學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 美國反恐法制之研究-以幫助恐怖主義犯罪為中心
Study on USA anti-terrorism legislations作者 李璨宇 貢獻者 陳志輝
李璨宇關鍵詞 恐怖主義
恐怖份子
反恐
美國
愛國者法案
指定恐怖組織日期 2009 上傳時間 9-五月-2016 15:30:05 (UTC+8) 摘要 2001年美國遭受911事件恐怖攻擊後，反恐即成為全球熱門議題，而國內相關反恐法制之建構乃反恐戰略中不可或缺之一環，聯合國及各地區聯盟業已制定相關反恐公約，各國亦制定相關反恐立法，然身處東亞戰略中心的台灣，在反恐立法的制定，可說是以不變應萬變，目前僅有尚未通過的「反恐行動法草案」，且立法研擬時間過短，相關討論的質與量上均有所不足。故如何切斷恐怖分子與他人所提供的資金、聯繫及各種幫助，使其喪失發動恐怖攻擊的能力，亦是當今預防性執法的戰略下的一大課題。 而美國由於多次遭受恐怖攻擊，或可說是久病成良醫，在此方面的立法經驗或有值得我國借鏡之處，且自911事件之後，美國國會制定了愛國者法案，被各界認為是強而有力的反恐手段，在刑事實體法上，預放性追訴及協力反恐的思想亦處處可見，這些改變將使美國在反恐刑法運作與普通刑法之交錯部分將產生何種影響，亦值得討論。本文擬以美國法為中心，分析美國相關反恐刑法、憲政上的討論、及實際案例之適用問題、加上美國在反恐法制上大量運用的「指定」制度，所衍生的相關爭議，作為我國反恐立法制定上的借鏡。 最後本文亦將回頭檢視國內現行立法，首須衡量我國未來遭受恐怖攻擊之可能性，並檢討組織犯罪防制條例及我國現行刑法及反恐法草案是否可作為對抗恐怖主義的武器，及是否足以處理當代恐怖主義的相關問題，而是否在處罰範圍及內容上有修改之必要。
After 911, anti-terrorism is an hot topic around the world, many countries and international organizations have already established and co-signed several anti-terrorism conventions. Although we still keep silence on this subject.,regarding to globalization and Taiwan’s importance in East Asia, our anti-terrorism legislation should not be ignored..Who is terrorist? According to the calculated information, there are over 200 different definitions of terrorism at present. People always say “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” We have found many “double standard” cases existed in the government’s ruling whether someone is terrorist or not. Our priority subject is to find a general accepted definition of terrorism.Regard to other countries anti-terrorism legislation, because of having much experience on suffering terrorist attacks, the USA have expertise in this matter. Not only taking military actions, they also established many regulations and statues to stop and exhaust terrorism, such as the PATRIOT Act. After 911, they have completely realized that preventing terrorist attacks is more effective than prosecuting terrorists after they have committed the offenses. Although there are several Acts and regulations to punish someone supports terrorism, such as the conspiracy of penal code, RICO, IEEPA, America still need a more powerful weapon against terrorist. “18 U.S.C. 2339B”, which is promulgated as part of the AEDPA in 1996, is regarded as the most useful tool to prevent terrorism. 2339B prohibits someone to provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, prosecutors also have intensified their efforts to bring criminal prosecutions as part of the war on terror after 911. In the process of indictment and trial, the mens rea of 2339B is always a controversial issue between the judgements of the courts. The vagueness of the statute is a dispute all the time. Many people also concerned that 2339B will infringe on the right of association guaranteed by constitution. Some professors even called the USA had back to “McCarthyism Era”, because 2339B grants the government to designate foreign organizations as the terrorists. Desipte 2339B has much contribution on law enforcement, in virtue of lacking due process, some people afraid government will designate dissent-opinion party as the FTO. By the above-mentioned examples, we can realize it is not easy to keep balance between the anti-terrorism and human rights. Finally, thanks to our international and domestic circumstances is different from USA, Taiwan should not completely copy their anti-terrorism legislation.參考文獻 (依出版年份排列)一、中文參考書籍1. 王兆鵬，組織犯罪防制條例評析，刑事被告的憲法權利，瀚蘆圖書，1999年。2. 阮傳勝，恐怖主義犯罪研究，北京大學出版社，2001年。3. 陳慈幸，組織犯罪，濤石文化，2002年。4. 恐怖主義與反恐怖鬥爭理論探索，中國現代國際關係研究所反恐怖研究中心，2002年。5. Dennis Piszkiewicz著，國防部譯印，恐怖主義與美國的角力，國防部部長辦公室，2003年。6. Jonathan Barker著，張舜芬譯，誰是恐怖主義，書林出版社，2005年。7. 許皆清，台灣地區組織犯罪與對策研究，日月出版社，2006年。二、中文參考專論1. 張平吾，論恐怖主義及其起源與發展，警政學報21期，1992年，頁420-428。2. 蔡庭榕，論反恐怖主義行動法制與人權保障，刑事法雜誌47卷四期，2003年，頁37-70。3. 巨克毅，國際恐怖主義蓋達(Al-Qaeda)組織的意識型態與策略的分析，全球政治評論，6期，2004年4月，頁1-15。4. 汪毓瑋，全球反恐戰爭與台灣，恐怖主義與國家安全學術研討暨實務座談 會論文集，2005年，頁31-42。5. 廖元豪，多少罪惡假「國家安全」之名而行？－簡介美國反恐措施對人權之侵蝕，月旦法學雜誌第131期，2006年4月，頁37-49。6. 李震山，德國抗制恐怖主義法制與基本權利保障，月旦法學雜誌第131期，2006年4月，頁5-20。7. 楊永明，聯合國之反恐措施與人權保障問題，月旦法學雜誌第131期，2006年4月，頁21-36。8. 蔡庭榕，反恐的法律挑戰－從人權保障觀察，第二屆「恐怖主義與國家安全」學術研討論文集，2006年，頁194-205。9. 廖福特，是共存，非衝突─歐洲理事會如何平衡打擊恐怖主義與人權保障，月旦法學雜誌132期，2006年，頁39-57。10. 李漢中，淺述兩岸反恐法治現況，軍法專刊，52卷3期，2006年6月，頁46-63。11. 藍家瑞，國際社會打擊資助恐怖分子要求標準與我國執行情形之探討，第三屆恐怖主義與國家安全學術研討會論文集，2007年，頁105-114。12. 