Counter-terrorism in APEC: An Analysis on Supply Chain Security Regime

為因應反恐維安衝擊貿易流程，世界海關組織於2005年公布「全球貿易安全與便捷化標準架構」，為全球供應鏈安全合作奠定標準，惟其並無揭露該架構之內容如何談判而來。對此，本論文以2003-2005年APEC各會員體對前述架構核心要素之態度，分析21個會員體對供應鏈安全合作之看法，並探討APEC對該架構形成之角色究竟屬推動者或跟隨者，藉以理解個別會員體與區域組織形塑國際建制的作用。 在個別會員體部分，美國確於推動供應鏈安全國際建制之形成扮演主要角色，惟WCO標準架構核心要素並不全然為其他境內同受恐攻的會員體所接受，反而未受恐攻的會員體如台灣、馬來西亞、巴紐呈現高度配合，此顯示境內是否曾遭恐攻，並非一國決定支持供應鏈安全國際建制之必要條件。目前的發展則是美國有意實施更嚴格的安檢制度，但多數APEC會員體則更強調「最低安全標準」。此即，美國作為大國及原始知識提供者，但「共有知識」的形成並非其所能控制。 在區域組織形塑國際建制的部分，WCO公佈標準架構前，APEC各會員體並無積極共識之形成。然而，該架構公佈後，APEC則提出發展AEO計畫，用以執行WCO標準架構內之AEO認證規範。至2015年6月，具實質意義的AEO相互認證協議有30個，皆與APEC會員體有關。此一事實顯示自2005年WCO標準架構公布後11年間，APEC是WCO供應鏈安全建制的主要執行者。World Customs Organization (WCO), in response to the impact of terrorism, had endorsed strategy of supply chain security in June 2005 named “Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade.” WCO, however, had not shown much of the forming process of the framework. To understand the forming process, this research analyzes the positions of APEC‘s 21 members to the core elements of the framework during 2003-2005. The WCO framework also showed its feature as an international regime. Thus, the analysis would discern whether APEC’s role was a promoter or follower, and bring comprehension on the respectively functions of APEC members in the forming process of the new-born regime. On the part of analyzing the functions of APEC members to form the regime, the research found the United States, as a member that had been attacked by terrorists, played a role as main promoter. The other members that had been attacked, however, did not show their fully support to the core elements of the regime. Nevertheless, some non-attacked members such as Taiwan, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea usually represented their positive positions. The different positions of the attacked and non-attacked members suggest that been attacked by terrorists is not a necessary condition for a member to support the forming of the regime. The development of the cooperation in APEC now is emphasizing “the minimum security requirement” more than the strict measures suggested by the United States. This situation means the United States, as a great power and the origin of the knowledge of supply chain security, could influence deeply on the common knowledge of the regime instead of dominating it. On the part of analyzing the functions of APEC as a regional organization to form the regime mentioned, the research found APEC did not have positive consensus before the WCO framework was published. However, APEC addressed an action plan on the development of AEO programs suggested by the framework. According to WCO, there were 30 AEO Mutual Recognition Agreements during June 2005 to May 2016, and the agreements were all relevant to APEC members. The fact showed APEC was proved to be the main role that had enforced the WCO framework in the mentioned 11 years