The Nippon Foundation Fellowships for Asian Public Intellectuals


Mariko Akuzawa 阿久澤 麻理子

Mariko Akuzawa

Mariko Akuzawa
阿久澤 麻理子

大阪市立大学創造都市研究科 教授

財団法人アジア太平洋人権情報センター 理事

公益財団法人世界人権問題研究センター
嘱託研究員(第五部・人権教育)

他の画像を見る

プロジェクトのテーマ

草の根コミュニティに「普遍的人権」の概念を伝え、人権に対するリテラシー を構築する、国内人権機関の取り組みとその課題—フィリピン、マレーシアを例として—


プロジェクト概要

私の数年来の問題関心は、ポスト冷戦期において各国で急速に進んだ人権の「制度化」(institutionalization)が、その後どのように社会に定着し、草の根の人びとに 受容され、エンパワメントと社会の変革に寄与しているのか(あるいは、していないのか)を検証することにある。 人権の制度化には、国際人権諸条約の批准と国内法の整備、人権の詳細な規定を もつ憲法の制定、国内人権機関の設置、公教育等における人権教育の実施などがあるが、APIフェローシップ の期間中は、フィリピンおよびマレーシアの「国内人権機関」の人権教育機能に注目し、同機関が、草の根に人 権概念を浸透させるために果たしている役割と、その課題について調査した。 なお、特に国内人権機関に注目したのは、これが政府から独立した第三者機関と して、政府の人権(人権教育も含む)施策をモニターする立場にある機関だからである。「制度化」された人権教 育は、必ずしも国家によって十分に実施されるわけではない。予算や人材不足、効率的なビューロクラシーの欠 如も障害となる。また、人権教育は制度化されると、市民の権利意識を高め、「モノ申す」市民を作るような教 育よりも、価値や道徳に偏重したものへと「読み替え」られやすい。つまり、国内人権機関のような、制度化さ れた人権教育をモニターし、国際人権基準に照らし合わせて評価したり、必要な勧告などを行うような機関は大 変重要である。そこで、本調査では国内人権機関が直接実施している人権教育のプログラムと同時に、同機関 が、公教育などに対して行っている働きかけや協力などについても調査することとした。


研修国

フィリピン、マレーシア

Development of Human Rights Studies in the Region

Since the end of Cold War, many governments in Asia-Pacific Region started institutionalizing human rights. Ratification of international conventions, revision (or adoption) of new constitutions containing detailed provisions for human rights, establishment of independent human rights commissions are parts of such efforts. However, reforms of laws and systems are only the surface of the change. While many researches in early 1990’s merely and simply welcome such changes as progresses of human rights, it is a high time for us to review their real implementation and evaluate how the changes brought differences in lives of the people.

In this light, establishment of human rights studies program in universities in the region has significant meanings, as they provide research opportunities. Office of Human Rights Studies and Social Development of Mahidol University in Thailand offers International Masters of Arts in Human Rights and Ph.D in Human Rights and Peace Studies, which are only graduate degrees in human rights in South East Asia. I had an opportunity to teach for a few days at Mahidol early this year, and it was one of the most inspiring experiences as it gave me many ideas how human rights studies (both research and education) should be constructed.

First, the program at Mahidol is interdisciplinary, as well as a combination of practical and theoretical studies. Human rights should not be the theoretical concern of jurists, as is sometimes misunderstood. In order to review and evaluate the real implementation, social science methodologies are crucial, including those of sociology, anthropology, psychology, education, political science, and other related fields. Every MA students in the program is required to conduct individual research to complete thesis, and the list of past thesis clearly shows the need of interdisciplinary approach to respond to their concerns that range from the local case studies to national, and international policy analysis, focusing on child, women, minority rights, HIV/AIDS, human rights education, culture and tradition (ex. dishonor killing and women’s rights), official development assistance, election, social order policies, treatment of detainees and death penalty, etc.

Second, for the interdisciplinary nature of the program, it attracts students with different professions that approach human rights at different levels and places of the society. The occupational background of 12 MA students of the batch varied from NGOs, international organizations, law farm, national human rights institutions, government offices, and so on. Such a colorful background greatly contributes to the discussion, as inputs from different standpoints mutually shared will enhance universality of human rights. Needless to say, the network of different professions and institutions will contribute to future implementation of human rights in the region.

Third, as it is an international program, students with different national backgrounds are admitted. Majority of the batch were from South East or South Asia, including Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Nepal, India, Indonesia and Philippines. As such, even a short discussion during the class can map out the rough regional picture on a certain issue. For example, at the instance that one asked a question, "does your country have any legislation which supports human rights education?", everyone started to make input about the situation in their own countries. Indeed, differences are the strength for the program.

Fourth, the international program for human rights studies and API fellowship appear to have many commonalities. Both programs promote mutual learning and discussions to challenge common problems in the region. At the same time, both programs prioritize research for finding facts, leaps and gaps. Research is fundamental for evaluating implementation of human rights, however, researchers quite often meet interventions because there are still strong "myths" against human rights among the people such as , "human rights are radical ideology that provokes anti-government attitudes". Support from universities with academic freedom is then very important for conducting research.

Finally, API can provide further possibilities to young researchers to expand their experiences. Through the discussion with students at Mahidol, I found out that most students conduct research in their own countries with their own language, although the output(thesis) has to be in English. Familiarities of the places, peoples, and languages enables them to conduct in-depth study, however, one of the practical reasons that limits research sites is the lack of fund for going abroad. Fellowship program such as API could help them greatly to take further steps to gain comparative and regional research experiences, and development of such regional programs will surely contribute to the future establishment of regional human rights protection mechanism.


自己紹介

 障害者の権利条約の批准などによって、各地の自治体では障害者の権利に関わる条例ができるなど、日本国内の人権施策にはとりわけローカルなレベルでの 進展があるものの、一方ではヘイトスピーチの問題が深刻化し、人権政策を「教育啓発」のレベルだけにとどめていてよいのか、と考えせられています。  ご存じのとおり、日本では2000年に人権教育啓発推進法が立法されましたが(議員立法)、十分な予算もなく、実効性に乏しいと言われていますし、人権救済法につい てはいまだ立法のめどがたっていない中で、私自身も「人権教育」だけを研究してきた自分自身のありように、悩むこの頃です。

 最近は、海外より、日本国内での調査が多くなってきましたが、この3年間は「通信制高校」の調査(後期中等教育が、生きづらさと再チャレンジにどう向き合ってい るのか)、また、スイスのティモシー・ハーディング先生とご一緒に特別法失効後10数年を経た各地の部落の「アイデンティティ」について調査をしてまいりました。

 APIでの経験は、再び自分の立ち位置を、アジアの中から見直す、という視点をいつも意識させてくれるような気がしています。