我國駐外警察聯絡官之跨域協作─全球治理視角之分析

Abstract

在全球化導致跨境犯罪日趨嚴重的背景下，國內執法機制已不敷使用。我國因特殊的國際政治地位，難以參與國際組織的多邊執法合作，政府遂於2005年建立「駐外警察聯絡官制度」，透過與各國的雙邊合作加入國際執法領域。這項制度迄今歷經哪些變革？聯絡官在國際上的定位與角色為何？如何拓展新設駐點？如何透過跨域協作實踐全球治理？過程中遭遇哪些挑戰或困境？都是本文所欲探究的內容，面向涵蓋甚廣。因此，本研究採用質性研究方法，深度訪談多位現職或前任駐外警察聯絡官、相關警政部門主管與偵查人員，據此從不同視角分析駐外聯絡官制度運作機制及其跨域協作網絡。 研究發現，隨著政黨輪替，該制度的發展也會隨之調整，目前大致歷經草創期、以兩岸為重心、以國際為重心等不同階段。不變的是，我國駐外聯絡官一貫秉持「務實為本」的合作模式，透過「Police to Police」（P2P）機制建立跨境執法夥伴關係，延續務實外交概念，以爭取實質利益為首要目標。而制度創設20年來，駐外據點逐步增加，迄今為止派駐聯絡官在14個國家、16座城市。本文歸納新設駐點需求應綜合評估五大積極要件；駐點推動過程則須克服限制因素的四大消極要件。而在跨域協作方面，駐外聯絡官須與國內／外各公部門、私部門及第三部門建立綿密合作網絡，這些互動關係當中，包含正式合作機制或單純基於認同情誼的非正式協助，其中我國在私部門及第三部門協作比重明顯高於他國，這是必要且不得不的替代方案，以補強國際政治打壓下的合作缺口。 此外，研究發現駐外聯絡官制度面臨四大困境與挑戰：首先，兩岸關係的結構性因素導致國際政治打壓加劇，影響與各駐在國的雙邊警政交流與執法合作；其次，資源配置不足體現在組織編制與人力、公務預算、教育訓練、偵查工具與法令程序等多個面向，顯示政府對警政外交的重視程度尚有不足；另外，官僚主義與本位主義造成機關間產生協調困難、資訊不對稱與期望落差等問題；最後，不同駐在國在組織編制、法令制度、國情文化及貪腐問題等面向的差異性，則相當考驗駐外聯絡官的適應性與應變能力。基於上述研究發現，本文嘗試就相關問題提出具體政策建議，期能強化我國跨境執法合作能力，有效因應全球治理下的跨境犯罪挑戰。

In the context of increasing transnational crime driven by globalization, Taiwan's domestic law enforcement mechanisms have become insufficient to address complex cross-border challenges. Due to its unique international political status, Taiwan has long been excluded from multilateral law enforcement cooperation under formal international organizations. In response, the government established the Police Liaison Officer System in 2005 as a means to participate in global policing through bilateral collaboration. This institutional arrangement raises several critical questions: How has the system evolved over time? What roles and positions do Taiwan’s police liaison officers hold in the international security landscape? How are new liaison posts established? In what ways does the system contribute to the practice of global governance through inter-agency and cross-sectoral collaboration? What obstacles or structural constraints are encountered in this process? To address these questions, this study adopts a qualitative research approach, drawing upon in-depth interviews with current and former liaison officers, as well as senior officials and investigators from relevant police departments. Through multi-perspective analysis, the research explores the operational logic and inter-organizational networks underpinning Taiwan’s overseas police liaison system. Findings suggest that the system has undergone distinct phases of development shaped by partisan alternation in government, including an initial experimental phase, a cross-Strait-oriented phase, and a more recent shift toward international engagement. Despite political shifts, a core operational principle persists: Taiwan’s liaison officers adhere to a pragmatic diplomacy approach, prioritizing the pursuit of substantive benefits through Police-to-Police (P2P) mechanisms, thereby forging transnational enforcement partnerships grounded in practical cooperation. Over the past two decades, the number of liaison posts has steadily expanded, currently comprising deployments in 14 countries and 16 cities. This study identifies five key enabling conditions for establishing new posts, as well as four constraining factors that must be overcome in the process. In terms of cross-sectoral collaboration, liaison officers must engage with a dense web of stakeholders across public, private, and third sectors—both domestically and abroad. These interactions involve a spectrum of formal and informal mechanisms, with Taiwan’s reliance on non-governmental actors being notably higher than that of other states. Such arrangements serve as necessary and strategic substitutes to compensate for diplomatic marginalization in the international arena. Nevertheless, the system faces four major challenges. First, structural tensions in cross-Strait relations have intensified political suppression in the international sphere, constraining bilateral law enforcement cooperation. Second, insufficient resource allocation is evident in staffing, fiscal budgets, training, investigative tools, and procedural frameworks—reflecting limited government prioritization of law enforcement diplomacy. Third, bureaucratic inertia and institutional parochialism hinder inter-agency coordination, producing information asymmetries and divergent expectations. Finally, varying national contexts—such as organizational structures, legal regimes, cultural norms, and corruption risks—pose significant adaptive demands on liaison officers. Based on these findings, this study offers policy recommendations to strengthen Taiwan’s capacity for cross-border law enforcement cooperation and to enhance its resilience in navigating the evolving challenges of global governance.