The incitement to terrorism is kind of a “new type” offence which is paid more and more attention to by the international and the countries with the continuous evolution of the crime of terrorism. It is formed by the combination of incitement-type crime and terrorism crime. Therefore, this incitement to terrorism offence has both the general characteristics of terrorism and the character of incitement-type speech crime. With regard to incitement to terrorism offence, the United Nations Security Council has focused its attention in Resolution 1373(2001) and 1624(2005). And calls upon States to combat incitement to terrorism in their domestic legislation. As a responsible nation, and in view of the increasingly rampant terrorist acts in our country, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, in August 2015, adopted the Amendment IX to Criminal Law. Adding a new offence “To promote terrorism, extremism, Incitement to commit terrorist acts” under Article 120 the crime of organizing, leading and participating in terrorist organizations. In December 2015, the Anti-Terrorism Law was successfully adopted and formally implemented on January 1, 2016. The Anti-Terrorism Law is combating incitement to terrorism in administrative way. In the Anti-Terrorism Law, it is the first time in the form of law explicitly on terrorism, terrorist activities, terrorist organizations and other concepts of the provisions. However, there is no explicit provision on how to implement the crime of “To promote terrorism, extremism, Incitement to commit terrorist acts” in practice. In the case of incitement to terrorism, specific analysis to the criminal elements is important, but analysis from a macro point of view for such crimes may violate the constitution of the freedom of the citizens of the basic right is also necessary. In fact, the biggest controversy and concern about criminal legislation to incitement to terrorism is it’s may violations of the right of citizens to freedom of expression. This issue should also give rise to sufficient attention in China. Because the offence “To promote terrorism, extremism, Incitement to commit terrorist acts” stipulated in Amendment IX to Criminal Law has a broad scope. Also, there are no detailed regulations and judicial interpretations at this time. So in recent specific judicial practice, it is likely to create a violation of the freedom of expression of citizens. However, the “Clear and Present Danger” which represented by the Brandenburg case, is the most important principle for the protection of speech in the United States, which is more perfect for the protection of speech. Therefore, this thesis hopes that through the analysis of this principle, and try to use this principle to balances the fight terrorism crime and guarantees the right to freedom of expression. The thesis is divided into six chapters, the first of which is the analysis of terrorism related concepts. As the opening chapter, it explores the concepts involved in terrorism. The incitement of terrorism, which is a combination of terrorist crimes and incitement crimes, is closely related to terrorism. Therefore, this chapter starts from the origin of terrorism--political violence, and theoretically clarifies it. With the continuous development of society, terrorism