朱敏賢，因應恐怖主義活動之法律建制─從人權保障及國家安全衡平之觀 點出發，第四屆恐怖主義與國家安全學術研討會論文集，2008年，頁1-23。三、中文參考論文1. 許華偉，犯罪結社行為處罰基礎規範之研究－共相與整合可能的探尋，台灣大學碩士論文，1999年。2. 陳孟黎，從危險犯概念看我國環境刑法的現況與未來，台灣大學碩士論文，2003年。3. 林芝郁，「恐怖行動」刑事責任之研究，台灣大學碩士論文，2006年。4. 陳品潔，後911時代反恐措施與人權保障之衡平-以美國法為中心，台灣大學碩士論文，2008年。三、英文參考書籍1. Cliff Mariani, Terrorism prevention and response : the definitive law enforcement guide to prepare for terrorist activity, Looseleaf Law Publications , (2004).2. David J. Whittaker, Terrorists and terrorism in the contemporary world, Routledge , (2004).3. Ved P. Nanda, Law in the war on international terrorism ,Transnational Publishers, (2005).4. Victor V. Ramraj, Michael Hor, and Kent Roach, Global anti-terrorism law and policy, Cambridge , (2005).5. Peter Berkowitz, Terrorism, the laws of war, and the Constitution : debating the enemy combatant cases, Hoover Institution Press , (2005).6. Anna Sabasteanski, Patterns of global terrorism 1985-2005 : U.S. Department of State reports with supplementary documents and statistics, Berkshire Publishing Group, (2005).7. Norman Abrams, Anti-terrorism and Criminal Enforcement, Thomson/West , (2006).8. Anniken Davenport, Basic criminal law : the U.S. Constitution, procedure, and crimes, Pearson Prentice Hall , (2006).9. Ben Saul, Defining terrorism in international law, Oxford University Press , (2006).10. L. Ali Kahn, A theory of international terrorism : understanding Islamic militancy, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers , (2006).11. Jeanne K. Giraldo and Harold A. Trinkunas, Terrorism financing and state responses : a comparative perspective, Stanford University Press, (2007).12. Leslie Holmes,Terrorism, organised crime and corruption : networks and linkages,Edward Elgar , (2007).13. Ian Bellany,Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction : responding to the challenge,Routledge , (2007).14. Brenda J. Lutz and James M. Lutz, Terrorism in America, Palgrave Macmillan, (2007).15. Jeffrey F. Addicott, Terrorism law : the rule of law and the war on terror, Tucson, (2007).16. James Beckman, Comparative legal approaches to homeland security and anti-terrorism, Ashgate Pub , (2007).17. Matthew Lippman, Contemporary criminal law : concepts, cases, and controversies, Sage Publications , (2007).18. Joshua Dressler, Cases and materials on criminal law, Thomson West , (2007).19. Constantinos E. Scaros, Learning about immigration law, Thomson Delmar Learning , (2007).20. Kam C.Wong, The Impact of USA PATRIOT ACT on AMERICAN SOCIETY, Nova Science Publishers, (2007).21. Stephen Dycus, National security law, Aspen Publishers , (2007).22. Patrick V. Gaines, U.S.A. Patriot Act improvement and reauthorization, Nova Science Publishers, (2008).23. Mike Molan, Cases and materials on criminal law, Routledge-Cavendish , (2008).24. Matthew Evangelista, Law, ethics, and the war on terror , Cambridge, (2008).四、英文參考期刊1. Gerard E. Lynch, RICO: THE CRIME OF BEING A CRIMINAL, PARTS I & II, 87 Colum L.Rev, 661-763 (1987).2. Stephen C. Warneck, A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE: USING RICO AND THE AEDPA TO ATTACK THE FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, 78 Bos U.L. Rev, 177-226 (1998).3. Jennifer G. Randolph, RICO - THE REJECTION OF AN ECONOMIC MOTIVE REQUIREMENT NOW v. Scheidler, 114 S. Ct. 798 (1994),85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 1189-1222 (1999).4. James J. Savage, Executive Use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act - Evolution through the Terrorist and Taliban Sanctions, 10 Currents Int`l Trade L.J., 28-41 (2001).5. PAUL BUTLER, SUPREME COURT REVIEW: FOREWORD: TERRORISM AND UTILITARIANISM: LESSONS FROM, AND FOR, CRIMINAL LAW, 93 J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 1-22 (2002).6. RESPONDING TO TERRORISM: CRIME, PUNISHMENT, AND WAR, 115 Harv L.Rev, 1217-1238 (2002).7. Joshua A. Ellis, Designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations Under the AEDPA: The National Council Court Erred in Requiring Pre-Designation Process, 2002 B.Y.U.L. Rev., 675-715 (2002).8. Thomas Geraghty, The Criminal-Enemy Distinction: Prosecuting a Limited War Against Terrorism Following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, 33 McGeorge L. Rev., 551-591(2002).9. David Cole, The New McCarthyism: Repeating History in the War on Terrorism, 38 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev., 1-30 (2003).10. Randolph N. Jonakait, A DOUBLE DUE PROCESS DENIAL: THE CRIME OF PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT OR RESOURCES TO DESIGNATED FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, 48 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev., 125-172 (2003).11. Jennifer Van Bergen, IN THE ABSENCE OF DEMOCRACY: THE DESIGNATION AND MATERIAL SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS, 2 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol`y & Ethics J., 107-160 (2003).12. Sahar Aziz, The Laws on Providing Material Support to Terrorist Organizations: The Erosion of Constitutional Rights or a Legitimate Tool for Preventing Terrorism?, 9 Tex. J. on C.L. & C.R., 45-92 (2003).13. Shawn Boyne, THE FUTURE OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES IN A TIME OF TERROR: A COMPARISON OF THE IMPACT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES, 11 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int`l L., 111-178 (2003).14. Susan Tiefenbrun, A SEMIOTIC APPROACH TO A LEGAL DEFINITION OF TERRORISM, 9 ILSA J Int`l & Comp L, 357-389 (2003). 15. Nicholas J. Perry, THE NUMEROUS FEDERAL LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM: THE PROBLEM OF TOO MANY GRAILS, 30 J. Legis., 249-274 (2004).16. Marie E. Siesseger, CONSPIRACY THEORY: THE USE OF THE CONSPIRACY DOCTRINE IN TIMES OF NATIONAL CRISIS, 46 Wm and Mary L. Rev., 1177-1218 (2004).17. Randolph N. Jonakait, The Mens Rea for the Crime of Providing Material Resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, 56 Baylor L. Rev., 861-915 (2004).18. NINA J. CRIMM, High Alert: The Government`s War on the Financing of Terrorism and its Implications for Donors, Domestic Charitable Organizations, and Global Philanthropy, 45 Wm and Mary L. Rev., 1341-1450 (2004).19. ROBERT M. CHESNEY, THE SLEEPER SCENARIO: TERRORISM-SUPPORT LAWS AND THE DEMANDS OF PREVENTION, 42 Harv. J. on Legis., 1-89 (2005).20. JONATHAN D. STEWART, Balancing the Scales of Due Process: Material Support of Terrorism and the Fifth Amendment, 3 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol`y, 311-340 (2005).21. Norman Abrams, The Material Support Terrorism Offenses: Perspectives Derived from the (Early) Model Penal Code, 1 J. Nat`l Security L. & Pol`y, 5-35 (2005).22. Alex Schmid, "Terrorism on Trial": Terrorism - The Definitional Problem, 37 Case W. Res. J. Int`l L., 375-419 (2005).23. NICOLE NICE-PETERSEN, Justice for the "Designated": The Process That Is Due to Alleged U.S. Financiers of Terrorism, 93 Geo. L.J., 1387-1420 (2005).24. Brian P. Comerford, PREVENTING TERRORISM BY PROSECUTING MATERIAL SUPPORT, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev., 723-757 (2005).25. WAYNE McCORMACK, INCHOATE TERRORISM: LIBERALISM CLASHES WITH FUNDAMENTALISM, 37 Geo. J. Int`l L., 1-60 (2005).26. John D.G. Waszak, The Obstacles to Suppressing Radical Islamic Terrorist Financing, 37 Case W. Res. J. Int`l L., 673-707 (2005).27. Tom Stacy, The "Material Support" Offense: The Use of Strict Liability in the War Against Terror, 14 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol`y, 461-477 (2005).28. ALISSA CLARE, We Should Have Gone to Med School: In the Wake of Lynne Stewart, Lawyers Face Hard Time for Defending Terrorists, 18 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 651-668 (2005).29. Kathryn A. Ruff, SCARED TO DONATE: AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF DESIGNATING MUSLIM CHARITIES AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF MUSLIM DONORS, 9 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol`y, 447-502 (2006).30. REUVEN YOUNG, DEFINING TERRORISM: THE EVOLUTION OF TERRORISM AS A LEGAL CONCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ITS INFLUENCE ON DEFINITIONS IN DOMESTIC LEGISLATION, 29 B.C. Int`l & Comp. L. Rev., 23-103 (2006).31. Cyrille Begorre-Bret, TERRORISM, GLOBALIZATION AND THE RULE OF LAW: THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM AND THE CHALLENGE OF RELATIVISM, 27 Car L. Rev., 1987-2004 (2006).32. Tamar R. Birckhead, THE CONVICTION OF LYNNE STEWART AND THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF THE RIGHT TO DEFEND, 43 Am. Crim. L. Rev., 1-52 (2006).33. RICHARD SIEGEL, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 43 Am. Crim. L. Rev., 495-526 (2006).34. Alan