本文旨在探討兩個問題：其一是國家是否有權要求個人協助其進行自我防衛？其二是透過刑罰規制來追求國家安全的目標，是否合適？針對第一個問題，本文從共同體與個人之間具備現實內在連繫、且透過此種連繫相互承認為主體的角度，持肯定見解，並且經由國與國間基於自利而來的承認活動，可延伸至針對非本國人的防衛。惟無論是對內或對外，國家都應保持法秩序價值的一貫性，並恪守法治原則。至於第二個問題，本文則持保留態度，認為刑罰並非維護國家安全的適當手段。在非預防目的的刑罰觀點下，刑罰旨在回應已穩固的行為義務，而不在控制風險、創造新的行為義務。最後則以強化關鍵基礎設施法案之修正為例，說明何種措施較刑罰更適合處理國安問題。

This article aims to explore two questions: First, does the state have the right to require individuals to assist them in self-defense? The second question is, is it appropriate to pursue the goal of national security through criminal penalties? Regarding the first question, this article holds a positive view from the perspective that there is a realistic internal connection between the community and the individual, and through this connection, each other is recognized as a subject.<br>Moreover, recognition activities based on self-interest between countries can be extended to the country’s self-defense against foreigners. However, whether internally or externally, the country should maintain the consistency of the value of legal order and abide by the principle of the rule of law. As for the second question, this article takes a negative attitude and believes that punishment is not an appropriate means to safeguard national security. From the perspective of retributive punishment, punishment is designed to respond to established behavioral obligations, rather than to control risks and create new behavioral obligations. Finally, this article takes the amendment to the Act to Strengthen Critical Infrastructure as an example to illustrate which measures are more suitable than penalties to deal with national security issues.