當美國百年以來，本土第一次遭受到恐怖主義攻擊後，布希政府迅速整合出一套危機處理政策。在危機處理的立即反應上，從國民情緒之掌控，社會秩序之穩定，災難現場之管制，防止其他事變再發生等，都有可圈可點的表現。而且幾乎是每天早上召開國家安全會議。這些參與會議人員幾乎有因應1991年波灣危機的經驗。故當九一一事件發生後，布希的決策團隊能迅速發揮最大功能。 「九一一」恐怖攻擊事件後，不僅使美國「世界超強」的大國地位受到挑戰，而且美軍兵力結構及全球戰略部署，乃至白宮的危機處理機制，也因應此一事件而產生結構性的改變。從近期反恐怖主義成為美國壓倒一切的中心任務來看，布希為取得國際反恐聯盟的合作，使得各國在對美關係上，外交迴旋餘地增大，大國間的關係亦面臨改變，使得美國重新認定其國家利益和主要威脅之所在。 美國面對威脅本質的改變，使得布希總統提議成立一個「國土安全部」，以確保美國境內安全的新組織，以回應恐怖份子在九一一攻擊世貿中心與五角大廈。白宮宣稱，這是半世紀以來，美國最大規模的政府組織調整，不增加經費，只是政府內部轉移作業，並未擴增員額。而此部門在協調上，將面臨很大挑戰；另外，在指揮體系與監督等錯綜複雜之關係上，值得深入探討。 從國家安全的角度言，危機處理為其達成目的之重要手段，換言之，危機處理的目的，即在預防危機及遏止危機的發生，一旦危機發生，則立即啟動危機處理機制，發揮其應有的功能，以降低危機所造成的損害，控制危機情勢，並迅速將損害復原。因此，如何建構完善的危機處理機制，做好危機虞理，乃為國家安全體系重要的任務，亦為現代化國家政府所追求的重要目標。 關鍵字：九一一事件、危機處理、國土安全部。

2001年9月11日美國四架民航機遭受恐怖分子劫持，先後撞擊紐約世貿中心雙子星大廈及國防部五角大廈，造成了美國第二次世界大戰以來最大一次的本土人民生命、財產傷亡與破壞，震驚了美國及全世界。 恐怖主義在一般的認知上，是指「一個激進的組織或言行、思想偏激分子，基於自我的民族意識、宗教信仰或是政治理想，藉由各種不同的暴力攻擊或破壞手段，使社會人心產生恐懼，以達成其企求或政治目的」，由於其攻擊、破壞的目標，往往是以無辜的人民為對象，攻擊的範圍亦不限於特定的地區，已對世界的和平與安定造成嚴重危害，必須加以防範遏阻。 美國在遭受九一一恐怖攻擊後，聯邦政府除迅速採取各種緊急應變作為，以穩定民心士氣外，也積極制定「愛國者法案」及修正相關法令，並成立「國土安全部」統合反恐事權，迄今美國本土未再遭受大規模之恐怖攻擊，顯示其相關作為已具若干成效；另世界各國亦依據聯合國安全理事會通過之第一三七三號決議案，紛紛加強各國之反恐措施，我國雖非聯合國會員國，然身為地球村的一分子，仍應全力配合執行反恐怖作為。 我國現行反恐怖行動機制，平時係由國家安全局負責反恐怖情報之整合工作，並由行政院以任務編組方式成立「國土安全政策會報」及「國土安全辦公室」負責指導、推動各項反恐怖工作，各相關部會依權責編組「反恐怖攻擊應變編組」；當恐怖攻擊事件發生時，如果是單一的類型，則由主管之部會成立「二級應變中心」負責處理，二種以上類型發生時，則由行政院臨時召集成立「一級應變中心」統籌處理，此種情報與應變體系分離之「雙軌制」機制，實無法有效因應重大恐怖攻擊事件。 「他山之石，可以攻錯」，我國應記取其他國家遭受恐怖攻擊之經驗教訓，審慎規劃設計反恐怖行動機制，就「法制面」而言，應優先完成「反恐怖行動法」草案之立法，使反恐怖工作能依法行政；其次「制度面」應成立統一反恐怖事權的專責機關－「國土安全部」，專責推動我國反恐怖及國土安全維護事宜；在「執行面」方面，則應精進特勤部隊之反恐專業訓練，強化重要經建設施安全維護、加強國際合作交流、擬訂各種緊急應變計畫等工作，以確保人民、生命財產安全。

任何地區、國家，無論發生自然或人為災害，事故一旦發生都有其共通現象就是「形成災難」緊急救援，爾後再依相關情況研判是為自然或人為災害，災情是逐次明朗，風災、水災、震災如此，其他災害亦是如此；當一個國家之「國土安全」面對不安定的情勢或緊急狀況下，無法阻止或處理、甚至於潛在持續惡化之重大變故，其國家之軍隊可證明國家有持續(恢復)政府功能運作之能力。這些「非戰爭行為之軍事行動」包含：災難援助、反恐怖主義行動、人道救援協助、環境保護、大規模支援反毒行動、環境許可下的撤僑及維和行動等。 我國現階段國防政策以「預防戰爭、國土防衛、反恐制變」為基本目標；另在強化全民防衛理念上，兼顧「國防安全」和「危機應變」考量，積極配合各部會整合，建構完整之機處理應變機制，於發生重大危機、事故或緊急災難時，在不影響國軍戰備、不破壞國軍指揮體系、不超過國軍支援能力範圍之原則下，於第一時間投入國軍的人力與資源，依法提供國家社會及人民必要的災難援助支援。 觀察國內過去幾次重大災害的救災行動，由於「國軍」最具組織性、紀律化、機動快、效率高的特性，能使救災的行動更快速又有效。然而，歷經921大地震、八八風災後，發現國軍執行救災因國內救災體系、法制的不完備，使得國軍救災的能力受限，無法發揮該有的效用；因此，政府從各層面深入檢討，完成了一系列的精進措施，在馬總統出席民99年國軍重要幹部研習會時指示：「災害防救」是國軍中心任務，國軍要「超前部署、預置兵力，隨時防救，防災重於救災，離災優於。」在之後的幾次颱風來襲期間，國軍超前預置兵力有效降低災損發揮了相當的效果，也顯示出國軍遂行災害救援的重要性。 綜上，提昇國軍災害救援能力，符合國防政策基本方針，亦符合政府施政目標，確保人民生命財產安全，國軍應持續強化執行非軍事行動能力，俾利確保國土安全。 / No matter what regions, nations, natural or manmade disasters, it will soon come with disaster rescue. After that, it depends on what kind of disasters. When a country cannot deal with the national security, the armed forces can prove that a country can run their government continually. These MOOTW include disaster rescue, counter-terrorism, humanity rescue assistance, environment protection, anti-drug action, approval evacuation and peace keeping. The Defense Policy of our country is based on war prevention, national defense and anti-terrorism action now. It also concerns about defense security and crisis reaction to strengthen national defense idea, and cooperates with other departments in order to build a whole crisis reaction. When the crisis happens, the armed forces will send people and other resources to help them without affecting national combat readiness, violating armed forces command system, and overloading the armed forces supportive ability. According to the law, it will provide assistance for the disasters. According to the major disaster rescue in the past, the armed forces can do it effectively because of their buildup, discipline and mobility. However, during the natural disaster of earthquake, typhoon, we realize that the troops and law on the disaster rescue are not good enough to cover all situations. The armed forces ability is also limited by the law, and cannot be effectively. After inspecting, the government finishes a series of solutions. During a major member meeting on armed forces, the President Ma said that disaster rescue is the main purpose of our armed forces. The military should deploy before the natural disaster, and prevent for the natural disaster all the time. Prevention is better than rescue. During some typhoon disasters, the armed forces follow the policy and do it effectively. It also shows the importance of armed forces when doing the disaster rescue. Above all, increasing armed forces ability on disaster rescue fits to our defense policy, the government goal, and also ensures the people and property safe. Tha armed forces should continue and strengthen the non-military action ability to ensure the national security. Key words: national security, MOOTW, armed forces, disaster rescue.