F. Williams, PROSECUTING WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISM STATUTES: TIME TO FIX WHAT`S BROKEN, 11 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol`y, 365-403 (2007).35. David Henrik Pendle, Charity of the Heart and Sword: The Material Support Offense and Personnel Guilt, 30 Seattle Univ. L. R., 777-806 (2007).36. Peter Margulies, Guantanamo By Other Means: Conspiracy Prosecutions and Law Enforcement Dilemmas After September 11, 43 Gonz. L. Rev., 513-557 (2007).37. ROSS BAGLEY, DORIAN HURLEY and PETER MANCUSO, RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS, 44 Am. Crim. L. Rev., 901-953 (2007).38. ROBERT M. CHESNEY, BEYOND CONSPIRACY? ANTICIPATORY PROSECUTION AND THE CHALLENGE OF UNAFFILIATED TERRORISM, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev., March, 425-494 (2007).39. Robert M. Chesney, FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF TERRORISM-RELATED OFFENSES: CONVICTION AND SENTENCING DATA IN LIGHT OF THE "SOFT-SENTENCE" AND "DATA-RELIABILITY" CRITIQUES, 11 Lewis & Clark L. Rev., 851-894 (2007).40. Jennifer Lynn Bell, TERRORIST ABUSE OF NON-PROFITS AND CHARITIES: A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO PREVENTING TERRORIST FINANCING, 17 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol`y, 450-476 (2008).41. Grant Nichols ,Repercussions and Recourse for Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations Acquitted of Materially Supporting Terrorism, 28 Rev. Litig, 263-293 (2008).42. Julie B. Shapiro, THE POLITICIZATION OF THE DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS: THE EFFECT ON THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, 6 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol`y & Ethics J., 547-600 (2008).43. Andrew Peterson, Addressing Tomorrow`s Terrorists, 2 J. Nat`l Security L. & Pol`y, 297-354 (2008).44. Benjamin Yaster, RESETTING SCALES: AN EXAMINATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN MATERIAL SUPPORT PROSECUTIONS, 83 N.Y.U.L. Rev., 1353-1387 (2008).45. James J. Ward, THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL: EXPANDING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERROR, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev., 471-510 (2008).46. VANESSA ORTBLAD, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN SHEEP`S CLOTHING: THE PUNITIVE EFFECTS OF OFAC FREEZING SANCTIONS, 98 J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 1439-1465 (2008).五、網路資源1. Lexis資料庫http://www.lexisnexis.com2. Westlaw資料庫http://international.westlaw.com3. 中央警察大學恐怖主義研究中心http://trc.cpu.edu.tw/4. 月旦法學知識庫http://www.lawdata.com.tw/ 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學系
94651041資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094651041 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 陳志輝 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 李璨宇 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) 李璨宇 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2009 en_US dc.date.accessioned 9-五月-2016 15:30:05 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 9-五月-2016 15:30:05 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 9-五月-2016 15:30:05 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0094651041 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/95276 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 法律學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 94651041 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 2001年美國遭受911事件恐怖攻擊後，反恐即成為全球熱門議題，而國內相關反恐法制之建構乃反恐戰略中不可或缺之一環，聯合國及各地區聯盟業已制定相關反恐公約，各國亦制定相關反恐立法，然身處東亞戰略中心的台灣，在反恐立法的制定，可說是以不變應萬變，目前僅有尚未通過的「反恐行動法草案」，且立法研擬時間過短，相關討論的質與量上均有所不足。故如何切斷恐怖分子與他人所提供的資金、聯繫及各種幫助，使其喪失發動恐怖攻擊的能力，亦是當今預防性執法的戰略下的一大課題。 而美國由於多次遭受恐怖攻擊，或可說是久病成良醫，在此方面的立法經驗或有值得我國借鏡之處，且自911事件之後，美國國會制定了愛國者法案，被各界認為是強而有力的反恐手段，在刑事實體法上，預放性追訴及協力反恐的思想亦處處可見，這些改變將使美國在反恐刑法運作與普通刑法之交錯部分將產生何種影響，亦值得討論。本文擬以美國法為中心，分析美國相關反恐刑法、憲政上的討論、及實際案例之適用問題、加上美國在反恐法制上大量運用的「指定」制度，所衍生的相關爭議，作為我國反恐立法制定上的借鏡。 最後本文亦將回頭檢視國內現行立法，首須衡量我國未來遭受恐怖攻擊之可能性，並檢討組織犯罪防制條例及我國現行刑法及反恐法草案是否可作為對抗恐怖主義的武器，及是否足以處理當代恐怖主義的相關問題，而是否在處罰範圍及內容上有修改之必要。