[[alternative]]Analysing the Counter-Terrorism Policy of the EU

99學年度張福昌升等參考著作[[abstract]]在 21 世紀恐怖主義國際化與複雜化的趨勢下，單一國家的政府已無法單獨解決恐怖主義問題，而必須採取跨國合作的方式共同打擊恐怖主義。反恐政策是歐盟的優先政策，過去幾年來，歐盟已建構打擊恐怖主義的機構藍圖，在歐盟第三支柱「司法與內政合作」中，打擊恐怖主義為其核心領域。此外，阿姆斯特丹條約下司法與內政事務的決策程序繼承了馬斯垂克條約所規範的4 層架構：第一，司法與內政部長理事會；第二，常駐代表委員會第2 組；第三，特別協調委員會；第四，工作小組。從決策過程中可以發現，歐盟司法與內政事務仍然屬於政府間合作的模式，歐盟會員國仍然掌握決定性的權力。然而，第三支柱「政府間合作」的特性，卻使目前的反恐效率大打折扣，歐盟的反恐政策雖然已經透過不同形式的機構和法令推展中，但是在機構的建制或情報的交換中，歐盟會員國仍扮演主要角色。若歐盟會員國無法將歐盟通過的法令確實納入國內法中，將會造成許多反恐法令的延宕。這種反恐政策仍然未能共同體化的障礙，迫使歐盟只能在反恐領域上扮演協調者的角色，會員國的立場是歐盟反恐政策能否落實與產生效果的關鍵因素。[[abstract]]The counter-terrorism policies of EU have constructed the blueprint of the current counter-terrorism strategy within the EU. It is the priority of the EU policies, as well as the core domain of the third pillar of EU. On the other hand, the decision-making procedure of “Justice and Home Affairs; Coreper II; Special Coordinating Committees; and Working Groups. It is to be seen from the decision-making procedure that EU’s Justice and Home Affairs still appertain to inter-governmental cooperation. Member states own the authoritative power in this regard. However, the characteristic of this inter-governmental cooperation of the third pillar result in the present inefficiency of counter-terrorism. Although the counter-terrorism policy of EU has been promoted through different agencies and laws, member states remain the main character in the institution construction and information exchange mechanism. Provided that the member states do not incorporate EU’s counter-terrorism policy into domestic law, many of the counter-terrorism laws and decrees will be suspended. Since the policing cooperation is not in the policy domain of communizing of EU, it can only play the roll of a coordinator in the area of counter-terrorism. The position of the member states is the key answer to the question if the counter-terrorism policy can be implemented and brought into effect.[[journaltype]]國內[[booktype]]紙本[[countrycodes]]TW