政府存在的目的，在維持人民基本的生活水準，在促使民眾能在自由、安和、樂利的平等的社會環境，並透過與運用法律、道德所允許的公權力手段，以促進社會的繁榮為最高之宗旨；但在目前政府處理危機緊急應變機制計有國土安全會報、災害防救會報及全民防衛動員準備業務會報(此即政府三大緊急應變體系)等，並自2005年起推動合併運作迄今，在中央政府之作法，似已達實際聯合運作與資源整合之效益，然在實際運作情形因需涉及中央與地方間權責分工關係？各公民營事業機構等體系能否協同運作之勾聯？等問題，現有運作並非如此順暢，究其原因係政府在面對新型態的危機發生時，三大應變體系聯合運作所能回應與處理的緊急應變處置作為，不僅未能有效的解決危機與事件所引發的問題，甚者更成為危機處置的亂源與礙手礙腳始作俑者；實有再予檢視與探討空間，以期建立一個權責相符且明確的緊急應變機制。 本文試圖以運用跨域治理為出發點，謹就政府目前積極推動之國土安全、災害防救及全民防衛動員準備業務(此即政府三大緊急應變體系)上聯合運作既存的困境，究其緣由乃此三應變體系皆屬危機管理範疇，各體系內所包含之工作項目與所涉單位甚多，任務屬性與編組成員重疊度極高，甚者尚可包含公(私)營事業機構，故亦應屬跨域治理之特徵，此三者之間關係應緊密運作且具關聯性。然從自2005年起政府積極推動情形下，縱然掌握最大的緊急應變資源與能量，但從歷次處理各項災後或危機應變等工作，卻往往是成為社會與民眾所責難焦點，何以如此呢？實因在於政府的緊急應變處置的機制紛亂不一所致，況且今日台灣面臨全球化所造成的衝擊，環境的變遷導致複合式災害所形成的危機出現層出不窮、社會科技上多元技術的需求以及民眾普遍要求全面的危機管理與跨域治理，故本文主要乃是以「跨域治理」與「危機管理理論」作為基礎論點，藉由文獻探討、焦點座談及問卷調查等方式，檢視三大應變體系聯合運作政府與民間的豐沛資源，運用網際網絡之功能與跨域治理的模式，才能達到凝聚總體資源，群策群力共同處理危機。 / The primary purpose of the government existence is maintaining the integrity of the people's basic living standard, encouraging people to have freedom, peace, and equality. Furthermore, under the law and morality, by means of public power to promote social prosperity. Since 2005, the Taiwan government has amalgamated and promoted the joint operation of three urgent strain response systems which includes homeland security council, disaster council, and national defense mobilization council (these three are the urgent strain response systems of Taiwan Government). The government's approach seems to have reached the joint operation of resources integration of benefits. However, in the actual operation, the problems were emerged from the conflict involved between Central and local authorities, the responsibilities between the public and private utilities, and how to implement the operation of the system of cooperative association. To trace the causes, the joint operation of three major urgent strain response systems is incapable to respond and handle emergency disposal when facing a new state crisis. Moreover, it might cause the crisis of the source of chaos and drag initiator. Definitely, there is a need for further review and assessment to establish a consistent and clear responsibilities among these three urgent strain response systems. This article attempts to use cross-domain governance as a starting point to assess the system. The government impetus the urgent strain of government presently, the three urgent strain response systems are the part of crisis management which includes lots of work and connections with other majority organizations. Because the association constitutes various members base on the different tasks, some members may belong to different divisions. Even the enterprises which run by the local people are the members of the “cross-boundary governance” which should be closely related each other. Since 2005, the government has actively promoting circumstances, even the government has enough information and resources of handling emergency situation, this government (administration) still censured by the public. The reason is that the emergency structure of our government is out of frame and inconsistence. In addition, Taiwan is facing the high pressure of becoming globalization. The impact of changes of the environment resulted in the formation of compound disaster crises emerged, the needs of diverse technologies and social science and people generally demand comprehensive crisis management along with cross-domain administration, so this paper is based on “cross-boundary governance” and “crisis management”, by using the literature reviews, seminars and workshops, questionnaires and surveys to assess the joint operation of three urgent strain systems of Taiwan Government, and the public use of the vast resources, to apply the internet functions and cross-domain governance model, will be able to reach the overall resources and effectively integrating the common crisis management of Taiwan Government.