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) After 911, anti-terrorism is an hot topic around the world, many countries and international organizations have already established and co-signed several anti-terrorism conventions. Although we still keep silence on this subject.,regarding to globalization and Taiwan’s importance in East Asia, our anti-terrorism legislation should not be ignored..Who is terrorist? According to the calculated information, there are over 200 different definitions of terrorism at present. People always say “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” We have found many “double standard” cases existed in the government’s ruling whether someone is terrorist or not. Our priority subject is to find a general accepted definition of terrorism.Regard to other countries anti-terrorism legislation, because of having much experience on suffering terrorist attacks, the USA have expertise in this matter. Not only taking military actions, they also established many regulations and statues to stop and exhaust terrorism, such as the PATRIOT Act. After 911, they have completely realized that preventing terrorist attacks is more effective than prosecuting terrorists after they have committed the offenses. Although there are several Acts and regulations to punish someone supports terrorism, such as the conspiracy of penal code, RICO, IEEPA, America still need a more powerful weapon against terrorist. “18 U.S.C. 2339B”, which is promulgated as part of the AEDPA in 1996, is regarded as the most useful tool to prevent terrorism. 2339B prohibits someone to provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, prosecutors also have intensified their efforts to bring criminal prosecutions as part of the war on terror after 911. In the process of indictment and trial, the mens rea of 2339B is always a controversial issue between the judgements of the courts. The vagueness of the statute is a dispute all the time. Many people also concerned that 2339B will infringe on the right of association guaranteed by constitution. Some professors even called the USA had back to “McCarthyism Era”, because 2339B grants the government to designate foreign organizations as the terrorists. Desipte 2339B has much contribution on law enforcement, in virtue of lacking due process, some people afraid government will designate dissent-opinion party as the FTO. By the above-mentioned examples, we can realize it is not easy to keep balance between the anti-terrorism and human rights. Finally, thanks to our international and domestic circumstances is different from USA, Taiwan should not completely copy their anti-terrorism legislation. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 緒論 1第一節 研究計畫與研究動機 1第二節 論文主要章節架構 3第一章 恐怖主義的定義 5第一節 恐怖主義之歷史、成因與特性 5第一項 恐怖主義歷史演變 5第二項 恐怖主義的成因 6第三項 恐怖主義的特性 7第四項 恐怖主義難以定義 8第二節 恐怖主義之行為主體 10第一項 恐怖組織 10第二項 非屬於恐怖組織或團體之個人 15第三項 與國家有關之恐怖主義 17第三節 美國法對恐怖主義的定義 19第一項 美國國務院之定義 20第二項 美國聯邦刑法典(Criminal Code)之定義 21第三項 移民法的定義(Immigration Law) 22第四項 多種定義之優劣 24第四節 恐怖主義定義檢討 26第一項 與一般暴力犯罪如何區分 26第二項行為人主觀目的--限於出於政治、宗教、意識形態等目的？ 28第三項 恐怖主義定義模式 31第四項 小結 33第二章 美國反恐策略 36第一節 從美國反恐策略之轉變談起 36第一項 從罪犯到敵人 36第二項 預防性理論 39第三項 預防性執法 41第二節 預防性策略在立法上的具體實踐 43第一項 反恐及有效執行死刑法案(Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act) 44第二項 愛國者法案(PATRIOT ACT) 45第三項 國家安全與人權保障的拔河－以愛國者法案為例 47第四項 小結 49第三節 截斷恐怖主義資金來源 50第一項 資金對恐怖組織的重要性 50第二項 恐怖組織籌措資金手法 51第四節 美國政府在阻止資助恐怖主義的相關措施 58第一項 「指定」恐怖組織以凍結其資產 58第二項 取消免稅優惠 60第三項 發佈準則要求國際慈善組織善盡注意義務 60第四項 刑法禁止資助被指定的團體及恐怖組織 61第五項 小結－現行策略的反思 61第三章 美國法禁止幫助恐怖主義犯罪相關法制 64第一節 共謀(Conspiracy) 64第一項 共謀定義 65第二項 共謀中的「概括原則」general rule 65第三項 概括原則適用於恐怖主義相關案例 69第四項 911事件後美國政府使用共謀之情形 73第五項 共謀無法處理的問題 76第二節 RICO法 77第一項 RICO法簡介 77第二項 RICO法可否適用於恐怖組織？ 80第三項 RICO法應用於幫助恐怖主義犯罪之適用情形 82第四項 小結 83第三節 IEEPA法1705條 84第一項 總統緊急權 84第二項 1705條構成要件－空白刑法的立法模式 84第三項 目標的轉變-從國家到恐怖組織 86第四項 相關爭議問題 89第五項 小結 91第四節 美國聯邦刑法典恐怖主義罪章 92第五節 小結 94第四章 美國聯邦刑法2339B條提供被指定的恐怖組織實質支持罪 97第一節 2339B立法介紹 97第一項 2339B立法緣由 97第二項 2339B構成要件 100第二節 2339B客觀要件相關爭議 104第一項 列舉式的定義 104第二項 是否過度侵害結社自由(association) 107第三項 明確性原則 109第三節 2339B條主觀要件相關爭議 114第一項 三種可能的解釋方向 114第二項 與史密斯法案(Smith Act)相比較 115第三項 美國最高法院對2339B主觀要件之解釋 117第三項 三種主觀要件的比較 122第四項 本文見解 137第四節 增設「輕率」提供恐怖組織實質支持罪？ 139第一項 現行法2339B條無法處理的問題 139第二項 增設處罰輕率(recklessness)作出捐贈之行為 140第三項 本文見解 142第五章 指定恐怖組織制度之研究 145第一節 指定恐怖組織制度之定義 146第一項 定義 146第二項 指定之效力 148第三項 指定制度之優劣 150第二節 指定作成過程之相關爭議 153第一項 行政機關享有過大裁量權 153第二項 指定制度的高度政治性及雙重標準 154第三項 是否給予事前通知及陳述之機會 157第四項 本文見解 162第三節 事後司法審查 164第一項 2004年修法減少了接受司法審查之機會 164第二項 有限的事後司法審查 166第三項 本文見解 171第四節 2339B被告是否對指定效力得要求司法審查 173第一項 美國法院之見解 173第二項 學者見解 175第三項 本文見解 177第五節 小結 180第六章 我國幫助恐怖主義犯罪立法芻議 183第一節 我國反恐法制建構之必要性 183第一項 恐怖主義在台現況 183第二項 反恐法制建構之必要性 186第三項 反恐法制建構基本方針 187第二節 我國反恐刑法幫助恐怖主義犯罪法制之建制 189第一項 我國現有幫助恐怖主義犯罪相關法制 191第二項 我國反恐行動法草案 195第三項 小結 197第三節 禁止幫助恐怖主義犯罪之立法芻議 198第一項 處罰項目及範圍 198第二項 刑度加重之正當性 199第三項 是否仿效美國法採用指定制度 202第四項 是否增設資助恐怖行動罪？ 