於國內社會中，豐沛的「人脈力量」，常具有極大的影響力；而此種人脈力量若跨越國界連結，是否也能在國際環境中造成衝擊，影響主權國家？IR跨國關係研究學者Margaret E. Keck與Kathryn Sikkink，以跨國倡議網絡理論（Transnational Advocacy Network theory）解釋這個現象，並補捉到主流IR可能忽略之面向。事實上，相關研究也指出，全球性之跨國網絡已然相當錯綜複雜，各司其職，若以具高度「議題性」色彩之跨國倡議活動為例，其影響主權國家之策略形形色色，然多以「言詞論證」（arguing power ）、「規範施壓」（norm pressure）為主；於是不免使人想問，他們是怎麼辦到的？「跨國人際網絡」的取得與運作真如此容易，不需有特別的經營與策略嗎？其背後是否得助於特定有力（powerful）行為者之協助；是如何與主權國家互動、產生影響的？
法輪功團體（FLG TANs）長期進行跨國之倡議活動，從外觀來看，其具有相當龐大而完整的跨國人脈系統，堅強的信念，靈活的倡議策略，然而以其所「訴求目標」之「結果論」而言，其對中共之倡議活動卻是失敗的；跨國倡議網絡理論將如何對其做出解釋？藉由法輪功個案之研究，探究理論與實際之差距，或許可發現理論所未完善之處，並能對其做出修補。
於是經由法輪功跨國倡議之經驗，或可提供予類似性質的跨國性人權、環保等領域之非政府組織（NGOs）、非國家行為者一些啟示，對於將來的campaign行動，或能有所幫助。

It is widely suggested that, in domestic environment, abundant private social network can make a huge impact in many aspect and vice versa. Then the same concept could also be applicable in international relations, and help mobilize sovereignty states? A rich literature also theorizes about the development of these phenomena among non-state actors that may signal the emergence of a new global civil society. While experts were continue discussing such subject, the transnational relationship scholars Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink unveiled the concept of “transnational advocacy network”(hereafter TANs) being a tightly knit community of transnational members with shared believes and identity named “issue-net work”. Its strategies related to this activity in term of “arguing power” and “norm instrumental pressures”. Then several questions can also be raised following its detail: How come did they make it success while others fail? Besides, if we ignored some factors during this “network connecting” process？Finally, to what extent did they interact with sovereignty states?
In the case of FaLun Gong group, its network structure is very complete and huge, but according to the consequence of its advocacy target ; suggested it fail to its campaign activity, then how would TANs theory help explain such consequence? This research observes the transformed of FLG TANs, and tries to tackle the above-mentioned questions.
Therefore, may it could suggest some empirical experience from the outcome of this research, to those NGOs or non-state actors who devote in environment or human right campaign.

緒言 Ⅰ
謝辭 Ⅱ
目錄 Ⅲ


第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究方式與研究流程 6
第三節 章節安排與研究範圍 11
第二章 文獻回顧與研究架構 14
第一節 跨國倡議網絡理論之推演：網絡之集結 16
第二節 跨國倡議網絡之策略使用：網絡之擴散 22
第三節 跨國層次之互動 ：建構主義螺旋模式 28
第四節 研究架構與研究設計 34
第三章 法輪功事件中的跨國倡議網絡連結 38
第一節 法輪功團體之源起與法輪功\事件概述 39
第二節 法輪功團體之跨國倡議網絡建構 48
第三節 FLG TANs網絡發展模式分析 62

第四章 跨國倡議網絡理論與FLG TANs 之運作 65
第一節 FLG TANs之倡議策略分析 66
第二節 當FLG TANs與中共交手 71
第三節 綜合分析 81

第五章 結論 88
第一節 研究發現 89
第二節 研究心得與建議 91

研究後記 98
附錄壹 華盛頓郵報關於法輪功事件之報導 104
附錄貳 深度訪談資料 107
參考文獻 126

【書籍】

石之瑜，《社會科學方法新論》，五南出版社，台北市，民92。

呂亞力，《政治學方法論》，三民出版社，台北市，民93。

康樂譯，韋伯原著，《宗教社會學》，遠流出版社，台北，民91。

韓培爾，《社會科學方法論：質化與量化Q＆A》，風雲論壇出版，民87。

Andrew Linklater, Beyond Realism and Maxism Critical Theory and International Relations, 1990, The Macmillan press.

Bas Art ed, Non-State Actors in International Relations﹐Ashgate press,England,2001.

Basingstoke Hampshire, The State, Democracy, and globalization, New York, Pal grave Macmillan, 2004.

