| dc.contributor | 政大法學評論 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | 謝碩駿 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | Hsieh, Shuo-chun | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2023-06 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 4-十二月-2023 16:32:47 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 4-十二月-2023 16:32:47 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 4-十二月-2023 16:32:47 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/148570 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 本文之主旨，係從情治分立的角度切入，探究情報機關與警察機關間資訊分離與資訊共享之法律問題。首先，本文「壹」從國家安全局組織法第2條之立法沿革出發，點出本文欲處理之議題。其次，本文「貳」就情治分立之基本內涵予以說明，並分析其在德國與我國之立法實踐情形。接著，本文「參」嘗試釐清情治分立是否具有憲法上之依據。本文「肆」則指出，情報機關與警察機關間有資訊分離原則之適用，在此原則下欲共享彼此之資訊，應如何符合憲法之要求。最後，本文「伍」提出研究心得之總結。情治分立之基本內涵，一為組織分離，另一則為職權分離。無論是組織分離，抑或是職權分離，均未被我國立法者制定相關法律時所採。由於情治分立在我國並非憲法之誡命，故法律未採行情治分立之精神，並無違憲之疑慮。基於憲法對資訊隱私權之保障，情報機關與警察機關間應適用資訊分離原則。情報機關與警察機關間之資訊共享，其作為資訊分離原則之例外情形，須符合法律保留原則與比例原則之要求。關於資訊共享之比例原則審查，應採取「假設性重新蒐集資料」之標準予以檢視，方能切中問題之核心，並確保比例原則之審查不至於被掏空到僅剩「目的正當性」之檢驗。 | |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The main purpose of this paper is to consider and explore the legal issues of information separation and information sharing between intelligence agencies and police agencies from the perspective of the separation between intelligence and law enforcement. First of all, the first part of this paper starts from the legislative evolution of Article 2 of the National Security Bureau Organization Act and indicates the issues that this paper intends to deal with. The second part of this paper explains the basic connotation of the separation between intelligence and law enforcement and analyzes its legislative practice in Germany and Taiwan. After that, the third part of this paper discusses whether the separation between intelligence and law enforcement has a constitutional basis. The fourth part of this paper identifies the principle of separation of information between intelligence agencies and police agencies and addresses the problem of the constitutionality of information sharing under this principle. Finally, the fifth part of this paper presents a summary of the research findings. The basic connotation of the separation between intelligence and law enforcement includes the separation of organizations and the separation of powers. The provisions of relevant laws in Taiwan neither take the separation of organizations nor the separation of powers. Since the separation between intelligence and law enforcement is not a constitutional requirement in Taiwan, it is not unconstitutional that the law does not adopt the spirit of such separation. Based on the constitutional guarantee of the right to information privacy, the principle of information separation should be applied between intelligence agencies and police agencies. Information sharing between intelligence agencies and police agencies—as an exception to the principle of information separation—must be consistent with both the principle of legal reservation and the principle of proportionality. Regarding the review of the proportionality of information sharing, this paper highlights the criterion of “hypothetical re-collection of data”. The application of this criterion can reveal the core of the problem of information sharing and ensure that the examination of the principle of proportionality is not reduced to the examination of “legality of purpose”. | |
| dc.format.extent | 2287065 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 政大法學評論, 173, 1-84 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 情報機關; 警察機關; 情治分立; 資訊分離原則; 資訊共享; 資訊隱私權; 比例原則; 假設性重新蒐集資料 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Intelligence agencies; Police agencies; Separation between intelligence and law enforcement; The principle of information separation; Information sharing; Right to information privacy; The principle of proportionality; Hypothetical re-collection of data | |
| dc.title (題名) | 論情報機關與警察機關之資訊分離與資訊共享--以情治分立為出發點談起 | |
| dc.title (題名) | On the Separation and Sharing of Information between Intelligence Agencies and Police Agencies: An Analysis Based on the Separation between Intelligence and Law Enforcement | |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
| dc.identifier.doi (DOI) | 10.53106/102398202023060173001 | |
| dc.doi.uri (DOI) | https://dx.doi.org/10.53106/102398202023060173001 | |