206第五項 小結 207結論 209參考文獻 212附錄 219 zh_TW dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094651041 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 恐怖主義 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 恐怖份子 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 反恐 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 美國 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 愛國者法案 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 指定恐怖組織 zh_TW dc.title (題名) 美國反恐法制之研究-以幫助恐怖主義犯罪為中心 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Study on USA anti-terrorism legislations en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) (依出版年份排列)一、中文參考書籍1. 王兆鵬，組織犯罪防制條例評析，刑事被告的憲法權利，瀚蘆圖書，1999年。2. 阮傳勝，恐怖主義犯罪研究，北京大學出版社，2001年。3. 陳慈幸，組織犯罪，濤石文化，2002年。4. 恐怖主義與反恐怖鬥爭理論探索，中國現代國際關係研究所反恐怖研究中心，2002年。5. Dennis Piszkiewicz著，國防部譯印，恐怖主義與美國的角力，國防部部長辦公室，2003年。6. Jonathan Barker著，張舜芬譯，誰是恐怖主義，書林出版社，2005年。7. 許皆清，台灣地區組織犯罪與對策研究，日月出版社，2006年。二、中文參考專論1. 張平吾，論恐怖主義及其起源與發展，警政學報21期，1992年，頁420-428。2. 蔡庭榕，論反恐怖主義行動法制與人權保障，刑事法雜誌47卷四期，2003年，頁37-70。3. 巨克毅，國際恐怖主義蓋達(Al-Qaeda)組織的意識型態與策略的分析，全球政治評論，6期，2004年4月，頁1-15。4. 汪毓瑋，全球反恐戰爭與台灣，恐怖主義與國家安全學術研討暨實務座談 會論文集，2005年，頁31-42。5. 廖元豪，多少罪惡假「國家安全」之名而行？－簡介美國反恐措施對人權之侵蝕，月旦法學雜誌第131期，2006年4月，頁37-49。6. 李震山，德國抗制恐怖主義法制與基本權利保障，月旦法學雜誌第131期，2006年4月，頁5-20。7. 楊永明，聯合國之反恐措施與人權保障問題，月旦法學雜誌第131期，2006年4月，頁21-36。8. 蔡庭榕，反恐的法律挑戰－從人權保障觀察，第二屆「恐怖主義與國家安全」學術研討論文集，2006年，頁194-205。9. 廖福特，是共存，非衝突─歐洲理事會如何平衡打擊恐怖主義與人權保障，月旦法學雜誌132期，2006年，頁39-57。10. 李漢中，淺述兩岸反恐法治現況，軍法專刊，52卷3期，2006年6月，頁46-63。11. 藍家瑞，國際社會打擊資助恐怖分子要求標準與我國執行情形之探討，第三屆恐怖主義與國家安全學術研討會論文集，2007年，頁105-114。12. 朱敏賢，因應恐怖主義活動之法律建制─從人權保障及國家安全衡平之觀 點出發，第四屆恐怖主義與國家安全學術研討會論文集，2008年，頁1-23。三、中文參考論文1. 許華偉，犯罪結社行為處罰基礎規範之研究－共相與整合可能的探尋，台灣大學碩士論文，1999年。2. 陳孟黎，從危險犯概念看我國環境刑法的現況與未來，台灣大學碩士論文，2003年。3. 林芝郁，「恐怖行動」刑事責任之研究，台灣大學碩士論文，2006年。4. 陳品潔，後911時代反恐措施與人權保障之衡平-以美國法為中心，台灣大學碩士論文，2008年。三、英文參考書籍1. Cliff Mariani, Terrorism prevention and response : the definitive law enforcement guide to prepare for terrorist activity, Looseleaf Law Publications , (2004).2. David J. Whittaker, Terrorists and terrorism in the contemporary world, Routledge , (2004).3. Ved P. Nanda, Law in the war on international terrorism ,Transnational Publishers, (2005).4. Victor V. Ramraj, Michael Hor, and Kent Roach, Global anti-terrorism law and policy, Cambridge , (2005).5. Peter Berkowitz, Terrorism, the laws of war, and the Constitution : debating the enemy combatant cases, Hoover Institution Press , (2005).6. Anna Sabasteanski, Patterns of global terrorism 1985-2005 : U.S. Department of State reports with supplementary documents and statistics, Berkshire Publishing Group, (2005).7. Norman Abrams, Anti-terrorism and Criminal Enforcement, Thomson/West , (2006).8. Anniken Davenport, Basic criminal law : the U.S. Constitution, procedure, and crimes, Pearson Prentice Hall , (2006).9. Ben Saul, Defining terrorism in international law, Oxford University Press , (2006).10. L. Ali Kahn, A theory of international terrorism : understanding Islamic militancy, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers , (2006).11. Jeanne K. Giraldo and Harold A. Trinkunas, Terrorism financing and state responses : a comparative perspective, Stanford University Press, (2007).12. Leslie Holmes,Terrorism, organised crime and corruption : networks and linkages,Edward Elgar , (2007).13. Ian Bellany,Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction : responding to the challenge,Routledge , (2007).14. Brenda J. Lutz and James M. Lutz, Terrorism in America, Palgrave Macmillan, (2007).15. Jeffrey F. Addicott, Terrorism law : the rule of law and the war on terror, Tucson, (2007).16. James Beckman, Comparative legal approaches to homeland security and anti-terrorism, Ashgate Pub , (2007).17. Matthew Lippman, Contemporary criminal law : concepts, cases, and controversies, Sage Publications , (2007).18. Joshua Dressler, Cases and materials on criminal law, Thomson West , (2007).19. Constantinos E. Scaros, Learning about immigration law, Thomson Delmar Learning , (2007).20. Kam C.Wong, The Impact of USA PATRIOT ACT on AMERICAN SOCIETY, Nova Science Publishers, (2007).21. Stephen Dycus, National security law, Aspen Publishers , (2007).22. Patrick V. Gaines, U.S.A. Patriot Act improvement and reauthorization, Nova Science Publishers, (2008).23. Mike Molan, Cases and materials on criminal law, Routledge-Cavendish , (2008).24. Matthew Evangelista, Law, ethics, and the war on terror , Cambridge, (2008).