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.

敵人刑法的概念早在1985年由 Jakobs 教授首次提出，經過一段時間後，敵人刑法在學界廣受討論，然而批判的聲音卻大於贊同！敵人刑法並非Jakobs憑空創設出了什麼法令，而儘是Jakobs就現有的法體例觀察後，做一個描述並予以命名。 本論文第二章將Jakobs一系列對敵人刑法的文章予以仔細釐清，第三章則以「符合敵人刑法概念」的德國相關法制做介紹，另一併檢視我國相關法制，是否有符合敵人刑法的規定，並論述其正當性。第四章則以針對批評敵人刑法文章中的論點，予以論述並探究，這些批評的基礎和Jakobs提出敵人刑法的基礎是否相同，若有不同則須加以釐清。 2001年911恐怖攻擊事件後，敵人刑法開始受到刑法學界的青睞，甚有論者認為可以用敵人刑法來對抗恐怖主義的論點，本文對此加以探討以一個「概念性的敵人刑法」對抗恐怖主義究竟有無效用，並於最後提出對於敵人刑法及其相關法制的評述及一己之見。