民國八十九年一月五日立法院第四屆第二會期立法三讀通過《國防法》與《國防部組織法》（通稱為「國防二法」）後，我國之國防體系就進入一個新的時代。國防二法也是國軍脫離七十年國民黨黨軍統治後，國防部與各級部隊所面臨最大之變革。在國防二法中，軍隊國家化、軍政軍令一元化、文人領軍、部隊職能有效分工、國防體制扁平化、國防文官以及配合政府整體再造等原則都獲得確立。對於我國軍政領導者而言，國防二法之通過還象徵著新的軍事事務革命，以期在新世紀中能有效面對中共解放軍的嚴峻考驗。
After being signed into law of the National Defence Law and the Organisation Law of the Ministry of National Defence, which are commonly called as the Defence Two Laws in the second session of the fourth Legislature on January 5, 2000, Taiwan’s defence system is entering a new age. The Defence Two Laws symbolise the greatest changes ever after long decades of Kuomintang-style rule, and introduce many modern concepts into Taiwan’s new defence structure. To the leaders of Taiwan’s political and military authorities, Two Laws are also a revolution of military affairs to defend the strict challenges from China’s People’s Liberation Army.

在新的國防體制改革中，軍備系統與軍備局的確立尤為重要。《國防法》第十一條規定，「國防部主管全國國防事務；應發揮軍政、軍令、軍備專業功能，本於國防安全之需要，提出國防政策之軍事戰略」。國防部遂據此訂定計畫分別就預算制度、人事權責、編裝員額、軍備整備、軍事外交與國防科技等五項重大業務作權責劃分，並依軍政、軍令、軍備整體作業流程規劃：軍政透過資源分配掌國防政策制定，編設戰略規劃司等十四個幕僚單位及總政治作戰局等九個主要機關；軍令則集中力量於訓練與作戰，編設參謀本部及七個幕僚單位，參謀總長並重新定位為國防部長下而非總統的幕僚長，以落實軍政與軍令一元化；軍備體系軍備則負責武器裝備的發展與採購，編設軍備局。
In the Two Laws system, Taiwan decides to establish the Bureau of Armament and Acquisition (BAA) and armament branch as one of the three major components, which also include military command and military administration, of the new defence structure, according to Article 11 of the National Defence Law. Military administration branch, which comprises the Division of Strategic Planning with other fourteen staff units and the General Political Warfare Bureau with other nine chief units, will be responsible for public policies by distributing resources. Command branch will focus on operations and
training. With Chief of General Staff as a principal advisor to Defence Minister rather than to President as before, comma nd branch consists of the General Staff Headquarters (GSHQs) and other seven staff units. Armament branch will be chiefly responsible for the development and acquisition of major weapons and equipments. Its leading agency will be the BAA.

雖然基本原則如此，但在軍政、軍令、軍備三區分的過程中，軍備系統的定位與權責卻一直是爭議的焦點，此也致使負責軍備業務推行的軍備局之組織條例一直未能順利完成制定與審議。在《國防部參謀本部組織條例》、《國防部總政治作戰局組織條例》、《國防部主計局組織條例》、《國防部軍醫局組織條例》及各總（司令）部組織規程均分別完成制定（修正）與發布作業，並據以完成各單位（機關）辦事細則策（修）頒後，軍備局還只是一個「黑機關」。為解決此種窘態，第四屆立法院遂以附帶決議的方式，允許國防部在國軍編制員額內，核定軍備局以編組裝備表先行運作，整編原物力司、後勤次長室、採購局、中山科學研究院、聯合後勤（總）司令部所屬各生產工廠、工程署、軍事工程處、三軍各生產工廠等單位，掌理國軍軍備整備計畫之審議、管理及制定，軍工廠生產及軍品供售管制、武器裝備、作戰物資獲得管理與國防工業合作發展等軍備整備事項。此種暫時安排直到九十二年一月，《國防部軍備局組織條例》才在立法院第五屆第二會期結束前完成三讀。軍備局與軍備系統的法律定位方才完竣，也才完成目前我國國防體系法制面改造的最後階段。
Although the basic principle is clear, the practice is quite a different thing. The role and duties of the BAA are fairly controversial during the process of establishment. As one of the first class organisations within the Ministry of National Defence (MND), the BAA’s organisation law had not been passed as expected in the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan’s parliament, as other organisation laws, such as those of the General Political Warfare Bureau, the Comptroller Bureau, the Medical Bureau and so on. In order to solve this disconcertion, the MND and the Legislative Yuan reached a compromise. Before the three rea dings, the fourth Legislature (1999-2001) agreed in an additional resolution stated that the BAA can accommodate the Material Division of the MND, some units of the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff on Logistics, the Military Procurement Bureau, the Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology (CSIST), and the Combined Logistics Command’s factories and Projects Agency for a temporary arrangement. However, the BAA was still the only organisation runnin g without legal approval until January 2003, when its organisation law was officially passed in the second session of the fifth Legislature.

