後911時代反恐措施與人權保障之衡平--以美國法為中心--

Balance of anti-terrorism measures and protection of human rights after 9/11

陳品潔(Pin-Chieh Chen)

指導教授 ： 張文貞

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.02832

摘要

在2001年9月11日美國發生世貿大樓以及五角大廈遭受中東的宗教恐怖主義份子以劫機的方式撞擊，造成將近三千人的死亡以及全球經濟的震盪，911事件是美國本土所遭遇最為嚴重的攻擊事件。在該事件發生之後，美國政府採取了許多大規模的反恐措施，當中包括對恐怖主義宣戰，出兵阿富汗以及伊拉克搜索和發動911事件相關的蓋達組織成員。在美國國內方面，也加強對出入境的管控以及對於疑似為恐怖份子人民的搜查、監聽等廣泛的調查措施。
這些反恐措施也引起了許多爭議，包括美國政府強力主張有關反恐的權限應屬於總統所有，以及國會為保障國家安全，而制定了諸多大幅度對於自由權限制的法律，都引起對於各界對於反恐措施有對人權過度侵害的疑慮。而法院在國家面臨可能面臨恐怖攻擊的危急狀態之下，在違憲審查的程序當中，對於這些措施在憲法上應該採取何種評價，也極具爭議性。本文將學者的意見整理為三種模式，分別為平常模式、憲法外權力模式以及包容模式。此三種模式主要探討國家面臨危急狀況時，是否可以國家安全為目的正當化政府特殊的權力的行使；本文認為，由於反恐的事務沒有終止的時間點，因此不應該以戰爭加以看待，為了確保龐大的調查權力不會遭到政府的濫用。反恐時期的政府運作仍應該依照憲法之規定，採取平常模式的觀點，然而權力分立制衡的程度可以隨著時間的經過有不同的可能性。時間經過愈久，國會對行政部門的制衡應該要更為加強且具體。而在美國聯邦最高法院的數件與反恐措施相關的案件當中，也展現了類似的見解，法院並不認同政府的單方主義，認為國會的授權在這些案件當中必須存在，只是制衡的程度可以有所不同，以確保國家安全的目的與人權的保障可以隨時達到動態的衡平狀態。
我國在911事件之後也制定了相關的反恐法律，然而在美國的反恐法制亦逐漸趨於常態化的發展下，本文認為鑑於我國的實際狀態，目前並不適宜以反恐為名，再制定一套與我國現實狀態不甚相符的反恐法律，在具備真正恐怖攻擊之後，反恐法才有存在之必要性。

關鍵字

911；恐怖主義；恐怖攻擊；反恐措施；憲法基本權；緊急權

並列摘要

The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States. Terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon. Excluding the 19 hijackers, 2,974 people died as an immediate result of the attacks. After the attack, the United States declaring a War on Terrorism in response and launching an invasion of Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had been accused of willfully harboring terrorists. The United States passed the USA PATRIOT Act. These actions expand the authority in investigating of federal government, stating that it would help detect and prosecute terrorism and other crimes.
Many scholars and groups criticize the PATRIOT Act, saying that it allows law enforcement to invade the privacy of citizens and eliminates judicial oversight of law-enforcement and domestic intelligence gathering. These measures are considered to have invaded human rights illegitimately. Should the court lower its standard in the judicial review when examining the anti- terrorism measures? The opinions of scholars could be divided in three categories, business as usual model, extra-constitutional power model and accommodate model.
The thesis agrees anti-terrorism is not war. It’s a special investigation of crimes. To avoid the emergency power from being abused by government; government operations during the period time of anti-terrorism should comply with Constitution. This is the meaning of business as usual model. However, the degree of separation of power can be different in the distinct period of time after the attacks. As time goes by, the Congress should enhance the check of these measures by making specific laws. The Supreme Court declared similar view in the anti-terrorism case after 9/11, The court does not agree the statement of President that authority of anti-terrorism belongs to him. The court requires government should get the agreement of the Congress in most anti-terrorism measures.
Taiwan also made the draft of anti-terrorism act after 9/11, but to consider the historic experiments of emergency law institution in Taiwan, the thesis suggests that the anti-terrorism act can be canceled. Instead, we can establish a system that can help the international anti-terrorism affairs.

並列關鍵字

9/11 ； terrorism ； terror attack ； anti-terrorism measures ； constitutional rights ； emergency power

參考文獻

5. 杭亭頓(Samuea Huntington)著，黃裕美譯，1997，《文明衝突與世界秩序的重建》，台北：聯經

3. 林正順，2006，〈反恐行動與國際法—戰爭法的新課題〉，台灣國際法季刊，第3卷第2期，頁131

7. 張文貞，2003，〈中斷的憲法對話：憲法解釋在憲法變遷脈絡的定位〉，《台大法學論叢》，32卷6期，頁61-102。

11. 葉俊榮，2002，〈 從「轉型法院」到「常態法院」：大法官釋字四九九號與二六一號解釋解釋風格與轉型脈絡〉，《台大法學論叢》，第31卷第2期，頁1-24。

12. 葉俊榮、張文貞，2002，〈轉型法院與法治主義：論最高行政法院對違法行政命令審查的積極趨勢〉，人文及社會科學集刊14卷4期，頁515-559