紧急状态下的法治与行政特权——康德、施米特与洛克的理论局限

发布时间：2018-05-12 20:49

本文选题：紧急状态 + 法治　；参考：《政法论坛》2017年02期

【摘要】：当社会的秩序遭到破坏,当国家的主权受到威胁,在此等紧急状态下,行政机关的紧急权力应该依然受法律规范,还是应该具有超越法律的行政特权?以康德哲学为基础的规范主义僵化地把法律规范看作是绝对的、无例外的和至高无上的,这样不具灵活性的进路在应对紧急状态下国家所遇到的现实问题时往往缺乏建设性。另一方面,虽然施米特对规范主义的批评有一定的道理,但是他的观点焊接了规范与现实,存在着严重的绝对主义倾向。在此背景下,很多西方学者采用了一个"中庸"的哲学观点:他们在洛克的特权理论中找到了国家面对危机时的灵活性,同时又以洛克的法学理论保障了法治在平常状态下的优先性。洛克的理论既有规范主义的元素,同时又允许紧急状态下行政权力在违反法律的情况下扩张,看似两边讨好,其实却存在内部逻辑的不一致与规范上的不稳定。总的来说,这三方的观点均不能为紧急状态下的法治与行政特权提供一个令人满意的理论体系。
[Abstract]:When the social order is broken and the sovereignty of the state is threatened, should the emergency powers of the administrative organs remain regulated by the law or should they have administrative privileges beyond the law? The normative doctrine based on Kant's philosophy inflexibly regards legal norms as absolute, without exception and supreme, so the inflexible approach is often not constructive in dealing with the practical problems encountered by the state of emergency. On the other hand, although Schmitt's criticism of normalism is reasonable, his viewpoint has welded norms with reality, and there is a serious tendency of absolutism. In this context, many Western scholars have adopted a "moderate" philosophical view: they found in Locke's theory of privilege the flexibility of the state in the face of crisis. At the same time, Locke's theory of law guarantees the rule of law in the normal state of priority. Locke's theory not only has the elements of normalism, but also allows the administrative power to expand in violation of the law in a state of emergency. It seems to be pleasing to both sides, but in fact there is internal logic inconsistency and normative instability. In general, these three views can not provide a satisfactory theoretical system for the rule of law and administrative privilege under the state of emergency.
【作者单位】：清华大学法学院;
【分类号】：D910

【参考文献】