| 摘要: | 我國《國防法》與《國防部組織法》兩法（又稱國防二法）於民國89年1月15日經立法院完成修正案三讀程序，於是90年3月1日起，我國國防體制正式依照《國防法》、《國防部組織法》規定調整為「軍政、軍令一元化」的國防體制。此不但成為我國「文人領軍」（Civilian Control of Military）的法源基礎，也制定總統—國家安全會議—行政院—國防部長—參謀總長的國家安全架構體系。
本文研究目的為：（一）藉由比較我國與美國「文人領軍」在軍政管理系統、軍令管理系統及國會協調聯繫等三方面的施行作法差異，以作為我國推行「文人領軍」政策改進的參考。（二）經由比較我國與美國「文人領軍」施行作法後，針對我國目前在「國防決策權責與份際、國防體制與組織文化、文人運用與培育及國會監督與政策協調」等方面，提出個人建議，期望早日達成純文人領軍的目的。
本文研究方法主要採「文獻分析法」又稱（檔案探究法（archival data））與「歷史研究法」。研究內容為：（一）探索「文人領軍」的真正概念意涵。（二）瞭解美國與傳統中國「文人領軍」背景發展與歷史演進。（三）國防二法正式實施後比較美國與我國現階段「文人領軍」的施行作法之差異。（四）探討我國與美國「文人領軍」在軍政管理系統、軍令指揮系統以及國會協調聯繫等方面的運作方式與差異。（五）評析我國「文人領軍」施行作法。（六）我國在國防二法施行後「文人領軍」互動現況與發展，並提出相對策進作為與建議。
整體而言，「文人領軍」的機制雖然已經形成，但是由於我國憲法體制的不明確，及「國防二法」制定時的匆忙，因此就制度設計面來看，仍可發現一些或明或隱的瑕疵，而有待改正或釐清。「文人領軍」是我國在實踐民主化過程中極為關鍵的步驟，若能以「國防二法」實施作為起頭，相信仍然可以達到「文人領軍」的目標（純文人國防部長以及國防體制三分之一文官）。
Both the National Defense Act and the Organization Act of the Ministry of National Defense in Taiwan (also called the Two Laws of National Defense) have been stipulated and enacted on January 15th, 2000 with the three stages of the reading process of amendments in the Legislative Yuan. Accordingly, from March 1st, 2001, the National Defense System in Taiwan is formally adapted to the National Defense System of“ Convergence of the Military Command and Administration Systems” according to the “National Defense Act” and the “Organization Act of the Ministry of National Defense “. This has not only become the basic law for the “Civilian Control of Military”, but also established the national security framework system of the President—National Security Council—Executive Yuan—Minister of Defense—Chief of General Staff.
The purpose of the study is (1) to compare the differences in the implimentation of the military administrative management system, the military command management system, and the Parliamentarian Liaison on the “Civilian Control of Military” between Taiwan and the USA; (2) to propose personal advices with respect to the current “responsibility in the decision making of the national defense, national defense system and organizational culture, employment and nurture of civilian service officers, and Parliamentarian oversight and policy coordination” after having compared the way of the enforcement of the “Civilian Control of Military” between Taiwan and the USA, in hoping of expediting the process of civilianigation of the MND.
The approaches of the study are “documentary analysis”, also called “archival data” analysis, and “historical research”. The subject matter of the study is: (1) to explore the true implications of the “Civilian Control of Military”; (2) to understand the background development and historical evolution of the “Civilian Control of Military” between the USA and the traditional China; (3) to compare the difference in the way of the enforcement of the “Civilian Control of Military” in the period between Taiwan and the USA after formal execution of the Two Laws of National Defense; (4) to explore the way of the operation and its difference in the military administration management system, the military command system and the Congress coordination and communication of the “Civilian Control of Military” between Taiwan and the USA; (5) to review on the way of the implimentation of the “Civilian Control of Military” in Taiwan; (6) the current state and development of interaction of the “Civilian Control of Military” after the enactment of the Two“ Laws of National Defense” in Taiwan, and to propose relative promotion actions and advices.
As a whole, although the mechanism of the “Civilian Control of Military” has been already established, the Constitutional System in Taiwan is, however, indefinite, and the “Two Laws of National Defense” is hastily implimented. Accordingly, from the system design, it can still discover some defects and hence remains to be improved or clarified. The “Civilian Control of Military” is an extremely decisive step in the process of realizing democracy. If the implimentation of the “Dual Laws of National Defense” can be seen as the beginning, it is believed that the purpose of the “Civilian Control of Military” can be still achieved (the civilian Defense Minister and the national defense system of one-third civilian service officers). |