根據《國防部軍備局組織條例》之規定，軍備局之督導業務將會包括軍備整備、國防科技、國防採購政策、營產管理、整體後勤、工程督導、資訊發展、人才經管等等，組織上將以往在採購局、中科院及聯勤司令部等單位之相關業務合併至軍備局下。由於牽涉到許多單位的精簡與裁併以及人事變動，使得軍備局多所遭到質疑及反彈。本文即在探討（一）在《國防部軍備局組織條例》通過前各界對軍備局未來定位與功能之設計；（二）《軍備局組織條例》之主要內容與分析；以及（三）各界對於軍備局與軍備系統之批評與建議等等。希望能給讀者就軍備局之建立與發展有一個較清晰的概念。
According to the Organisation Law of the Bureau of Armament and Acquisition (OLBAA), the BAA will deal with affairs concerning armament preparation, defence technology, procurement policy, assets management, comprehensive logistics, projects control, as well as information and human resources developments. In structure, the BAA will include relevant unites which were formerly operated by separate departments within the MND or the General Staff Headquarters (GSHQs). The following paragraphs will separately discuss various proposed designs for the BAA, the contents of the OLBAA, and finally criticism and analysis on the BAA. Hopefully readers can have a more comprehensive understanding on this subject.

有關軍備局組織之提案設計
Various Designs for the BAA Organisation

《國防部組織法》第七條規定：「國防部設軍備局，掌理軍備整備事項；其組織以法律定之。」換言之，有關軍備局的組織規定必須送交立法院審議，以法律的形式加以規範。但由於軍備局在國防二法通過前並不存在，獨立的軍備系統更是二法所創設之新國防體系三區分之一。因而《國防部軍備局組織條例》所牽涉的將不只是一個單一機關之成立，更代表了軍備系統成立之合法性，因而才引起多方討論。
According to Article 7 of the Organisation Law of the Ministry of National Defence, the BAA’s organisation law needs to be passed in the Legislative Yuan. Unlike other existing first class organisations within the MND, the BAA is a new establishment, and its role and mission are more widely discussed together with the future development of Taiwan’s armament branch. This made an agreed OLBAA more difficult to appear.

一般而言，有關於軍備局組織之提案設計可分為兩類：一類是將軍備局視為一獨立機關；另外一類則僅將其視為幕僚機構。前者包括以下所列之提案（一）至（五）；後者則以提案（六）為代表。這六大提案於內容及精神均有所不同，也多經過國防部與各界之分析與評估，以下就分別簡單介紹之。
Before the conclusion of the final edition, various designs for the BAA organisation have been proposed. Basically, these designs can be attributed into two categories: the BAA as an independent organisation or a staff unit. The first category includes five different designs: Design (1) to (5), and the second one, Design (6).

提案一
Design (1)

本提案最受國防部當局重視，於結構與精神上也較符合國防二法之精神。新成立的軍備局除了有一位局長領銜外，並由軍備副部長督導其業務；軍備局下則包括有中科院、採購局以及聯勤相關單位。不過由於我國在國防軍備上一直以進口為主，再加上精實案、精進案的推行，國軍是否應在裁軍計畫外另外增設軍備系統如提案一，也一直是主張國軍應「扁平化」、「小而精」之人士所不能同意的。其次，既然軍備局如國防部所說那樣具有重要地位，且將下轄原本許多之高司單位如中科院、採購局等，負有統合指揮與督導的軍備局在組織定位上僅列為「局」是否有所欠妥？其他相關批評與看法在本文後段會有更深入之探討。
Design (1) is comparatively favoured by the MND, and is more corresponding to the structure of the Defence Two Laws. The BAA will be a new organisation led by a Deputy Minister and a Director-in-Chief to comprise units from the CSIST, the Military Procurement Bureau, and the Combined Logistics Command. However, this design is criticised by those who agree to a more flat and effective military. On one hand, critics question the necessity to make the BAA as one of the three major branches for Taiwan’s next military. Since Taiwan’s armament system has been always so insignificant, will the BAA become just a grandstand play? On the other hand, now that the armament branch is promoted to a higher status, why it is called as a bureau? The size of a bureau will be too small to properly accommodate all units that Design (1) aims to include. For example, is that reasonable for a bureau to accommodate another bureau (Procurement)? Not to mention the BAA is designed to include the whole CSIST and many units of the Combined Logistics Command. More questions behind these doubts will be discussed later.

