我國國土安全應變體系之研究－以緊急應變為中心

Taiwan’s Homeland Security Response System :A Study of Emergency Response

黃正芳(Cheng-Fang Huang)

指導教授 ： 陳顯武

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/博士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.10888

摘要

行政院國土安全辦公室於2012年1月1日正式成為院本部ㄧ級單位，專責處理我國反恐及國土安全業務。因此，本文特別提出建構國土安全應變體系之重要性，以能建立全救災之國土安全網。從我國所面臨威脅及重大災害，以及國際威脅與案例之發展情勢得知，世界各國積極建構預防整備與應變機制。我國相繼成立各種不同屬性之應變體系或機制，包括：一、「災害防救應變體系」：內政部，災害防救法及相關法令；二、「核子事故應變體系」：行政院原子能委員會，核子事故緊急應變法及相關法令；三、「生物病原應變體系」：行政院衛生署，傳染病防治法及相關法令；四、「毒化災應變體系」：行政院環保署，毒化物管理法及相關法令；五、「全民防衛動員應變體系」：國防部，依據全民防衛動員準備法及相關法令；六、「反恐應變機制」：行政院國土安全辦公室，依據反恐怖行動法草案、我國反恐怖行動組織架構及運作機制及相關法令等；七、「資通安全應變機制」：行政院研考會（併入國家發展委員會）及行政院科技顧問組（科技會報辦公室），依據資通訊安全相關法令等。以上統稱國土安全相關應變體系，本文試著協調與整備國土安全應變體系，建構全救災之「國土安全網」。
觀察美國、英國、日本、新加坡等國之發展情形，諸多相近之處。美國有「國土安全部」及「全救災」思維與精神；英國實踐與經驗而言，於2004年完成「民防應變法」立法，內閣下設「民防應變秘書處」，即係英國應變規劃與災難危機管理之核心機制；日本內閣之「防災擔當大臣」、「危機管理總監」及「防災對策本部」、「危機管理室」；新加坡總理公署內設「國家安全協調秘書處，兩個執行機構即國家安全協調中心和聯合反恐中心，以協助國家安全協調秘書處開展工作。因此，依據國際上經驗，我國必須深切檢討，建議設立「行政院層級」、具有「協調整合能力」之專責單位應為當務之急，並建議依據國土安全之發展趨勢，提出協調與整合國土安全各應變體系之道，建立全面性之「國土安全網」，實有其必要性及急迫性。
最後，回顧我國緊急應變相關體系之「芻備」至「整備（合）」，邁向全救災之國土安全應變體系與關鍵基礎設施防護機制。本文以加強協調與整備（合）各應變體系及運作機制為主軸，首先試著以「緊急應變」最有關之七大應變體系為主：災防、核災、生物病原、毒化物應變體系、全民防衛動員等應變體系及反恐、資通安全應變機制，並提出檢討與建議；其次，為建立國家整體應變機制－單一應變機制之實踐，以整備國土安全應變體系及運作機制為目標；並整備（合）各應變體系之應變計畫。同時，本文藉由各國複合性災害之應變經驗，提出第一變革－建立國土安全組織法制化之「專責單位」，包括「政策建議」行政院「專責政務委員」、中央部會至縣市政府層級之「專責單位」及；第二展望：「整備（合）」國家整體應變機制－單一應變架構及指揮官：並建立「全救災」之「國土安全網」及「國家關鍵基礎設施防護網」；第三挑戰－研擬緊急應變基本法或國土安全基本法草案之芻議。

關鍵字

國家安全 ； 國土防衛 ； 國土安全 ； 緊急應變 ； 恐怖主義 ； 反恐應變機制 ； 災防應變體系 ； 全動應變體系 ； 生物病原－疫災應變體系 ； 核災應變體系 ； 毒化災應變體系 ； 資通訊安全應變機制 ； 國土安全網 ； 全救災思維 ； 國土安全應變體系 ； 國家整體應變機制 ； 單一應變架構。

