【作者】 于维君；

【导师】 卢代富；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 经济法， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 “经济法的历史合理性”(在此的经济法概念是广义的,包含现代经济法与前经济法)是经济法学基础理论中一个很重要的问题,马克思曾言：“一切的科学都是历史科学”,换言之一切的科学都必须在历史中寻找本体存在的依据。而将经济法建构在历史科学上极为重要的一步,就是建构经济法的“历史合理性”,但历史合理性又是什么呢?历史合理性在本质上就是一种依循历史主义的合理性,换言之就是在历史的长河中寻找一件事物存在的原因与依据。是故探究一件事物的历史合理性就是从社会历史的政治、经济、文化乃至社会发展的宏观意义上,进行历史性的阐释,指出它在历史时空中的意义。而经济法历史合理性研究的核心,便是在于解释经济法在历史时空中存在的意义。论文是以由上而下的视角展开的：其一是对研究的对象进行基础性的介绍与一般性的阐释(第一章),透过文献的梳理,对经济法的历史合理性研究作出研究进行前的必要假设,其主要内容是对历史合理性的阐述、经济法的语源、曾出现过的理论与形态进行简要的探讨。其二是经济法历史合理性研究的基础：社会的演化逻辑的阐释(第二章),透过文献梳理与理论建构,给经济法历史合理性的研究,建立一个历史主义的框架。其三是,由国家的层面对曾经出现的现代经济法与前经济法进行阐述与分类(第三章),在本章中仍是以历史主义的角度,阐明国家产生的因素、国家为何干预社会生活、与如何干预社会生活的方式。其四是对现代经济法与前经济法产生的共同历史合理性进行必要的追溯(第四章),并进行一定的讨论。其五是论述现代经济法的历史合理性(第五章),并对其因素寻找历史上的必然性。第一章是研究初始必须进行的一般基础性介绍与对研究内容的界定。在本章中,首先对历史合理性的阐述,其次是对现代经济法概念的学术演进进行追溯,再其次是对现代经济法的曾经出现的几种形态加以描述,最终得出论文所采行的经济法概念。在经济法概念的学术谱系演进过程上,论文所指的现代经济法概念是来自于大陆法系国家(英美法并无形式意义上的现代经济法),除了德、日之外,苏联可说是影响现代经济法部门与理论发展的几个最重要国家之一,且因为论文是在中国的语境下进行分析,是故在现代经济法的历史谱系上便主要选择以中国、德国、日本与苏联四国作为研究分析的对象。在梳理了各自的学术谱系后,可以发现现代经济法的实践可分为四种不同的基本形态：战争经济下的形态、灾变经济下的形态、市场经济下的形态与计划经济下的形态,这些不同的现代经济法形态分别对应着各自的现代经济法概念理论。而在本章节最后的部分,就以所有现代经济法的理论与形态中都有的一些共性作为经济法历史合理性的研究的基本假设。其依据有六：(1)现代经济法的概念与完整形式只存在于大陆法系国家、(2)现代经济法概念正式产生于第一次世界大战的德国、(3)现代经济法的概念应包括所有形态的经济法、(4)现代经济法的法律功能在于调整社会经济生活、(5)现代经济法的法律形式是政府作为公权主体对社会经济生活进行干预、(6)现代经济法概念产生前政府作为公权主体干预社会经济生活的法律与政策为前经济法。论文就在这六个假设之下对经济法历史合理性的研究进行小规模的展开。第二章的内容就是对社会演化逻辑的阐述,其目的在于建构一个用以把握整体历史脉络的方法论。本章第一节便是对利用的分析工具的介绍,分别是汤因比的历史哲学、马克思的历史哲学、基于进化论的历史哲学,这三者就是论文对经济法历史合理性分析的重心。本章第二节开始阐述历史演化逻辑中的“社会形态论”：论文主张社会作为在历史演化的主角,有四种形态,分别是良性发展的社会、衰退与停滞的社会、失去秩序的混乱社会、震荡转型中的社会,以社会演化的视角来观察,任何社会的诞生、发展、衰落乃至灭亡都是在四种社会形态间转换的过程,而这种无止无休的转换是通过了历史对人类的挑战与人类对历史的回应而完成,在此,论文则对此四种不同的社会形态都以汤恩比的历史哲学、马克思的历史哲学、西方经济学分别进行了一定的分析。其主要观点是仍是着重于马克思之上,社会形态的变化,均是取决于经济基础与上层建筑的变化。本章第三节阐述的是历史演化逻辑中社会演化的驱动力：社会压力。首先,论文论证到在社会演化逻辑中,导致这四种社会形态在历史中不断循环运行的驱动力就是社会压力,并结合了不同的历史哲学与历史事实对社会压力的形态进行了简要的分类；其次是探当社会压力超越社会承载力时,社会形态进行转化的问题。