国家安全法律义务的性质辨析 基于中澳两国法律的比较  

Anatomy of Legal Obligations under National Security Laws Comparison between China and Australia

作　　者：周汉华[1] Zhou Hanhua

机构地区：[1]中国社会科学院法学研究所

出　　处：《中外法学》2019年第4期871-890,共20页Peking University Law Journal

摘　　要：对我国宪法和国家安全法律进行系统分析可以发现,个人与组织的国家安全法律义务在性质上属于消极性、防御性义务,即当有危害国家安全的情形时,应承担保卫国家安全的责任。二战之后的特殊国际格局则使澳大利亚的情报活动与情报法律带有明显的攻击性特点。而澳大利亚宪法的特殊性又使其情报配合法律义务既包括消极性、防御性义务,也包括积极性、攻击性义务。因此,澳大利亚对于我国国家安全法律的一般性、原则性规定存在着自身的因素,认为这些规定会强制中国企业从事攻击性间谍活动,显然是不能成立的。Based on comprehensive analysis of Chinese Constitution and national security laws,this article argues that the legal obligations of individuals and entities under China's national security laws are in essence reactive and defensive,i.e .,they shall undertake responsibility to safeguard the country when national security is threatened. In contrast,Australian intelligence activities and intelligence laws have always been offensive,by their nature,due to special international circumstances after the World War II. M oreover,with its unique characteristics,the Australian Constitution allows its intelligence laws to im pose both reactive/defensive obligations and proactive/offensive obligations. Therefore,looking at gener alor principal clauses in Chinese national security laws,the A ustralia observers would misinterpret them based on its own experiences,claiming that these stipulations would force Chinese companies to conduct offensive espionage activities. This is completely groundless.

关 键 词：国家安全法律义务 宪法义务 消极性义务 情报配合活动 

分 类 号：D922.14[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学] D961.1[政治法律—法学] DD912.1