Name: 政府如何「合法」地背棄人民？｜Cyanne Loyle｜TEDxPSU (How governments turn against us—without breaking the law | Cyanne Loyle | TEDxPSU)
Uploaded: 2026-03-19T21:35:46.000Z
Duration: 15 min 32 s
Description: 【看影片學英語】數萬部 YouTube 影片，搭配英漢字典即點即查，輕鬆掌握單字發音與用法，長久累積看電影不必再看字幕。

A few years ago, when my husband was my boyfriend, he used to travel a lot for work.

幾年前，我老公還是我男友的時候，他因為工作常出差。

每次他出差，我就會有個儀式。

我會連續追看《法律與秩序》。

I'm just going to pause for a moment so you can all hear that dun dun in your head.

我先暫停一下，讓大家腦中響起那個「登登」聲。

There's something oddly soothing about that sound for a show that's all about crime and violence.

這聲音對一個講述犯罪和暴力的節目來說，有種奇妙的撫慰感。

I think it's soothing because it has such a predictable formula.

我想是因為它有很可預測的公式，所以讓人覺得舒心。

For those of you who aren't familiar with the formula, it goes something like something really horrible.

如果你們不熟悉這個公式，大概是這樣的：發生了很可怕的事。

A murder, an abduction, something really bad.

一樁謀殺案、一次綁架、發生了很糟糕的事。

The detectives show up, they gather the clues, they ask the questions.

偵探們出現，他們收集線索，他們問問題。

And they do this all with a singular purpose.

而且他們這麼做都是為了同一個目標。

To take the horrible thing that's happened and make it right again.

把發生了的可怕事情，重新導回正軌。

Now, the fanfare of the show is mostly focused on the detectives, but

現在，這部劇的焦點大多在偵探身上，但是

I've always had a soft spot for the second half of the formula for the lawyers.

我一直都很喜歡這個公式裡面的第二個部分，也就是律師的部分。

Once the detectives are done gathering all the information, it's the lawyers that take that information and use the law and the rules to fight for what's right.

偵探們收集完所有資訊後，就是律師們接手，他們會運用法律和規則來爭取公義。

For me in the show, it was always kind of the law that was the hero.

對我來說，劇裡面的律師總是扮演著英雄的角色。

Now, I loved living in that world for 42 minutes at a time.

現在，我很喜歡那種一次沉浸在劇裡 42 分鐘的感覺。

But in the real world, we know that law is not always the hero.

但在現實世界裡，我們都知道法律並不總是英雄。

It's been a couple of years since my binge watching days.

距離我瘋狂追劇的日子，已經有幾年了。

I'm now a professor of Political science and International affairs at Penn State.

我現在是賓州州立大學政治學和國際事務的教授。

I hold an appointment with the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, and

我同時也是奧斯陸和平研究所的一員，

I co host the Democracy Works podcast for the McCourtney Institute for Democracy.

我還和 Democracy Works 播客的 McCourtney Institute for Democracy 共同主持節目。

I research and I teach about human rights and the painful, often violent moments in which those rights are violated.

我的研究和教學內容是關於人權，以及那些人權遭受侵犯時，痛苦且常伴隨暴力的時刻。

I still give a little cheer when the lawyers enter the room.

而且律師進場時，我還是會忍不住為他們小小地歡呼一下。

But today I want to talk to you about the cases in which law is not the hero.

但今天，我想跟你們聊聊那些法律不是英雄的案例。

I want to talk to you about something called lawfare, when instead of protecting our rights, laws punish us and take those rights away.

我想跟你們談談一種叫做 lawfare 的東西，也就是法律沒有保護我們的權利，反而懲罰我們，剝奪我們的權利。

Instead, most of us grow up thinking about laws as neutral or impartial.

大部分的我們，從小就認為法律是中立或公正的。

We believe that laws are created to keep us safe and to keep us free.

我們相信法律的設立是為了保護我們的安全，讓我們自由。

rules are only as fair or impartial as the people who put them in place.

規則的好壞，取決於制定規則的人。

If any of you have ever watched a group of 7 year olds on the playground, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

如果你們有看過一群七歲小孩在操場上玩，你們就會懂我的意思。

There's always one kid that wants to make up a rule for everybody else.

