷調查，採分層隨機抽樣方式，抽取十八所學校，總計取得有效樣本1109份，進行實證研究。調查所得資料以描述性統計、t檢定及單因子變異數分析、皮爾遜積差相關等統計方法，進行資料分析處理。 經由資料統計分析，本研究主要發現如下: 一、國中學生校園人權與基本人權認知程度已達中上水準。 二、國中學生在基本人權方面最認同的三項議題: 1.每個人的權利和尊嚴都應受到尊重。 2.人人都享有被公平對待的權利。 3.不管你在那一個國家都應該受到尊重。 三、國中學生在校園人權方面最認同的三項議題: 1.當學生權益受損時，學校應有開放暢通之申訴管道。 2.學校不應該以任何形式語言及肢體暴力對待學生。 3.學校應提供乾淨衛生之飲水。 四、背景變項不同學生基本人權與校園人權認知之差異性: 1.學生性別不同，有顯著差異，女生認知程度高於男生。 2.學生年級不同，無顯著差異。 3.學校所在區域不同，有顯著差異，基本人權認知程度以「城市地區」表現最佳，校園人權認知程度以「一般鄉鎮地區」表現最佳。 4.學校班級數不同，有顯著差異，認知程度以「60班以上」表現最佳。 5.導師管教方式不同，有顯著差異，認知程度以導師管教方式「民主式」表現最佳。 6.學生學期成績不同，有顯著差異，認知程度以「甲等」者表現最佳。 7.家庭社經地位不同，有顯著差異，基本人權認知以「高社經地位」表現最佳；校園人權認知以「中社經地位」表現最佳。 五、學生基本人權認知與校園人權認知呈正相關。 最後根據研究發現及結論提出各項建議，供主管教育行政機關、國中學校行政人員、國中教師及未來研究之參考。 關鍵字：基本人權、校園人權、人權教育 / The present study aims to explore basic human rights awareness and on-campus human right awareness of junior high school students in Taiwan and, in addition to have a general picture of the current awareness conditions, also to analyze the difference in human rights awareness and on-campus human right awareness between the student groups with different background variables as well as the correlations between basic human rights and on-campus human rights. The study adapts literature review and survey. The study conducts questionnaire survey targeting students in grades 2 and 3 of junior high schools in Taoyuan County through layered random sampling of specimens from 18 schools, as a result 1,109 valid samples are collected and subject to empirical methods. Next the study further analyzes and processed the data obtained from survey with various statistic methods including descriptive statistics, t-test, one way ANOVA, and Pearson’s Correlation. The study comes to the findings as follows through the said data statistic analyses: 1. Junior high school students demonstrate above average level in both basic human rights awareness and on-campus human right awareness. 2. The top three issues in basic human rights commonly identified by junior high school students: (1) Every individual deserves respect in human rights and dignity, (2) Every individual is entitled the right to be treated in a fair a square manner, (3) Whichever country in the world you stay you as a an individual always deserve the equal respect. 3. The top three issues in on-campus human rights commonly identified by junior high school students: (1) Every school is to make available an open channel for filing complaints for student suffering from damage in human rights, (2) Every school is not to mistreat students neither in any form of language nor in nonverbal manners, (3) Every school is to supply sufficient clean and well-sanitized drinking water to students. 4. The difference in human rights awareness and on-campus human right awareness between the student groups with different background variables: (1) Student gender demonstrates obvious difference – the female students demonstrate higher awareness, (2) student grade demonstrate insignificant difference, (3) Region of school location demonstrates obvious difference; namely a school located in “urban region” demonstrates apparently higher basic human rights awareness, a school located in “ordinary township region” demonstrates apparently higher on-campus human rights, (4) Schools with different class number demonstrate obvious difference in the awareness and among all schools those with 60 plus classes demonstrate the highest level of awareness, (5) Schools with different ways of disciplines from the class advisors demonstrate obvious difference, those schools with “democratic approach” from the class advisors demonstrate the highest level of the awareness, (6) Student’s semester academic achievements tell obvious difference, those students with “A+” grade demonstrate the highest level of the awareness, and (7) Student’s home socio-economic status tells obvious difference – students from “higher socio-economic status” demonstrate far higher awareness of basic human rights while students from “average socio-economic status” demonstrate far higher awareness of on-campus human rights. 5. The study results prove that Students’ basic human rights awareness is proportional to on-campus human rights. At last the study presents several suggestions to the research findings and conclusions in order to serve as reference for the pertinent educational administrative agencies, junior high school administrative staff, junior high school teachers and any researcher interested in further study of the same or related theme. Keywords: basic human rights, on-campus human rights, human rights education

人權的發展，唯有「教育」得以徹底改善，在過程中不免經歷震盪的混亂時期，然延緩一天的實行勢必延緩一天的收穫。學校主政者常以尊重學生的意見，作為實施計畫的參考，但實際決定者仍是學校。學生的學校生活應以學生為中心，並非以執行者的方便性而導向。以學生權益做為依歸，方得學生之敬重。罔顧學生的權益及期許，校園人權便無法在校園中獲得實踐。 營造一個符合人權教育發展的校園環境，透過整體「言教」、「身教」、「境教」、「制教」等潛在課程的影響，讓學生在生活中實際體驗人性尊嚴的價值感，是推動人權教育理念的首要之務。而人權教育的實踐重點在於「學生想要什麼？」、「教師應該做什麼？」、「學校應該準備什麼？」等三方面，若只是形式化的活動，便無法彰顯人權教育的意義與本質。 著重於「升學」與「管理」，欠缺了「感動」與「創造感動」的過程。另類與傳統於本質上並沒有衝突。遺憾的是我們欠缺自覺能力，以及未經證實的一意複製，傷害了自己，也傷害了孩子。看看現在的孩子以及回想我們的成長過程，在我們年少的歲月裡是否也一樣創造力被壓抑以及缺乏獨立思考與批判的能力？人權教育的實施不只是教育美學概念的開展，期許的更是國家的民主、教育的民主；國家未來的希望在教育，教育的希望在民主。 本研究結果除分數的歧視、教師角色、教師的管理、漠視學生平等受教權、不適任教師損害學生學習權、行政單位之外，尚包含：尊重、意見的表達、申訴管道以及教師的評鑑制度……等等。「體罰需有夠愛、公平、排斥、尊嚴、思考等要素」，而不得出現於校園。以現今而言，威權與民主化的歷程是值得世人肯定，也許某些人仍舊開著民主的倒車，自由與平等的衝突便是主要因素，更是為人權奮鬥者努力的方向。 在研究的歷程中，馮朝霖教授為我開啟人權的一扇窗，光線與風都進來後，研究者開始注意周遭與人權相關的議題。校園人權的實踐無法深耕於學校，威權的思想與觀念仍是校園的一顆巨石而無法撼動。為何一定要用肢體暴力的體罰方式才能讓學生臣服呢？是否教育已經進入死胡同般而無法自拔？是否又是認知與期待的落差呢？ 「期許對現況的改變，應該即時；慢了，便是延緩現況的改變；距離理想將更遙遠。」希望本研究得以提供相關單位作為臺灣高職學校校園人權實踐之參考。

教育部積極推動九年一貫課程中「人權教育」的工作，也在民國90年成立「人權教育委員會」，讓人權教育概念落實於校園，為人權文化做好扎根的工作。本研究針對桃園地區國民中學教師對校園學生人權的實踐現況進行研究，以健康權、自由權、隱私權、平等權、表意權、受教權等六個指標進行探討，得到以下結論： 一、健康權：九成以上的受訪教師難以做到準時上下課以避免佔用學生的休息時間，超過五成的教師會利用早自習或午休的時間來進行補救教學或考試。對於身心理發育尚未成熟的國中學生來說，教師在用心良苦之餘，學生適當的休息時間是不應被犧牲的。 二、自由權：學生管教問題上，九成以上的受訪教師自評能在給予學生言語責罰的同時，並不會傷害學生的個人尊嚴。但僅有百分之四的教師能完全避免以「體罰」的方式來處罰學生。 三、隱私權：教師在未獲得學生本人之同意下，公佈學生的成績或排名在國中校園仍是一個普遍的現象，而這種刺激學生學習的方式卻也侵犯了學生的隱私權。 四、平等權：九成以上的受訪教師自評能秉持「大公無私」的原則來進行班級經營與管理工作，不會因學生的背景或成績優劣給予差別待遇。 五、表意權：教師在「班級各項政策的制定」及「幹部選舉活動」仍站在主導的地位，無法完全讓學生以民主方式進行。對於「學生反應與評鑑教師的機會」的實踐程度很低，雖然國中生思考尚未成熟可能讓評鑑有過於情緒化的狀況，但學生對教師的直接評鑑仍是未來的趨勢。 六、受教權：對於班會或社團活動、藝能科目、非主科科目，遭借用來進行考試或加強特定學科之教學的情況十分普遍。而教師仍難以避免採用教室外罰站或留置訓導處等可能侵害學生受教權的方式處罰學生。 七、國民中學教師在校園學生人權的實踐上，在「學校所在地」、「擔任導師年資」、「教育程度」、「專業教育背景」等變項中均無顯著差異。在「隱私權」、「平等權」的實踐上均不受本研究背景變項的影響。 八、健康權：(1)學校規模為「25~36班」的表現較「37班以上」及「13~24班」的學校佳。(2)教師年齡為「20~29歲」的表現較「50~59歲」的教師為佳；「30~39歲」的教師實踐表現較「40~49歲」、「50~59歲」的教師為佳。 九、自由權：(1)私立學校教師的表現較公立學校教師為佳。 (2)學校規模為「13~24班」的表現較「25~36班」為佳。 (3)任教年資「21年以上」的教師表現較任教年資「5年以下」、「6~10年」、「11~15年」的為佳。此外，除了任教年資「6~10年」組之外，學生自由權的實踐表現隨著任教年資呈現反比的趨勢。 (4)教授科目為「語文(英文)」及「自然與生活科技」的教師實踐表現較「綜合活動」的教師較差。 (5)教師年齡為「20~29歲」及「30~39歲」的教師實踐表現較「50~59歲」的教師為佳。 十、表意權：(1)私立學校教師的實踐表現較公立學校教師為佳。 (2)女性教師的實踐表現較男性教師為佳。 十一、受教權：教授科目為「語文(國文)」、「語文(英文)」、「數學」、「自然與生活科技」、「社會」的教師實踐表現較「健康與體育」教師為差。 