English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113485/144472 (79%)
Visitors : 51389349      Online Users : 309
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/148570


    Title: 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
    On the Separation and Sharing of Information between Intelligence Agencies and Police Agencies: An Analysis Based on the Separation between Intelligence and Law Enforcement
    Authors: 謝碩駿
    Hsieh, Shuo-chun
    Contributors: 政大法學評論
    Keywords: 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
    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
    Date: 2023-06
    Issue Date: 2023-12-04 16:32:47 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 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。
    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”.
    Relation: 政大法學評論, 173, 1-84
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://dx.doi.org/10.53106/102398202023060173001
    DOI: 10.53106/102398202023060173001
    Appears in Collections:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    173-1.pdf2233KbAdobe PDF136View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback