The ultimate goal of modern constitutionalism is to protect the human rights, and its realization is the establishment of a "limited government." To maintain national security, protect our society and people from all hazard, is the obligation of the government which owning the national executive power. In order to secure the national security, national defense, diplomacy and intelligence become the most important affairs of the government, and also with less oversight from the legislative power. The national intelligence services will influence the success or failure of national defense and diplomacy. To acquiring more early warning time, intelligence services are the indispensable work to secure the national security. Depending on the principle of Rule of Law of modern constitutionalism, the intelligence organizations shall follow the principle of rule by law. Also, the positive rule by law must abide by the ¡§Vorbehalt des Gesetzes.¡¨ Basing on the check and balance, intelligence services should be over-sighted by the legislative branch. However, because of the nature of secrecy, intelligence services should be only over-sighted in essential and limited sphere to avoid endangering agents¡¦ security and operations. This paper analyzes laws, histories and practices of the intelligence organizations in the United States, Germany and ROC, as well as intelligence-and-administration-in-one or separation. We also compare the tasks, missions and laws of intelligence operations of the United States, Germany and ROC. This paper also studies on how intelligence agencies are supervised by Congress in the principle of balance and check. This paper finds that the Intelligence Service Law of ROC is equivocalness between information and intelligence. Information collection through secret way is adopted by indefinite law concept, therefore, people lack the right of information self-determination and post-relief system. Legislative oversight lacks the substantial meaning, and merely has the work of administrative oversight by law. To establish the Intelligence Oversight Board seems to be not necessary.

本篇論文以探討「美、伊」第二次波斯灣戰爭，雙方的情報與反情報活動為主軸，依序針對美國情報界何以誤判伊拉克發展「大規模毀滅性武器」之原委，以及美國情報界有關「人員情報」與「科技情報」的相關得失，及其何以發生「當勝而未勝、當斷而未斷」的謬誤予之陳述，以期進一步就伊拉克未來情勢預為論述。整個論文研究的時間以2002年9月至2003年5月中旬為主；另視情況包括海珊在2003年12月中旬被捕，以及2006年處死為止，以呼應戰前情報資料所呈現的連貫性。 全篇內容，從「美、伊」第二次波斯灣戰爭為起點，延續軍事作戰的脈絡，就其情報組織及其情報、安全運作機制為主，針對「美、伊」雙方在「情報政策、情報組織、編制體制、情報作為（含人員、科技情報）、員額預算、教育訓練與反情報作為」為其探討的各個面向。以伊拉克為例，本研究論述依序包括「革命指導委員會」（Revolutionary Command Council, RCC）所管轄之「情報總局（GID）、安全總局（GSS）、軍事情報局」（MI）三大情報機構，外加「共和國衛隊」（Republican Guard, RG）、「特別共和衛隊」（Special Republican Guard, SRG）相關之軍事情報作為，以及「軍事安全局」(Military Security Service，MSS)有關反情報作為，探究其在兩次波斯灣戰爭之運作效能。 至於美國情報界，啟自美國「國家安全會議」（NSC）安全體系，就其「中央情報局」（CIA）、「國防情報局」（DIA）、「國家安全局」（NSA）、「國家影像暨製圖局」（NIMA）、「國家偵察室」（NRO）等各級情報機關的組織、功能，及其如何運用「特種作戰、空中偵察、衛星監控與電訊監聽」，以廣泛探究其情報作為為重點，進而結合軍事作戰行動，探究其成敗得失。其中，針對美國情報界誤判伊拉克發展「大規模毀滅性武器」（Weapons of mass Destruction, WMD）之原委，以及美國情報界在「人員情報」與「科技情報」的相關工作，何以發生「當勝而未勝、當斷而未斷」的謬誤予之陳述，以期進一步為當前的伊拉克情勢預為論述。 全篇研究架構乃是依據派森斯（T. Parson）所提倡的《社會系統論》，同時針對黎特（J. Litterer）論述的《透析組織》（The Analysis of Organization），作為解析各方情報組織之特質與差異。論文寫作期間，個人亦視需要透過《文獻探討法》、《歷史研究法》與《個案研究法》等方法妥當論述。另；本篇論文區分為7章、33節，約17餘萬字。其中；針對「情報對軍事作戰之影響是否發生革命性的變化」，「情報政策與情報組織之間關聯性應如何取捨」，以及「戰略環境改變與情報作業程序之關聯性」等三個環節，就其緒論（第一章）、「美、伊」第二次波斯灣戰爭緣起暨作戰概況（第二章）、二次波斯灣戰爭期間伊拉克情報體系及其作為（第三章）、二次波斯灣戰爭期間美國情報體系及其情報作為（第四章），以及「美、伊」雙方在情報政策與機制（第五章）與「美、伊」二次波灣戰爭之情報實務與作為（第六章），進而導引出第七章、研究心得與研究發現，並據此完成論文寫作。 由於伊拉克的情報文件多受戰火摧殘，加之伊拉克情報、反情報體系在戰後瓦解後，僅存的文件檔案又多遭俄羅斯帶走，致使伊拉克原始資料舉證不易。此外美國國會在2007年完成調查報告後，固然有助於部分真相的還原，但限於美國單方面的論點，仍不足以呈現其原貌。故亟需參考第三者或其他國家的出版品、網路資訊，輔以個人多方研究所得增益其所不足，此一論述諒必有所洞悉。總之，本篇論文乃是針對「美、伊」二次波斯灣戰之情報作為為其論述，有其針對性、專屬性與深入之探討，惟受美國行政機構資料保密之侷限性，部份內容猶待日後解密方能進一步論述，因此不周之後尚祈指導教授、各位老師及研究此一課題的同學們有所見諒。

The dissertation conducts a comparative analysis of the roles of the Inspectors-General of Intelligence with specific reference to South Africa. The analysis assessed the roles, functions and structures of the office of the Inspectors-General in the following countries: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, South Africa and equivalent institutions in the United Kingdom. The study was based on a review of existing literature and interviews and written responses with some of the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, the former Minister for Intelligence Services, LN Sisulu, the head of the intelligence division of the South African National Defence Force, the former deputy Director-General of the South African Secret Service, judge Gordon who is responsible for interception of communications and the current Inspector-General of Intelligence, Mr ZT Ngcakani. The performance of the office of the Inspector General of Intelligence since 1995 indicates that: (a) there were ambiguities in the legal framework for the office of the Inspector-General which led to various interpretations by stakeholders on the functioning of the office; (b) there is still a need to test the impact of the office of the Inspector General on the Services and the public; and (c) the Inspector-General's office requires other oversight mechanisms to complement its functions. / Dissertation (MSS)--University of Pretoria, 2008. / Political Sciences / unrestricted

Si les activités de renseignement public n’étaient pas encadrées, la loi du 24 juillet 2015 relative au renseignement a permis de créer un cadre juridique du renseignement, tout en mettant en avant la communauté du renseignement. Cet encadrement juridique des activités de renseignement s’exerce dans le but de faire face aux menaces à la sécurité nationale. Cet encadrement juridique est aussi une avancée qui a permis d’ériger le renseignement public comme une politique publique, nécessaire pour protéger les intérêts fondamentaux de la Nation, et a été complété par un contrôle concret de ces activités de renseignement. / As the activities of public intelligence services were not regulated before, the law on intelligence dated July 24th, 2015 allowed to create a legal framework of intelligence, while showcasing the intelligence community. This legal framework of intelligence activities is meant to deal with the threats to national security. This legal framework is also a breakthrough allowing to turn public intelligence into public policy, which is required to protect the fundamental interests of the Nation, and it has been completed by an effective control of these intelligence activities.