十二、教師過去經歷中，曾在「自由權」及「隱私權」受到侵害的教師，在自己未來的教學活動中會盡量避免去侵害學生所同樣應享的權利，也就是秉持「己所不欲；勿施於人」的原則。 關鍵字：人權、兒童人權、學生人權 / Ministry of Education actively promotes the task of “Human Rights Education” in the Grade 1-9 Curriculum. In the meantime ,in Minguo 90, the Ministry of Education set up the Human Rights Education Committee to carry out Human Rights Education concept at school and let the human rights culture take root. Our research aims at the practice condition of students’ human rights of the junior high school teachers in Taoyuan area. The research targets at six indexes, rights to health, rights to freedom, rights to privacy, rights to equality, rights to free expression and rights to education, and the paper comes out with the following conclusions: 1. Rights to Health： More than 90 percent of the interviewee teachers have problem to start class and finish class on time to avoid taking up students’ rest time. Furthermore, more than 50 percent of the teachers would use the morning study hall or noon rest time to carry out remedial teaching or tests. For junior high school students whose mental and physical development is still immature, while teachers have given much thought to their study, appropriate time for students to rest should not be sacrificed. 2. Rights to Freedom： With regard to student discipline problems, more than 90 percent of the interviewee teachers assert that as they give students language punishment, they would not harm students’ personal pride. However, only 4 percent of teachers can completely avert corporal punishment while correcting students. 3. Rights to Privacy： It is still a common phenomenon for teachers to give out students’ grade or ranks without their permission in junior high school. Nonetheless, the manner to stimulate students to learn has at the same time violates students’ privacy. 4. Rights to Quality： More than 90 percent of interviewee teachers claimed that they can handle the tasks of class management and administration under the “perfectly fair and impartial” principle, and they will not discriminate students by their backgrounds or results of study. 5. Rights to Free Expression： Teachers still have dominant power over “the formation of various class policies” and “election of cadre members.” As a result, students cannot carry out the activities via democratic ways. The degree of the practice of “students’ feedback and opportunity of teacher evaluation” is rather low. Although junior high school students’ thinking may not yet be mature and thus their evaluation might become too emotional, students’ direct evaluation of teachers is still the trend of future. 6. Rights to Education： It is generally common to use class meeting, social club activity time, class time of art and minor subjects to give students exams or intensified teaching of specific subjects. Nevertheless, it is still difficult for teachers to avoid taking measures of standing outside the classroom or keeping them in Office of Student Affairs which might violate students’ rights to education while correcting students. 7. As far as the junior high school teachers’ practice of students’ rights on campus is concerned, there is no obvious difference between the variables of “school location”, “seniority of the home room teacher”, “educational background” and “professional educational background.” Besides, the practice of Rights to Privacy and Rights to Equality would not be affected by the background variable of this research. 