Claude E. Welch﹐Jr.﹐NGOs and Human Rights: Promise and Performance﹐University of Pennsylvania Press, US.2000﹒

D. Knoke ＆ JH. Kuklinski, “Network analysis: basic concept”, The Coordination of Social Life, London: Sage, 1998.

Michel Foucault, ’Histoire de la sexualité: La volonté de savoire’, Impression Bussière, Paris, 1994.

Malanczuk., Peter, “Akehurt’s modern introduction to international law”, Routledge press﹐Great Britain﹐1997﹒

Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink,“Activity Beyond Borders”, Cambridge Press, 1998.
Thomas Risse (ed) , the Power of Human Rights：International Norms and Domestic Changes, Cambridge press, 1999.

T.Dunne and N.J.Wheller, Human Rights in Global Politics, Cambridge press. 1999.

Tim Dunne and Nicolas J Wheeler, Human right in global politics, New York, Cambridge press, 1999.

William Korey﹐NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Right﹐St﹒Martin，s Press, New York, US, 1998.

【期刊論文】

黃旻華，《評「論國際關係理論中之建構主義」》，問題與研究，第39卷，第11期，民89年11月。

歐陽新宜，《大陸社會動員的理論探討與建構》以法輪功事件為例，中國大陸研究，第42卷，第五期。民88。

蕭元哲、黃維民，《從網絡觀點詮釋台灣非政府組織在全球治理中的角色與準備：以國際衛生政策為例》，義守大學研討會，2006年，頁1-18。

Andrew P﹒Cortell﹔James W﹒Davies﹐Jr﹒﹐Understanding the Domestic Impact of International Norms：A research Agenda﹐International Studied Review﹐Vol﹒2﹐NO﹒1﹒（Spring﹐2000）﹐pp﹒65-87

Alexander Wendt, Anarchy is what State Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, IO, 46(2) (spring), and pp.391-452.

Andreas Hasenclever.Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberger, Integrating of International Regimes, British International Association, Review of International Studies(2000),26, pp.3-33.

Antje Wiener, “Constructivism: the Limits of Bridging Gaps,”FIRD, (2003)6(3), pp.252-275.

Annika Bjorkahl, “Norms in International Relations: Some Conceptual and Methodological Reflections,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 15, Number 1, 2002, pp.9-23.

Barry Buzan, From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School. IO,Vol. 47, No.3 (summer, 1993), pp.327-352.

Berthold Rittberger and Frank Schimmelfennig, Explaining the constitutionalization of the European Union, Journal of European Public Policy 13:8 December 2006:1148-1167.

Christian Reus-Smit, Imagining society: constructivism and the English School, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 4, No. 3, October 2002, pp.487-509.

Clifford Bob, Political Process Theory and Transnational Movements: Dialectics of Protest among Nigeria’s Ogoni Minority, Social Problems,Vol. 49. No.3. (Aug., 2002),pp.395-415.

Duglas Rowley Imig, Resource Mobilization and Survival Tactics Poverty Advocacy Groups, the West Political Quarterly, Vol. 45 No.2, (Jun., 1992), pp.501-520.

Dorothy Q. Thoma, “Holding Governments Accountable by Public Pressure, ”in Ours By right：Woman’s Rights as Human Right, 1993 pp.529-616.

D.Ownby, the Falung Gong in the new world, Nova Religio, Vol.6, No.2 (April 2003):pp.312.

Eric Helleiner (ed.), The Promise and Reality of Transnational Social Movement, International Studies Association, 2001, lackwell Publishers press,USA.

Edward Newman,” Human Security and Constructivism”, International Studies Perspectives (2001) 2, 239-251.

Hss Strategic Comments, China’s battle with FLG, The party’s weaknesses exposed. The International Institute for Strategic .vol.7, issue 2, March 2001.

H. Butterfield and M. Wight (Eds.), “Diplomatic Investigations: Social and Anarchy in International Relations”, (London: George Allen and Unwin), pp.35-60.

Ikenberry, G..John, and Charles Kupchan.1990. Socialization and Hegemonic Power, International Organization 44(3): 283-315.

James Tong, An Organizational Analysis of the Falun Gong: Structure, Communications, Financing, The China Quarterly, 2002, pp637-660.

John H﹒Jackson﹐Sovereignty-Modern：A New Approach to an Outdates Concept﹐The American Journal of International Law﹐Vol﹒97﹐No﹒4（Oct.﹐2003）﹐pp﹒782-802﹒

Jennifer Sterling-Folker﹐Competing Paradigm or Birds of a Feather? Constructivism and Neoliberal Institutionalism Compared ﹐International Studies Quarterly﹐44No1﹐(Mar,2000)﹐pp. 97-119.

J G.Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity, 1998,Introduction, pp.-56.