並列摘要

The Office of Homeland Security (OHS) in the Executive Yuan has become the first-level unit of the Yuan’s headquarter since 1st of January in 2012, and takes charge of anti-terrorism and homeland security affairs of R.O.C. Therefore, this article specifically recommends the great significance of building homeland security response system so as to set up the security net by all-hazards approach. In terms of national threats and major disasters, and developmental trends from cases of National terrorism and Threat, almost every democratic country now positively constructs prevention and emergency response mechanisms. Taiwan had successively built several types of response systems, including: 1. Disaster prevention system: organized by Ministry of the Interior (MOI), based on Disaster Prevention and Rescue Act and its related orders; 2. Nuclear emergency response system: organized by Atomic Energy Council (AEC), based on Nuclear Emergency Response Act with related orders; 3.Biological pathogens response system: Department of Health (DOH), which is based on Communicable Disease Prevention Act with related orders; 4.Toxic chemical substances response system: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), based on Toxic Chemical Substances Management Act with related orders; 5. National Defense Mobilization System: Ministry of National Defense (MND), based on National Defense Mobilization Preparation Act with related orders; 6.Anti-Terrorism System: mainly OHS, based not only on Draft of Anti-Terrorism Action Act which is connected with ‘Anti-terrorism organizational architecture and operational mechanism’, but also its related orders; and 7.Information and Communication Security System: both by Research, Development and Evaluation Commission (RDEC), and by Science and Technology Advisory Group in the Executive Yuan, with their related laws and orders. All these response systems are named after homeland security-related response system, and this article tries to integrate for this response system by all-hazards approach.
By observing the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Singapore’s development, many things of institutional design are found in common. The U.S. has the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with its spirit of ‘all hazards approach.’ While the British practices and experiences shows, they passed the law of Civil Defense Response Act in 2004, the cabinet office now also sets up a branch called Civil Defense Response Secretariat as core mechanism of response planning and disaster crisis management; Japan’s cabinet has its minister of disaster prevention, director of crisis management, and department of disaster prevention, office of crisis management; while Singapore cabinet office has the National Security Coordination Secretariat (NSCS) with two executive agencies, namely National Security Co-ordination Centre (NSCC) and Joint Counter-Terrorism Centre (JCTC) to assist NSCS’s task. Thus, according to international experiences, Taiwan must improve and set up a dedicated unit capable of coordination and integration within the Executive Yuan’s authority level. I suggest the ways to coordinate and integrate all the homeland security response systems by developmental trends of homeland security. It is highly necessary and urgent to build this homeland security net by all-hazards approach.
In the end, Overview of The Preparedness and Integration of Taiwan’s Emergency Response System and Building Homeland Security Response System and Critical Infrastructure Security Protection Mechanism by All Hazards Approach; the main idea of this article is to strengthen collaboration and preparedness of all the systems or response mechanisms. First, I discuss Seven ‘emergency response’ key systems such as disaster prevention, nuclear accidents, anti-terrorism, and biological pathogens, and toxic chemical substances, etc. so as to evaluate or propose relevant suggestions. Secondly, in order to practice on national overall response mechanism---the practice of single response mechanism, we shall focus on the goal of preparing for emergency response system, building homeland security operation mechanisms; and integrating all the response plans from varied emergency systems. Meanwhile, this article coordinating and integrating all the homeland security response systems. In addition to learning from all countries’ response experiences of complex disasters, this research proposes: First, central government should reform and build a homeland security ‘dedicated unit’ through organizational legislation; Second, Outlook of Preparedness and Integration of national whole response mechanism with single response framework and commander by build this homeland security net and national Critical Infrastructure Security Protection net by all-hazards approach; Third, challenges of developing Emergency response Basic law or the draft of homeland Security Basic law in the future.

並列關鍵字

National security ； Homeland defense ； Homeland security ； Emergency response ； Terrorism ； Anti-terrorism response mechanism ； Disaster reduction response system ； National defense mobilization response system ； Biological pathogens- epidemic disease response system ； Nuclear accidents response system ； Toxic and chemical disaster response system ； Information and communication security response mechanism ； Homeland security net ； All hazards approach ； Homeland security response system ； National whole response mechanism ； Single response framework.

參考文獻

1. 王崑義、蔡裕明（2004）。〈全球化、人類安全與後SARS時代：兩岸非傳統安全的新議題〉，《遠景季刊》，第5卷第2期，153-162。

14. 黃正芳（2012）。〈建構我國國土安全五大應變體系國土安全網之探討〉，《國防雜誌》27(2)，國防大學。

16. 張中勇（2009）。〈災害防救與我國國土安全管理機制之策進〉，《國防雜誌》24(6) ，國防大學。

18. 張中勇（2006）。〈國際恐怖主義近期發展與趨勢〉，《戰略安全研析》，中央警察大學。

15. 陳鴻基（2000）。〈權力分立制にみる中華民國と日本の比較分析〉，臺北：中華民國日本研究學會，7-24。