網路恐怖主義（Cyberterrorism）為「網際網路」（Internet）與「恐怖主義」（terrorism）相互結合之產物，指恐怖份子為求引發嚴重破壞，並造成平民死傷，透過網際網路入侵國家關鍵基礎設施（critical infrastructures），並以之要脅政府或人民完成其政治性、宗教性或社會性目標。至2012年7月為止，對於網路恐怖主義相關議題之討論雖已持續約30年之久，然而各界對於網路恐怖主義之「定義」及「威脅性」兩項基本問題，仍然眾說紛紜，無法取得一致共識，而全球各地缺乏網路恐怖攻擊之實際案例之情況，亦使爭辯益加激烈。 　　在美國政府方面，經過2001年911事件的重大衝擊，其對於恐怖主義相關議題之敏感程度已大幅提高，並陸續制定多項反恐政策。美國是當前國際反恐行動的領導者，既為軍事與科技大國，同時也是諸多國際恐怖組織策劃攻擊之主要目標，有鑑於此，美國政府致力於防治網路恐怖主義，保護國內關鍵基礎設施不受侵襲，以維持社會安定及國家安全，其因應方式足以成為世界各國制定類似政策之重要參考對象。 　　本論文經由探討網路恐怖主義之基本意涵，比較「網路恐怖主義」、「網路犯罪」及「網路戰爭」三個概念之間的差異，嘗試針對網路恐怖主義形成明確之界定；接著綜整各界針對網路恐怖主義威脅性之爭論，以了解網路恐怖主義之真實威脅程度；最後觀察美國自柯林頓（Clinton）政府至今，有關防治網路恐怖主義政策之一系列發展、美國政府如何評估網路恐怖主義之威脅，以及在當前的政策架構之下，為保護國內關鍵基礎設施，其相對應之具體措施為何，試圖對於其整體政策建立客觀評價。 / Cyberterrorism, the convergence of “Internet” and “terrorism,” refers to the specific terrorist activities that were intended to cause massive destruction and casualties, proceeded by intruding the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems of national critical infrastructures via the Internet. Even though the discussion of the related issues of Cyberterrorism has continued for nearly 30 years now, neither the definition nor the evaluation of potential threat concerning Cyberterrorism has been settled. No consensus has been achieved. Furthermore, the lack of actual cases of Cyberterrorism attack around the world makes the debates even more intense. After the significant impact of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has substantially raised the degree of sensitivity of the issues related to terrorism and developed a number of counter-terrorism policies. As the leader of the Global War on Terror and the greatest Power in the world, the U.S. is also the main target of many terrorist groups. With its military and scientific capabilities, the practices of the U.S. government on preventing Cyberterrorism, protecting its domestic critical infrastructures from intrusion, and maintaining social stability and national security would be excellent examples to other nations for the development of their own policies. To clarify the explicit definition of Cyberterrorism, this research refined the basic meaning of Cyberterrorism and distinguished differences among three related concepts: Cyberterrorism, Cybercrime, and Cyberwar. Moreover, this research sought to induct major arguments brought up by scholars in many intense debates on the extent of Cyberterrorism threat. Last but not least, by observing development of the U.S. related policy frameworks, how the U.S. government evaluates the extent of Cyberterrorism threat, and the corresponding measures for protecting the U.S. domestic critical infrastructures, this research presented an objective assessment on the U.S. overall counter-Cyberterrorism policies.