提案二
Design (2)

為有效督導、發展軍備業務，提案二要求國防部成立「軍備本部」，由軍備副部長兼任軍備總長，下轄中科院、採購中心、工程營產中心以及生產及後勤中心等單位。該提案除了有所謂「軍備本部」並不合乎中央政府機關組織設置體例之缺點外，對於軍備副部長直接兼任總長之設計更引起了有關指揮鏈與事權劃分之疑慮。根據國防二法設計者的看法，軍備副部長既然名為「副部長」，應定位為部長之下總其成的領導人，在部長不能視事的時候必須肩負起部內全責，而不應只是分管某一個特定領域的主管，如此才能對國防事務有全盤的瞭解。基於以上顧慮，提案二的設計因此並未受到青睞。
The MND will set up a General Headquarters of Military Armament (GHQsMA), which is led by Deputy Defence Minister on Military Armament. The GHQsMA will also reorganise the CSIST, procurement centre, projects and assets centre, and production and logistics centre. With conflicts to the current regulations to establish government organisations, this design to promote the BAA to a general headquarters by making a Deputy Minister as its head, also raises questions about the integrity of the chain of command. Deputy Minister should supervise and overview the whole armament system, not to lead it in terms of the original concepts of the Defence Two Laws makers.

圖一：提案二之主要組織架構1
Figure 1: Structure of Design (2)1

提案三
Design (3)

提案三亦主張成立「軍備本部」，由軍備副部長督導，下設軍備局、聯勤司令部以及軍備後勤大學等。此提案比諸提案二較為受到一般注意。第四屆立法院國防委員周正之等四十九人於第六會期時甚至就該提案提出《國防部軍備本部組織條例》草案（院總第二三三號 委員提案第三七四二號），然該案並未於第四屆任期結束前通過。之後，因立院審議屆期不連續原則且第五屆立法委員並無人重新提出該案，因而並未與行政院版一併審議，減少了許多政策辯論之機會，殊為可惜。不過提案三由於牽涉範圍龐大，軍備部門儼然成為三區分中最大系統，造成許多組織與單位事權與定位必須重新調整，尤其嚴重影響其他已依國防二法歸屬到軍令、軍政部門的單位，因此對於提案三，軍方接受度極低。
Design (3) will establish a GHQsMA with subordinating departments such as the BAA, the whole Combined Logistics Command and a new University of Military Armament and Logistics. Deputy Minister on Military Armament is still Head of the GHsMA, who is defined as the chief staff of armament to Defence Minister. This design is proposed by Zhou Zhengzhi, a former Legislator, who is also a founder of Taiwan’s Defence Two Laws system and other 49 fourth Legislators. However, Zhou’s draft didn’t pass in the fourth Legislature, whilst the fifth Legislators didn’t resubmit Zhou’s bill. A possible reason is that design involves too many changes of the existing military system. According to this design, armament department will become the largest branch within the whole military system. Controversial as it can be, the re-organising will affect currently operating agencies, and is understandably unacceptable to the brass in the MND, especially those in the branches of command and administration.

圖二：提案三之主要組織架構2
Figure 2: Structure of Design (3)2

提案四
Design (4)

除了沒有設立一個「軍備本部」以外，提案四與提案二頗有所類似之處。另一方面來說，提案四除了在國防體系內多增設了一個軍備副部長外，與二法實施前的體制也並無多大差異：國防部本部下轄一群軍備幕僚，包括中科院、採購中心、工程營產中心以及生產及後勤中心等單位。該提案由於並未落實國防二法，除了軍備系統必須依附於軍令、軍政體系下外，對於目前軍備、採購等業務上所遇到諸多體制陋習亦沒有具體方法解決，因此難以獲得軍方高層以及各界認同。不過對於一些在軍備系統獨立後即將喪失相對獨立性的單位來說，維持現狀倒頗能符合其既得利益。也因此，雖然在國防部已決心成立軍備局的「既定立場」下，主張提案四的某些軍方人士仍積極遊說立法院各委員，以求保存現有之利益。
Design (4) is similar to Design (2), but without the GHQsMA. In another sense, Design (4) will operate just like the former system with an additional Deputy Minister on Military Armament. This design is less considered by the MND since the old troubles of too many units dealing with armament affairs still exist. However, this design is welcome by those who are pro old days, especially workers in the units which will lose resources or budgets. Unacceptable to the higher authorities, those for Design (4) are still working hard lobbying Legislators in an indirect fashion.

圖三：提案四之主要組織架構3
Figure 3: Structure of Design (4)3