我國與以色列全民國防教育之比較

Abstract

在全球化時代，國家安全的範疇已由傳統的軍事安全，擴及政治、經濟、社會發展和環境保護等綜合性安全趨向，於是我國於2005年2月2日公布《全民國防教育法》，其目的即希望使全體國民能夠了解國防安全的內涵，具備「國防安全人人有關，國防建設人人有責」的認知。 全民國防教育為當前世界趨勢亦為正式教育的一環，我國推動全民國防教育內涵正與世界各主要國家推行全民國防教育精神相一致。我國國防情勢與以色列相似，以色列在強敵環伺之下仍能維持穩定成長，端賴全民國防教育意識的凝聚與養成。本研究透過兩國的全民國防教育探討及分析，希望能讓我國有所省思及參考。 本研究針對兩國之全民國防教育背景、法制化、政策內涵及實施作為等面向進行分析與比較，進而了解我國與以色列全民國防教育之異同，獲致具體研究結論： 壹、全民國防教育背景均採循序漸進模式，惟發展動機不同，而全民國防教育發展背景之關鍵則為發展動機；貳、全民國防教育均具備法定程序，惟相關配套政策有所不同，有鑑於此，完整的法律制度實為全民國防教育推動的基礎；叁、全民國防教育基本精神一致，惟教育內涵有所差異，因此，全民國防教育目標為其政策內涵之根本；肆、全民國防教育實施作為差異甚大，各有特色，但全民國防教育實施作為有賴國家永續支持，就國家長期發展而言，全民國防教育的作為將對國家安全及教育產生深遠地影響，絕對不可輕忽。。 本研究建議有三：壹、加強愛國教育的推動；貳、建立全民動員制度；叁、改善軍人福利待遇。In the era of globalization, the scope of national security has broadened from its traditional definition of military defense to a comprehensive trend that includes security in politics, economics, social development, environmental protection, and other areas. Therefore, on February 2, 2005, Taiwan issued the All-out-Defense Education Act, with the hope that the entire population will have a substantive understanding of national defense and security and recognize that national security affects every individual, and every individual is responsible for the work of national defense. Incorporating All-out-Defense Education is not only the current world trend but also part of formal education. It is introduced in Taiwan in the same spirit as in other major countries that are promoting similar initiatives. Taiwan’s national security situation is similar to Israel. Relying on the formation and cultivation of a universal awareness about national defense, Israel has sustained steady growth despite being surrounded by powerful enemies. Through the investigation and analysis of the All-out-Defense Education of the two countries, this study provides reflection and reference material on the subject in Taiwan. The study analyzes and compares the background, codification, substantive policy, and actual implementation of the two countries’ All-out-Defense Education and arrives at an understanding of their similarities and differences. The specific conclusions of the study are as follows. First, both countries take a step-by-step approach in the All-out-Defense Education; however, their motivations for the education development differ, and motivation is the key to the background of the education development. Second, legal procedures are in place for All-out-Defense Education in both countries; however, the related complementary policies differ. Thus, a comprehensive legal system is actually the basis for the promotion of All-out-Defense Education. Third, the fundamental spirit is the same; however, the substance of the education differs. Therefore, the goals of the All-out-Defense Education orient the substantive policies. Fourth, the practices in implementation are quite distinct, and each country’s practices have their own unique features; however, implementation requires continual government support. In terms of a country’s long-term development, the implementation of All-out-Defense Education will have a profound influence on national security and education. It must not be overlooked. The study has three suggestions: first, bolster patriotic education; second, establish a national mobilization system; third, improve pay and benefits for military personnel.