總會有一個小孩想幫大家訂規則。

I'm in charge and you can only play if I say you can play, or I'm the queen and we're all going to do exactly what I want, or today we're all going to be hamsters.

「我說了算，你們只能在我同意的情況下玩」，或是「我是女王，大家都要聽我的」，又或是「今天我們都要當倉鼠」。

These rules are random, uneven, even ridiculous.

這些規則都很隨便、不公平，甚至很荒謬。

但它們都有一個很明確的目的。

They benefit the person who's putting the rules in place.

Our laws are just rules that are put in place to benefit the person that's creating them.

我們的法律只是為了制定者獲益而設的規則。

They can be fair and impartial, designed to protect, or uneven and arbitrary, designed to control.

這些規則可以公平公正，用來保護；也可以不均等、任意，用來控制。

And lawfare is when the rule maker puts rules in place that benefit them.

lawfare 就是制定規則的人，訂定對自己有利的規則。

It's when the government designs laws that are meant to take our rights away instead of protecting our rights.

這就像是政府設計的法律，不是用來保護我們的權利，而是要剝奪我們的權利。

Now, when we think about governments taking our rights away, we tend to think about things like torture, assassination, slavery.

現在，當我們想到政府剝奪我們的權利時，我們通常會想到像是酷刑、暗殺、奴隸制這些事。

Lawfare doesn't look like tanks in the streets or a dictator pounding his fist on a balcony.

lawfare 看起來不像街上的坦克，或獨裁者在陽臺上重捶。

Lawfare looks like court decisions, like fines, like administrative burdens.

lawfare 看起來像是法庭判決、罰款，或是行政上的負擔。

Lawfare looks deceptively normal, and that is what makes it so dangerous.

lawfare 看起來很正常，這也正是它如此危險的原因。

Lawfare is happening all around the world today.

lawfare 現在正在世界各地發生。

In democracies, in autocracies, in wealthy nations, and in developing ones.

在民主國家、專制國家、富裕國家和開發中國家。

In Bangladesh, new rules have been put in place that make it almost impossible for civil society organizations that advocate for press freedoms to exist legally.

在孟加拉，新規定讓倡導新聞自由的公民社會組織幾乎無法合法存在。

In Hungary, new laws have been passed that prevent the gathering of groups that advocate for LGBTQ rights.

在匈牙利，新通過的法律禁止倡導 LGBTQ 權利的團體聚集。

And in China, simply posting a meme that's derogatory towards the government can have you punished by under expansive cybersecurity laws.

而在中國，僅僅是發布一個貶低政府的梗圖，就可能讓你觸犯廣泛的網路安全法規而受罰。

In these cases, the laws are not protecting the citizens of those countries.

在這些情況下，法律並沒有保護這些國家的公民。

Now, lawfare is relatively new, but the idea behind it is not at all.

現在，lawfare 算是比較新的概念，但其背後的想法卻一點也不新。

When we think about governments committing human rights violations, we tend to think about dramatic, violent events.

當我們想到政府侵犯人權時，我們通常會想到戲劇性、暴力事件。

We think about things like the Holocaust or the Russian Gulags or the Rwandan genocide.

我們會想到像是猶太人大屠殺、俄羅斯古拉格或盧安達種族滅絕等事情。

Governments have always taken away rights.

政府一直以來都會剝奪人民的權利。

And in each of these events, millions of people lost their lives, but they also lost their rights.

在這些事件中，數百萬人喪失了生命，也失去了他們的權利。

Their rights to protest, to assemble, to vote, to engage independent media, and

他們抗議、集會、投票、接觸獨立媒體的權利，以及

And these were not events that were committed by fringe extremists or criminal groups.

這些事件並非由邊緣極端分子或犯罪集團所為。

These were events that were committed by governments, by institutions, by individuals wearing uniforms and following the rules.

這些事件是由政府、機構、穿著制服並遵守規則的個人所為。

Conservative estimates suggest that governments killed over 200 million of their own citizens in the 20th century.

