「敵人刑法」的概念在911事件之後被借用作爲對抗國際恐怖主義的政策思維，反映出哥本哈根學派中的安全化理論色彩。可惜這方面的研究較少爲國際法領域的研究者提及。本文透過Ole Wæver等人有關「安全化」的相關論述以及強調以人爲本的「人類安全」研究途徑，對敵人刑法適用於國際反恐作爲的現象進行反省，進而嘗試對下列兩個問題做出回應：(1)刑事罪犯者與恐怖份子（即敵人）的差別何在？(2)是否有必要採用敵人刑法的概念作爲未來國際反恐政策的一種思考？關於第一個問題，本文認爲在「安全化」理論的分析下可以找到解答，但在判準上卻很模糊；第二個問題透過「安全化」理論與「人類安全」研究途徑的比較，在檢視針對911事件後的一些國際反恐作爲後，本文否定了採用敵人刑法的必要性。毋寧，輕易發動「安全化」反而是安全的減損而不是加強，國家沒有理由爲了對抗恐怖主義而犧牲社會大眾的自由或法治國的精神。

The term (or discourse) on "enemy criminal law" or "criminal law against enemies" (Feindstrafrecht) has become the concept of policy for counter-terrorism in the international level. This concept, however, mirrors the Copenhagen School's theory of securitization, while having been ignored by the community of international law. Through Ole Wæver and others' securitization theories and Human Security approach which focus on individual human-centric security, this article argues that, first of all, there is no definitive boundary for us to discern between criminal and terrorist (also called the enemy); secondly, compares securitization theory with Human Security approach, after an inspection of those policies were aimed at 911 attack. The necessity of enemy criminal law is inexistent. For these reasons, switching on securitization might be the nullification of security, rather than implementation. In light of this, the principle of State of rule of law or the civilian right of freedom shouldn't be sacrificed for anti-terrorism measures approved by States.