has also shown new forms in the new period. The second section of this chapter begins with a review of the history of terrorism, meanwhile, analyses and summarizes the relevant concepts of terrorism from three levels: international, major countries, and academic fields. The third section of this chapter mainly discusses the definition of terrorism in the perspective of international law and terrorist speech, which is regarded as kind of speech crime, in order to clarify the relationship between these two parts. The second chapter is mainly to discuss the related issues of incitement. Because incitement is one of the basic human rights, which should be protected by international law and domestic laws. However, once crossing the line, the crime of incitement will violate the lawful rights and interests of other citizens and even the security interests of the country. Moreover, the public's confidence will be made vulnerable by inciting crimes in social values and social security, undermining the tranquility of normal life and making the public live in fear. Therefore, this kind of "cross-border" incitement should be cracked down by legislation. The first section of this chapter is the origin of sedition-type crimes. It mainly discusses its origins in common law system, continental law system and China from the historical perspective. Secondly, the second section studies on the basic legal theory of incitement crime, mainly discussing the incrimination theory of incitement crime as unfinished crime and dangerous crime. The third section studies the direct incitement and indirect incitement which are controversial in the legislation of incitement crime. The forth section mainly distinguishes the incitement and solicitation which are easy to be confused in practice. The third chapter analyses the elements of offence incitement to terrorism in China's legislation. In China, crime of inciting terrorism mainly manifests itself in the crime of "promoting terrorism, extremism and inciting the implementation of terrorist activities" as stipulated in the Amendment IX to Criminal law. China’s incitement of terrorism offence consists of two acts, namely "promoting terrorism, extremism" and "inciting the implementation of terrorist activities", which is different from other countries’ regulations. Therefore, this chapter first introduces the background of China’s incitement to terrorism offence. Then analyses the criminal elements requirement from objective and subjective perspective of incitement to terrorism offence in China. The second section analyses the objective elements from seven aspects: protection of legal interests, methods of incitement, object of incitement, target of incitement, identification of the completion of incitement and causality. The third section discusses the mens rea from three aspects: cognitive factors and volitional factors. The fourth chapter discusses the relationship between fighting incitement terrorism and guaranteeing the freedom of expression. As mentioned above, freedom of expression is a basic human right, to which needs be regulated by law beyond a certain scope. However, it is necessary to discuss the strength and scope of laws, especially the criminal law, so as to strike a balance between fighting against incitement of terrorism and safeguarding freedom of expression, neither tolerating crimes for the purpose of safeguarding freedom of expression, nor violating freedom excessively for the purpose of combating crimes. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section discusses freedom of expression in international law. The second section studies the criterion of restricting freedom of expression. The third section mainly tries to introduce the results discussed in the first two sections into the specific speech type of incitement to terrorism so as to clarify the application of free speech standards in this specific speech type. The fifth chapter mainly discusses the emergence and development of the Principle “Clear and Present Danger”, which is the basic principle of protecting and restraining freedom of expression in the United States. This chapter attempts to introduce the standards established by this principle into the practice of combating incitement of terrorist acts in China, so as to properly restrict the broad scope of it and to strike a balance between fighting crime and protecting human rights. This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section studies the emergence of Principle "Clear and Present Danger" through the discussion of Schenck case and Debs case. The second section of this chapter mainly focuses on the development of this principle after its emergence, analyzing the cases of Gitlow v. New York and Whitney v. California. The third section mainly discusses the states reflected in the application of the Principle "Clear and Present Danger" in the special period and external environment and focuses on the two cases and judgments of Dennis v. U.S. and Yates v. U.S.. The forth section of this chapter analyses the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which made a great influence to the final establishment of Principle "Clear and Present Danger ", mainly elaborating from its background, test standard established by it and application of the standard. The sixth chapter mainly discusses the application of Principle "Clear and Present Danger " to incitement to terrorism offence and its enlightenment to China. The first section discusses whether the Principle "Clear and Present Danger " can be applied to terrorist speech. This section mainly discusses the criteria established by the "principles" after Brandenburg case, the particularity of incitement to terrorism speech, and the application of "principles" in special periods. The second section of this chapter mainly studies the application of the Principle "Clear and Present Danger " in the United States federal court to the case of terrorist crime -- United States v. Al-Timimi. This part mainly discusses from three aspects: the summary of the case, the judgment of the court and the discussion of the case. The third section of this chapter mainly analyses the situation and status quo of combating incitement to terrorism offence after the implementation of the Amendment IX to Criminal Law of China. The fourth section discusses the problems existing in the incitement to terrorism offences and the application of the Principle "Clear and Present Danger ". This section mainly discusses the problems existing in China's practice and analyses the possibility of introducing such elements as Principle "Clear and Present Danger ", "possibility" and "urgency". Key Words: Incitement to Terrorism; Clear and Present Danger; Constitution of a Crime; Freedom of Expression.