Joe Bandy, Paradoxes of Transnational Civil Societies under Neoliberalism: The Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras, Social Problems, Vol.51, No. 3.(Aug.,2004),pp. 410-431.

John Gerard Ruggie, Peter Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, Transformations in World Politics: The Intellectual Contributions of Ernst B. Hass, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2005.(8), pp.271-296

Jie Chen, NGO Community in China Expanding Linkage with Transnational Civil Society, Working Paper No.128, December 2005, pp.1-16.

Kathryn Sikkink, “Transnational Politics, International Relations Theory,and Human Rights,” Political Science and Politics, Vol.31,No.3.(Sep,1998), pp. 516-523.

K. S. Cook and J. M. Whitmeyer, “Two Approaches to Social Structure: Exchange Theory and Network Analysis”, Annu. Rev. Social. 1992. 18:pp. 109-127.
4.

Leori Henry; Giles Mohan; Helen Yanacopulos, Network as Transnational Agents of Development, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 5.(2004), pp.839-855.

Nadelmann, Ethan, Global Prohibition Régimes: The Evolution of Norms in Inter-national Society, IO 52 (3), 1990, pp.220-313.

Paul Streeten﹐Nongovernmental Organizations and Development, Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science,Vol.554,The Role of NGOs﹕Charity and Empowerment.(Nov, 1997), pp﹒193-210.

Peter M.Hass, Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,IO,Vol.46,No.1,Knowledgg,Power,and International Policy Coordination.(winter,1992),pp.1-35.

Pasty Rahn. “The Chemistry of a Conflict: The Chinese Government and the Falun Gong Terrorism and Political Violence”, International Quarterly, Vol.14, No.4 (Winter 2002), pp.54

Ramesh Thakur “Human Rights: Amnesty International and the United Nations”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol.31, No2 (May, 1994), pp.143-160.

Rolf Schwarz, The Paradox of Sovereignty, Regime Type and Human Rights Compliance, International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 199-215, Summer 2004.

Raymond T. Sparrowe, “Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2(Apr., 2001), pp. 316-325.

Robert P. Weller, Afterword: On Global Nation-States and Rooted Universalisms, Brill, Leiden, 2003,EJEAS 2.2,pp.322-328.

Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neo-realism and Its Critics, Ch6:“Social forces, state, and world order”, New York, Columbia University press, 1986.p.99.

Robert Hurley (ed.), Michel Foucault, the Ethics of the Concern for Self as a Practice of Freedom,” Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. Penguin books press, 1984, Vol. 1, p.291.

R.Charli Carpenter, Setting the Advocacy agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Non-emergence in TANs, International Studies Quarterly (2007)51, p.103.

Robert Rohr Schneider; Russell J.Dalton,“A Global Network? Transnational Cooperation among Environment Groups”, the Journal of Politics, Vol.64, No.2. (May, 2002),pp.510-533.

Shin, Chueiling, Domestic Impact on Transnational Development of Anti-Yasukuni Advocacy Network, 2002-2007, Conference of Cultural Memory and Social Innovation: The Interlocution between Asia and the World, 20-21 October 2007, Kaoshiung, Taiwan.

Stephen Chan, “A New Triptych for International Relations in the 21st Century: Beyond Waltz and Beyond Lacan’s Antigone, with a note on the Falun Gong of China”, Global Society, 17:2, 187-208.

Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 21 No. 1, April 1998 66-94.

Thomas Risse﹐Let’s Argue!: Communicative Action in World Politics﹐IO, Vol.54, No.1, (winter, 2000), pp1-39.

Ted Hopf ,The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory, International security,vol.23,No.1.(summer,1998),pp.171-200.

Thomas Christiansen, “The social construction of Europe, journal of European Public Policy” 6:4 Special Issue 1999, pp.528-54.

William F Fisher,“Doing Good? The Politics and Ant politics of NGO Practices, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol.26, (1997), pp. 439-464.

William E .Connolly, “Identity and Difference in Global Politics, International/ Intertextual relations”, University of Wisconsin Press, 1987, p.331.

Jacqui True, Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 45, No.1. (Mar., 2001) , pp.27-52.

Yuezbi Zbao, Falung Gong, Identity, and the Struggle over Meaning inside and Outside China ,Falun Gong and the struggle over meaning, China research Quarterly, 2002,Ch13,pp.216-245.

Yoichi Funabashi;“Asia’s Digital Challenge”, Survival, vol.44, no.1, spring 2002, pp.135-144.

Yunfeng Lu,“Entrepreneurial Logics and the Evolution of Falun Gong”, Journal for Scientific Study of Religion (2005) 44 (2), pp.173-185.