四、英文參考期刊1. Gerard E. Lynch, RICO: THE CRIME OF BEING A CRIMINAL, PARTS I & II, 87 Colum L.Rev, 661-763 (1987).2. Stephen C. Warneck, A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE: USING RICO AND THE AEDPA TO ATTACK THE FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, 78 Bos U.L. Rev, 177-226 (1998).3. Jennifer G. Randolph, RICO - THE REJECTION OF AN ECONOMIC MOTIVE REQUIREMENT NOW v. Scheidler, 114 S. Ct. 798 (1994),85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 1189-1222 (1999).4. James J. Savage, Executive Use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act - Evolution through the Terrorist and Taliban Sanctions, 10 Currents Int`l Trade L.J., 28-41 (2001).5. PAUL BUTLER, SUPREME COURT REVIEW: FOREWORD: TERRORISM AND UTILITARIANISM: LESSONS FROM, AND FOR, CRIMINAL LAW, 93 J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 1-22 (2002).6. RESPONDING TO TERRORISM: CRIME, PUNISHMENT, AND WAR, 115 Harv L.Rev, 1217-1238 (2002).7. Joshua A. Ellis, Designation of Foreign Terrorist Organizations Under the AEDPA: The National Council Court Erred in Requiring Pre-Designation Process, 2002 B.Y.U.L. Rev., 675-715 (2002).8. Thomas Geraghty, The Criminal-Enemy Distinction: Prosecuting a Limited War Against Terrorism Following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, 33 McGeorge L. Rev., 551-591(2002).9. David Cole, The New McCarthyism: Repeating History in the War on Terrorism, 38 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev., 1-30 (2003).10. Randolph N. Jonakait, A DOUBLE DUE PROCESS DENIAL: THE CRIME OF PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT OR RESOURCES TO DESIGNATED FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, 48 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev., 125-172 (2003).11. Jennifer Van Bergen, IN THE ABSENCE OF DEMOCRACY: THE DESIGNATION AND MATERIAL SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS, 2 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol`y & Ethics J., 107-160 (2003).12. Sahar Aziz, The Laws on Providing Material Support to Terrorist Organizations: The Erosion of Constitutional Rights or a Legitimate Tool for Preventing Terrorism?, 9 Tex. J. on C.L. & C.R., 45-92 (2003).13. Shawn Boyne, THE FUTURE OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES IN A TIME OF TERROR: A COMPARISON OF THE IMPACT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES, 11 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int`l L., 111-178 (2003).14. Susan Tiefenbrun, A SEMIOTIC APPROACH TO A LEGAL DEFINITION OF TERRORISM, 9 ILSA J Int`l & Comp L, 357-389 (2003). 15. Nicholas J. Perry, THE NUMEROUS FEDERAL LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM: THE PROBLEM OF TOO MANY GRAILS, 30 J. Legis., 249-274 (2004).16. Marie E. Siesseger, CONSPIRACY THEORY: THE USE OF THE CONSPIRACY DOCTRINE IN TIMES OF NATIONAL CRISIS, 46 Wm and Mary L. Rev., 1177-1218 (2004).17. Randolph N. Jonakait, The Mens Rea for the Crime of Providing Material Resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, 56 Baylor L. Rev., 861-915 (2004).18. NINA J. CRIMM, High Alert: The Government`s War on the Financing of Terrorism and its Implications for Donors, Domestic Charitable Organizations, and Global Philanthropy, 45 Wm and Mary L. Rev., 1341-1450 (2004).19. ROBERT M. CHESNEY, THE SLEEPER SCENARIO: TERRORISM-SUPPORT LAWS AND THE DEMANDS OF PREVENTION, 42 Harv. J. on Legis., 1-89 (2005).20. JONATHAN D. STEWART, Balancing the Scales of Due Process: Material Support of Terrorism and the Fifth Amendment, 3 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol`y, 311-340 (2005).21. Norman Abrams, The Material Support Terrorism Offenses: Perspectives Derived from the (Early) Model Penal Code, 1 J. Nat`l Security L. & Pol`y, 5-35 (2005).22. Alex Schmid, "Terrorism on Trial": Terrorism - The Definitional Problem, 37 Case W. Res. J. Int`l L., 375-419 (2005).23. NICOLE NICE-PETERSEN, Justice for the "Designated": The Process That Is Due to Alleged U.S. Financiers of Terrorism, 93 Geo. L.J., 1387-1420 (2005).24. Brian P. Comerford, PREVENTING