8. Rights to Health： (1)The performance of schools with a scale of 25 to 36 classes is better than the school with a scale of more than 37 classes and 13 to 24 classes. (2) The performance of teachers aged between 20 to 29 is better than the teachers aged between 50 to 59 ,while the performance of teachers aged between 40 to 49 and 50 to 59 is better than teacher aged between 30 to 39. 9. Rights to Freedom： (1) The performance of private school teachers is better than public schools. (2) The performance of the school with a scale of 13-24 classes is better than the school with a scale of 25 to 36 classes. (3) Teacher who has more than 21 years’ teaching seniority performs better than those who has less than five years’ seniority, or those who has between 6 to 10 or 11 to15 years’ seniority. In addition, except the group of 6 to 10 years’ teaching seniority teachers, the practice performance of students’ rights to freedom has an inverse proportion to the teaching seniority. (4) The performance of practice of teachers whose teaching subjects are Language (English) and Nature Science and Life Technology is inferior to teachers who teach Integrated Activity. (5) The performance of practice of teachers aged between 20 to 29 and 30 to 39 is better than teachers between 50 to 59. 10. Rights to Free Expression： (1) The practice performance of the private school teachers is better than public school teachers. (2) The practice performance of female teachers is better than male teachers. 11. Rights to Education： The performance of the teachers teaching “Langauge (Chinese)” ,”Language (English)”, “Math”, ”Natural Science and Life Technology” and “Society” is inferior to teachers teaching “Health Education.” 12. Teachers whose “Rights to freedom” and “Rights to privacy” have been violated will avoid trespassing students’ same rights in their future teaching activity, which is also the principle of “Don't do unto others what you don't want others do unto you.” Keywords：Human Rights , Children’s Human Rights, Students’ Human Rights

人權觀念是人類文化的重要價值，歷經長遠的演化過程，如今成為維護世界和平、人類尊嚴的普世價值。然而，人權觀念必須藉著學習、傳承而普遍推廣，是以「教育」即扮演著關鍵性的角色。時至今日，人權教育的推動被認為是建構一個尊重人類價值的人性化社會，所必須且迫切需要的實踐途徑，因此人權教育現今已納入正式課程的一環，並積極的全面推動於校園中。然而，在小學階段的傳統體制內學校，仍受到管理主義的影響，使得人權教育的推動受到侷限，而校園裡普遍存在許多不利人權教育發展的因素，這些均將導致人權教育的推動不易。 倘若傳統體制內學校，累積了那麼多阻礙人權教育發展的因素，那我們是否可在其他不同型態的教育場域裡，找到不同的參照？基於上述種種緣由，本研究以質性研究的方式，將研究的主軸鎖定在：從關心人權教育的議題出發，試圖從另類的教育場域裡，尋找不同的教育參照。 種籽學苑，一所迷你又異於體制內教育型態的另類學校，他們對我們的價值，就是提供一個另類的想像、營造一個新的故事。而新的故事提供一個不同的思考基準點，這樣的差異，刺激我們從盲目的生活中覺醒。從種籽的經驗裡，我們可看出一個校園人權文化的建立，其實是需要具備一些理念上的堅持與確認，及校園整體制度及條件上的配合，而這些條件均可提供我們作為突破實踐人權教育困境的出路：一、相信人的價值；二、反省生命的勇氣並積極加以改變；三、教師間同儕團體的互動與支持；四、小班小校提供人權文化實踐的條件。如果我們相信教育能為人帶來希望、轉變與夢想，那麼另類的對照就像一面明鏡，讓長久以來封閉的教育型態與系統，得到改變與轉化的機會。

無

中國大陸在六四後的二十多年，因為經濟發展，整體國力也漸漸上升，由於想要在國際社會上扮演更積極的角色，邁入大國之列。另一方面，在傳統人權的觀點下，中共包括六四屠殺事件以及各種迫害人權的作為，都使得中共被認為是一個不夠文明的獨裁政權，也影響到中共的國際地位。中共希望在美國主導的國際典則系統之外，建構另外一個以中共為中心，包括人權論述在內的系統。「後冷戰時代中共與美雙邊關係中的人權因素」這本論文，則是以中共和美國在人權上的你來我往為出發點，來探討中共在六四以後提出的人權理論和確實人權狀況。由於中共在人權的宣傳上不僅是對國際上，也對國內，所以在兩方面探討其影響。本文的結論主要有：一、中共的人權論述是一個比較鬆散的，主要是對於西方政府以及非政府組織的人權批評的回應。二、中共的人權論述並非根植於其社會狀況，而主要在於維持共黨統治的需要。