保守估計，20世紀政府殺害了超過兩億的自家公民。

That is more people than the total deaths of World War I and World War Two combined.

這比第一次世界大戰和第二次世界大戰的總死亡人數加起來還要多。

Following the signing of the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, overt physical violence by governments has been on the decline.

繼1948年簽署《聯合國人權宣言》之後，政府公開的肢體暴力已逐漸減少。

But this decline isn't the whole story, because governments didn't stop abusing rights.

但這份下降趨勢並不是故事的全部，因為政府並沒有停止侵犯人權。

They just got quieter about how they do it.

他們只是在做法上變得比較低調了。

讓我來告訴你這是怎麼發生的。

Following World War II, the world changed dramatically.

第二次世界大戰之後，世界發生了翻天覆地的變化。

We created new institutions like the United Nations.

我們成立了像聯合國這樣的新機構。

We signed new treaties like the Convention Against Torture.

我們簽署了像《禁止酷刑公約》這樣的新條約。

And governments around the world promised that never again would they stand by and watch other governments abuse their citizens at such atrocious levels.

而世界各地的政府都承諾，他們再也不會袖手旁觀，看著其他政府以如此殘暴的程度侵犯自己的公民。

For the first time in human history, governments were paying attention to other governments.

在人類歷史上，政府第一次開始關注其他政府。

Civil society groups had broad global networks.

公民社會團體建立了廣泛的全球網絡。

Journalists could share stories around the world almost instantly.

記者幾乎可以瞬間將新聞傳遍世界。

And citizens had new tools that allowed them to record abuses and to share them.

而公民們也擁有了新的工具，讓他們能夠記錄並分享這些侵害行為。

We were better informed and better protected than ever before.

我們比以往任何時候都更瞭解情況，也受到更好的保護。

And people used that information to vote, to boycott, to divest, and to shame governments into better behavior.

人們利用這些資訊來投票、抵制、撤資，並讓政府因為羞恥而改善行為。

For a moment, it really looked like human rights were going to triumph over government power.

有那麼一刻，人權似乎真的能戰勝政府的權力。

Governments decided that it was too costly to use conventional strategies of violence to violate human rights and maintain their power.

政府認為，使用傳統的暴力策略來侵犯人權並維持權力，代價太高了。

And so, instead of breaking the law, government started to change the law.

是以，政府不再破壞法律，而是開始修改法律。

Instead of using soldiers and guns, governments started using courtrooms and paperwork.

政府不再使用阿兵哥和槍枝，而是開始使用法庭和文件。

Why send soldiers in to break up a protest when you can simply change the law to make that protest illegal?

與其派阿兵哥來鎮壓抗議，為什麼不乾脆修改法律，讓抗議變成非法呢？

Why jail journalists when you can create new rules that ban them from the press room?

與其監禁記者，為什麼不制定新規定，禁止他們進入記者室呢？

And why shut down universities when you can change accreditation rules to control what's being taught?

與其關閉大學，為什麼不修改認證規則來控制教學內容呢？

No bloodshed, no condemnation, and technically, no broken laws.

沒有流血，沒有譴責，而且技術上來說，也沒有違法。

I want to tell you the story of Alexei Navalny.

我想跟大家說說 Alexei Navalny 的故事。

Navalny was a prominent opposition politician in Russia.

Navalny 是俄羅斯一位重要的反對派政治人物。

He was a tireless advocate for democracy and human rights.

他是民主和人權不懈的倡導者。

Navalny exposed the corruption and injustices of Putin's regime.

Navalny 揭露了普丁政權的腐敗和不公。

Navalny directly threatened the Putin government and challenged his hold on power.

Navalny 直接威脅了普丁政府，挑戰了他對權力的掌控。

Now, the Russian government could have had Navalny assassinated, but

現在，俄羅斯政府本來可以暗殺 Navalny，但是

that ran the risk of drawing international condemnation and making Navalny a martyr for the cause of democracy in Russia.

這有引來國際譴責的風險，並讓 Navalny 成為俄羅斯民主事業的烈士。

So instead, the Russian government used lawfare.

所以，俄羅斯政府改用了 lawfare。