TERRORISM BY PROSECUTING MATERIAL SUPPORT, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev., 723-757 (2005).25. WAYNE McCORMACK, INCHOATE TERRORISM: LIBERALISM CLASHES WITH FUNDAMENTALISM, 37 Geo. J. Int`l L., 1-60 (2005).26. John D.G. Waszak, The Obstacles to Suppressing Radical Islamic Terrorist Financing, 37 Case W. Res. J. Int`l L., 673-707 (2005).27. Tom Stacy, The "Material Support" Offense: The Use of Strict Liability in the War Against Terror, 14 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol`y, 461-477 (2005).28. ALISSA CLARE, We Should Have Gone to Med School: In the Wake of Lynne Stewart, Lawyers Face Hard Time for Defending Terrorists, 18 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 651-668 (2005).29. Kathryn A. Ruff, SCARED TO DONATE: AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF DESIGNATING MUSLIM CHARITIES AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF MUSLIM DONORS, 9 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol`y, 447-502 (2006).30. REUVEN YOUNG, DEFINING TERRORISM: THE EVOLUTION OF TERRORISM AS A LEGAL CONCEPT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ITS INFLUENCE ON DEFINITIONS IN DOMESTIC LEGISLATION, 29 B.C. Int`l & Comp. L. Rev., 23-103 (2006).31. Cyrille Begorre-Bret, TERRORISM, GLOBALIZATION AND THE RULE OF LAW: THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM AND THE CHALLENGE OF RELATIVISM, 27 Car L. Rev., 1987-2004 (2006).32. Tamar R. Birckhead, THE CONVICTION OF LYNNE STEWART AND THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF THE RIGHT TO DEFEND, 43 Am. Crim. L. Rev., 1-52 (2006).33. RICHARD SIEGEL, Federal Criminal Conspiracy, 43 Am. Crim. L. Rev., 495-526 (2006).34. Alan F. Williams, PROSECUTING WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISM STATUTES: TIME TO FIX WHAT`S BROKEN, 11 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol`y, 365-403 (2007).35. David Henrik Pendle, Charity of the Heart and Sword: The Material Support Offense and Personnel Guilt, 30 Seattle Univ. L. R., 777-806 (2007).36. Peter Margulies, Guantanamo By Other Means: Conspiracy Prosecutions and Law Enforcement Dilemmas After September 11, 43 Gonz. L. Rev., 513-557 (2007).37. ROSS BAGLEY, DORIAN HURLEY and PETER MANCUSO, RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS, 44 Am. Crim. L. Rev., 901-953 (2007).38. ROBERT M. CHESNEY, BEYOND CONSPIRACY? ANTICIPATORY PROSECUTION AND THE CHALLENGE OF UNAFFILIATED TERRORISM, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev., March, 425-494 (2007).39. Robert M. Chesney, FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF TERRORISM-RELATED OFFENSES: CONVICTION AND SENTENCING DATA IN LIGHT OF THE "SOFT-SENTENCE" AND "DATA-RELIABILITY" CRITIQUES, 11 Lewis & Clark L. Rev., 851-894 (2007).40. Jennifer Lynn Bell, TERRORIST ABUSE OF NON-PROFITS AND CHARITIES: A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO PREVENTING TERRORIST FINANCING, 17 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol`y, 450-476 (2008).41. Grant Nichols ,Repercussions and Recourse for Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations Acquitted of Materially Supporting Terrorism, 28 Rev. Litig, 263-293 (2008).42. Julie B. Shapiro, THE POLITICIZATION OF THE DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS: THE EFFECT ON THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, 6 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol`y & Ethics J., 547-600 (2008).43. Andrew Peterson, Addressing Tomorrow`s Terrorists, 2 J. Nat`l Security L. & Pol`y, 297-354 (2008).44. Benjamin Yaster, RESETTING SCALES: AN EXAMINATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN MATERIAL SUPPORT PROSECUTIONS, 83 N.Y.U.L. Rev., 1353-1387 (2008).45. James J. Ward, THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL: EXPANDING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERROR, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev., 471-510 (2008).46. VANESSA ORTBLAD, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN SHEEP`S CLOTHING: THE PUNITIVE EFFECTS OF OFAC FREEZING SANCTIONS, 98 J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 1439-1465 (2008).五、網路資源1. Lexis資料庫http://www.lexisnexis.com2. Westlaw資料庫http://international.westlaw.com3. 中央警察大學恐怖主義研究中心http://trc.cpu.edu.tw/4. 月旦法學知識庫http://www.lawdata.com.tw/ zh_TW