本研究旨在探討國民中學裡校園人權的現況。希望藉由本研究探析個案學校 的師生於校園內的真實人權感受。本研究以問卷調查為前導性的探究，以參與觀察及深入訪談為主要研究方法。本研究以台北縣一所國民中學為研究場域，依「各級學校人權評估項目之建立與研究」中的評估項目及其問卷，請個案學校中的非新進教師與八年級及九年級學生填寫，以了解此校師生校園人權的真實感受。此問卷中所得的結果，使深入訪談需要關注的面向更為聚焦。依照問卷上教師與學生對校園人權感受較一致與差異性較大的題目，研擬訪談大綱，展開訪談。依照作為研究場域的國民中學實踐校園人權之有利因素與不利因素，歸結出以下的研究結論： 一、整體而言，所研究的國中師生對該校校園人權實踐現況具普遍的認同 二、借課情形，相較於以往，已大有改善 三、學生的身體自主權已漸獲得重視 四、校園無障礙設施的經費與校園中其他經費的拉鋸 五、校園安全與學生隱私的折衝 六、公佈學生成績與排名，一向如此且習以為常 七、升學主義仍是校園人權的發展一大阻力 八、體罰在校園中仍依稀可見，但教師大部分已不體罰 九、對不適任教師的處理，須建立專業的輔導與淘汰機制，以確保學生的學習權 十、國中學生的自治活動仍未發展完全，須更著力於公民能力的培養 十一、看見學生的價值，建立學生的自信 十二、援入校內與校外各方資源，教學的路不孤單 十三、加強師資培育機構開設人權與法治教育相關課程 十四、常態編班使學生正常發展，但考驗教師班級經營能力與教學能力 十五、校園人權的概念已於校園中萌芽，有待全面落實 最後，並依據研究結論，教育行政單位、學校、教師及後續研究提出建議，以供參考。 關鍵字：校園人權、友善校園、人權實踐 / The purpose of this study is to explore the human rights understanding and behavior of the students and teachers among the junior high school in Taipei County. This study explore the teachres’ and students’ real awareness and feelings on campus. With the questionnaire survey to be the guiding investigation, the research methods of this study are participant observation and in-depth interview. Accoriing to the data of “evaluation’s category and item for campus human rights milieu”, to frame the questions of the interview. The study comes to the conclusions as follows on the baisis of the findings: 1. The praxis of on-campus human rights in the said school is general identified. 2. The circumstance of lending courses has been improved than ever before. 3. The right of body autonomy has been respected gradually. 4. The budget of barrier free facilities and other facilities hold up each other. 5. The safety of campus and students’ privacy strike a balance. 6. To make students’ scores public and ranking is as usual. 7. Diplomaism constrains the development of on-campus human rights. 8. Physical Punishment has been reduced. 9. It should establish complete system to eliminate and guidance incompetent teachers in order to ensure student’s learning rights. 10. The affairs of student government does not develop well. 11. Teachers should realize students’ values and establish students’ confidence. 12. Teachers join other teachers and paretns’ supports. 13. The institute of teacher education should offer more the curriculum of human rights and law-related education. 14. normalized class grouping makes students develop normalized and test teachers’ abilities of classroom management and teaching. 15. The concept of on-campus human rights is at the initial stage that needs to be implemented completely on campus. Finally, some recommendations for education administration units, teachers and further study are suggested. It is hoping that the results of this paper can be a good reference for school to praxis human on campus. Keywords:on-campus human rights, friendly campus, the praxis of human rights

人權在國際政治中所扮演的角色不僅涉及到國家與其人民之內部問題，更影響一國的外交政策。本文藉由四種國關理論的探討：現實主義、理想主義、新自由制度主義、馬克思主義，對於人權的觀點進行分析與研究。次就東西方文化間的差異，探究國際人權建制的形成對於國際政治的發展及國家固有的主權觀念造成何種衝擊與挑戰。相較於西方強調天賦人權，以儒家思想為主流之中國傳統文化標榜群體之和諧，此種將個人與群體視為一體之想法，使中國強調社會整體利益。中共強調其提倡人權之目標在於促進社會進步，而非僅係單純在於保護個人之權利。本論文針對毛澤東、鄧小平、江澤民以及胡錦濤四個時期之中共領導人，就其對人權議題之主張進行進一步之分析和比較；其中，國際環境的結構性因素，係中共推動數次國內人權政策調整暨修正的重要變數，而美國則是主導或介入其中的樞扭性關鍵。另一方面，雖說自推動改革開放以來，中共已擴大和國際社會之接觸，積極地加入國際組織與人權建制，然而，若仔細探究北京政府背後真正的動機，仍與「國家利益」脫離不了關係。基於主權至上的思考，中共反對假借保護人權之名而行干涉內政之實的人道干預行動，更對由美國或西方國家發起、主導的干涉行為抱持負面之評價；而西方世界，特別是美國，則認為中共強調應由「文化相對主義」出發來發展人權的論述，實為中共政權為其人權惡名尋求辯解之藉口。 / Human rights in international politics play the role not only in the sector of the relationship between states and their people, but in the division of foreign policy deeply. This thesis through four kinds of theory (Realism, Idealism, Neoliberal institutionalism and Marxism) in international relations analyze and research the issue of human rights. Secondly, depending on the gap between the culture of occident and orient, the author explored impacts and challenges which originate from the developments of international politics and states’ inherent knowing of sovereignty by international regimes. Comparing with western states which accentuate natural human rights, the traditional culture that has been influenced on the Confucian in China emphasize the according thinking. This thinking considered that individual and universal are the one without difference, under this way, China propose that the goal of human rights is to promote social progress, not to only protect the rights of individual. The thesis focus on Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, all of them are the CCP’s leaders in the different period, researching and comparing their policies of human rights; through this way, the author found that international system, the structural factor, is the momentous variable in pushing China promotes and modifies its human rights policy, and America, the very point, take the predominance in the sector. On another hand, after the Reform and Open door policy performing, China although has engaged in international society more than before, joined together with international organizations and regimes of human rights; however, in light of the motive behind the Beijing carefully, we can know the China’s behavior still can’t leave without national interests. On the basis of national sovereignty, China against any hypocritical pretext like humanitarian intervention or human rights protecting, because these have possibility for western states, especially the America, to adopt the action for intervening its domestic affairs. But in the view of western states, the United States plays the leading role, think that “cultural relativism” and the conception of human rights from it are the sophism for PRC escape from the notoriety in human rights protection and practice.

由M. McLuhan「地球村」與聯合國「世界鄰居」概念所洞見出世界的新景象，可讓人覺察到各國日益綿密之聯結。此種快速發展、且彼此牽動的網路系統，在國際間思想和價值傳遞上的影響更是迅速於過往，當我們將台灣目前的教育人權置於此一脈絡下檢視，更可發覺在國際人權法典的普世價值下，是必然要面對與追尋的道路－本研究計畫企圖以教育人權的哲學和法性格論證為分析基礎，演繹國際人權法典的教育概念與保障，對照台灣的教育法保障，進而反思全球普遍性價值與台灣在地價值的轉化。本研究論文擬以六個章節進行，先就國內現況、教育法學需求與普世化內涵疑義作為研究問題意識，從教育人權的脈絡與理論基礎開始理解，詮釋國際人權法典中的教育涵義，進而比較台灣教育人權法制中的現況與轉化，以後兩者為分析的兩大軸線，綜合論證各層面之癥結問題。嘗試就教育哲學與教育法學的跨領域對話方式建構出人權教育實踐的整全面向。 / From the concepts of global village by M. McLuhan and our global neighborhood by UN, the connections of ideas and values between nations are closer than ever. Under the influence of globalize tendency, this research tries to take philosophy and jurisprudence of the right to education as basis, analyzes the educational concepts from the international bill of human rights and comprises to the education law in Taiwan. This research, contains six chapters, begins from the critics to universal human rights and present education law in Taiwan, following by the historical development and theories of the right to education, and then analyze to international bill of human rights which connect to education. Lastly, with the intercources between the educational philosophy and law, this study provides full ranges of stretigies in emplementing human right education.