煽動恐怖主義犯罪是隨著恐怖主義犯罪的不斷演變而逐漸被國際和各國所重視的一種“新型”犯罪。它是煽動類犯罪與恐怖主義犯罪相結合而形成的，因此這類犯罪既具有恐怖主義的一般特徵，同時也具有煽動類言論犯罪的特徵。對於煽動恐怖主義犯罪，聯合國安理會在其《第 1373（2001）號決議》與《第1624（2005）號決議》中都進行了重點關注，並籲請各國在國內立法中對於煽動恐怖主義的行為予以打擊。作為一個負責任的大國，同時也鑒於我國國內越來越猖獗的暴力恐怖主義活動，全國人民代表大會常務委員會於 2015 年 8 月通過了《刑法修正案（九）》，在第 120 條組織、領導、參加恐怖組織罪項下增加了“宣揚恐怖主義、極端主義、煽動實施恐怖活動罪”這一煽動恐怖主義犯罪。2015 年 12 月，《反恐怖主義法》也順利通過，並於 2016 年 1 月 1 日正式實施，從行政法的角度對於煽動恐怖主義行為進行了打擊。在《反恐怖主義法》中，我國第一次以法律的形式明確的對恐怖主義、恐怖活動、恐怖活動組織等概念進行了規定。但是對於諸如“宣揚恐怖主義、極端主義、煽動實施恐怖活動罪” 在實踐中如何具體的實施以及需要注意的問題並沒有進行明確的規定。 對於煽動恐怖主義犯罪而言，不僅應對其刑事要件進行具體分析，本文認為，作為煽動類犯罪的一種，還應從宏觀的角度入手，對於這類犯罪有可能侵犯的憲法所賦予公民的言論自由這一基本權利進行分析。實際上，對煽動恐怖主義行為進行刑事立法的最大爭議，也就是其對於公民言論自由權利可能造成的侵犯的擔憂。這一問題，在我國同樣應當引起足夠的重視，因為《刑法修正案（九）》中所規定的“宣揚恐怖主義、極端主義、煽動實施恐怖活動罪”所涉及的範圍較為寬泛，同時目前也並沒有詳細的實施細則以及司法解釋，因此在近期的具體司法實踐中，是有可能會造成對於公民言論自由的侵犯的。而作為對於言論保護較為完善的美國，以 Brandenburg 一案為代表的“明顯而即刻的危險原則”是其對於言論保護最為重要的一個的原則。因此，本文希望通過對於這一原則的分析，在我國對煽動恐怖主義犯罪規定較為模糊、寬泛的現狀下，借鑒這一原則所秉承的思想及相關具體的要件，在實踐中更好的平衡打擊恐怖主義犯罪與保障言論自由權利之間的關係。 全文共分為六章，第一章為恐怖主義相關概念分析。這一章作為文章的總起，對於恐怖主義所涉及的概念進行了探討。煽動恐怖主義罪作為恐怖主義犯罪與煽動類犯罪的結合，與恐怖主義之間存在著密切的聯繫。因此，本章從恐怖主義的淵源，既政治暴力開始分析，從理論上厘清了恐怖主義的起源。而隨著社會的不斷發展，恐怖主義在新的時期也表現出來新的形態，本章的第二節就先對恐怖主義的歷史進行了梳理，並從國際、各主要國家以及學術領域三個層次，對恐怖主義的相關概念進行分析總結。本章的第三節，主要對於在國際法視野中的恐怖主義與作為言論犯罪一種的恐怖主義言論相關定義進行論述，以厘清兩者之間的關係。 本文的第二章，主要是對煽動行為相關問題進行探討研究。因為言論自由作為基本人權中的一項，本來應受到國際法及各國國內法律的保護，但是一旦越過界限，煽動行為構成的犯罪就侵犯了憲法賦予其他公民的合法權益，甚至侵害了國家的安全利益。並且煽動犯罪的行為使得公眾對於社會價值及社會安全的信心變得脆弱，破壞了正常生活的安寧，使公眾生活在擔驚受怕之中。因此對於這種“越界”的煽動行為，應當進行立法打擊。本章第一節為煽動型犯罪的淵源，主要從歷史的角度對於煽動犯罪在英美法系、大陸法系及中國的起源進行探討。其次，第二節對於煽動類犯罪的基礎法學理論進行研究，主要探討了煽動型犯罪作為未完成犯和危險犯的入罪理論。本章第三節對於目前將煽動型犯罪立法中爭議較大的直接煽動和間接煽動入罪問題進行研究。第四節主要對於在實踐中容易相互混淆的煽動行為與教唆行為進行了具體的辨析。 本文的第三章對於我國立法中的煽動恐怖主義犯罪進行了犯罪構成要件的分析。我國的煽動恐怖主義犯罪主要表現為《刑法修正案（九）》中規定的“宣揚恐怖主義、極端主義，煽動實施恐怖活動罪”這一罪名。與其他國家煽動恐怖主義犯罪規定不太相同的是，我國的煽動恐怖主義犯罪實際上是由兩個行為構成，分別為“宣揚恐怖主義、極端主義”行為與“煽動實施恐怖活動”行為。因此本章首先對於我國打擊煽動恐怖主義犯罪的背景進行介紹。接下來，分別從客觀和主觀以及未完成形態上對於我國的煽動恐怖主義犯罪進行了刑事要件的分析。其中第二節客觀要件分析主要從法益保護、煽動方式、煽動對象、煽動目標、煽動情節、煽動完成的認定以及因果聯繫等七個方面進行論述。第三節主觀構成要件主要從認識因素、意志因素兩個方面進行論述。 本文第四章主要對打擊煽動恐怖主義與保障言論自由之間的關係進行了討論。如前文所述，言論自由是一項基本人權，但超過一定的範圍就需要用法律來進行規制。但是對於法律尤其是刑法所規制的力度及範圍則需要進行討論，使得在打擊煽動恐怖主義行為與保障言論自由之間保持平衡，既不能為了保障言論自由而姑息犯罪，又不能因為為了打擊犯罪而過分侵犯自由。這一章主要分為三節，其中第一節對於國際法上的言論自由進行了討論；第二節對於對言論自由限制的標準進行了研究；第三章主要嘗試將前兩節所討論的結果導入煽動恐怖主義言論這一具體言論類型之中，以期明確言論自由標準在這一具體言 論類型中的應用。 第五章主要論述了“明顯而即刻的危險原則”的產生和發展的過程。“明顯而即刻的危險原則”是美國對於言論自由進行保護和約束的基本原則，本文試圖將此原則所確立的相關標準引入我國對於煽動恐怖主義行為打擊的實踐之中，從而對於我國略顯寬泛的打擊範圍進行適當約束，以平衡打擊犯罪與保障人權。這一章分為四節，第一節通過對於 Schenck 案以及 Debs 案的探討來對“明顯而即刻的危險原則”的產生進行研究。本章的第二節主要著眼於這一原則在產生之後的發展，所分析的案例包括了 Gitlow v. New York 案與 Whitney v. California 案。而第三節，主要討論在特殊的時期以及外部環境下，對於“明顯而即刻的危險原則”適用所體現出的狀態，本節重點研究了 Dennis v. U.S.案與Yates v. U.S.案兩個案件及判決。本章的第四節對於“明顯而即刻的危險原則”的最終確立最具影響的 Brandenburg v. Ohio 一案進行了分析，主要從案件背景、Brandenburg 一案所確立的檢驗標準以及該標準的適用三個方面進行詳細論述。 本文第六章主要論述了“明顯而即刻的危險原則”對於煽動恐怖主義犯罪的適用及對我國的啟示。其中第一節論述了“明顯而即刻的危險原則”能否適用於恐怖主義言論。這一節主要從 Brandenburg 案後“原則”所確立的標準、煽動恐怖主義言論是否具有特殊性以及“原則”在特殊時期的應用這三個方面，對於原則可以適用於恐怖主義言論進行了論證。本章第二節主要研究了美國聯邦法院對於“明顯而即刻的危險原則”適用於恐怖主義犯罪的案件——United States v. Al-Timimi 案。主要從案件概述、法院判決以及對於案件的討論三個方面進行論述。本章第三節主要對於我國《刑法修正案（九）》施行後對於煽動恐怖主義犯罪的打擊情況及現狀進行了分析。而第四節為我國煽動恐怖主義犯罪所存在的問題及適用“明顯而即刻的危險原則”討論。這一節主要討論了我國實踐中所存在的問題以及對於“明顯而即刻的危險原則”“可能性”、“急迫性”等要件引入的可能性分析。 關鍵詞：煽動恐怖主義；“明顯而即刻的危險原則；犯罪構成；概念研究.