本章第四节是结合几个论述阐释论文采用的社会演化逻辑：此一逻辑是以四种社会形态为核心,推动四种社会形态循环与变迁的是社会压力,当社会压力超过社会承载力时整个社会形态就会进行转变,而其中社会对社会压力的回应,决定了社会在四个社会形态间存在的方式。第三章说明的就是是社会压力的政府回应。在本章中分为三个部分展开。第三章第一节是论证社会、国家、政府间的关系。其首先对社会、国家、政府的概念进行了必要的厘清；其次是对由柏拉图开始到吉登斯的社会、国家与政府关系理论进行梳理；其三是在诸多的国家理论中,选取马克思的国家理论与法团主义的国家理论作为视角,对三者间的关系进行分析,并得出一个“马克思一法团主义”的解释架构,并得出两个结论：(1)国家仅是社会为求生存与发展的工具,(2)代表国家的政府是利益集团的工具。其四是以“马克思一法团主义”的视角,对政府干预社会的原因进行了必要的推论。政府干预社会的立论基础在于：(1)国家是为了社会生存与发展(回应社会压力)而产生的一种制度性安排；(2)代表国家对社会进行统治与对社会压力回应的主体是政府；(3)政府是利益团体的工具。由以上三个结论就可以对政府回应社会压力的原因给予完整的解答。本章第二节对政府回应社会压力的方式进行了论述,这种论述是经由方法与手段上的区别,排除非经济法统辖范围的领域。由于现代经济法是根植与大陆法系下的概念,且论文中认定的经济法最大共性就是政府作为公权主体干预社会经济生活,就以此两个共通定义对经济法的方法论开始进行论述并以此展开。先由公私法的界定排除不是以公权主体进行社会干预的范畴,再排除政府作为公权主体但并非干预社会经济生活的范畴,剩下的就是经济法的范畴。本章第三节部分是说明各种不同社会压力由公权主体进行社会干预的历史实践,而在论文的第一章有个定义：现代经济法的概念正式产生于第一次世界大战；为了解决在现代经济法正式概念产生前的政府作为公权主体干预社会经济生活法律的归属,论文创造了一个名词——“前经济法”；在此,将现代经济法概念产生前的政府作为公权主体干预社会经济生活的法律称为“前经济法”,而现代经济法概念产生后的政府作为公权主体干预社会经济生活的法律称为“现代经济法”,并在本节中对曾见的现代经济法与前经济法所解决的社会压力都进行了论述与列举,在此论述与列举上,前经济法与现代经济法都是为了解决社会压力而存在。第四章论述的是现代经济法与前经济法共通的历史合理性解释。论文主张,所有法律的共通的历史合理性或者都在于解决社会压力上,但如何决定由现代经济法或前经济法来解决某一类社会压力就是经济法历史合理性要解决的问题。以本章第一节的论述,政府会采行现代经济法或前经济法来解决社会压力的原因,就是基于经济手段解决社会压力的便利性上结合了,对国家安全的需求、市场的不完全导致的市场失灵与政府本身的利益追求；这三者形成了政府为何采行经济法来干预某种社会压力的所有原因。第四章第二节则就以国家安全的理论谱系,论述为何政府选择以现代经济法与前经济法干预社会的因素,并分别就理论与事例进行说明。第四章第三节是经济法的市场失灵理论,对此已有许多学者进行过详尽的说明,故论文中选择不加以展开论述,仅仅是一笔带过。本章第四节是政府利益,此一利益指的是除了公共利益外的政府利益,政府利益由三个部分组成：首先是控制政府的利益团体的自利行为、政府的寻租行为、官僚体系的膨胀。本章第五节则是对回应社会压力的经济法的政府决策模型的阐释。在本章中可以发现基于经济手段解决社会压力的便利性上,国家安全、市场失灵、政府利益上组成了现代经济法与前经济法共通的历史合理性。第五章则是论述现代经济法的历史合理性,也就是现代经济法为何存在的问题。本章第一节在于讨论经济法的分析方式,以论文的观点,对经济基础决定了经济法的产生是完全赞同的,但其认为在经济基础作用到产生经济法的过程中,必然经过政治生活的改变。因此认为“生产力→生产关系→经济法”的模型太过草率无法对经济法的生成进行正确的解释,应改为“生产力→生产关系→政治生活→经济法”才有可能正确的对经济法的产生原因进行解释。本章第二节的论述,则是以“生产力→生产关系→政治生活→经济法”的架构,对现代经济法与前经济法进行了区分,论文认为现代经济法是政治现代性的产物(政治现代性是政治正当性的转型、经济现代性是全球经济体系的建立,但经济现代性导致了政治现代性的转换),现代经济法是政治正当性完全转型后的政府作为公权主体对社会经济生活进行干预的法律,而前经济法是政治正当性转型前或转型过程中的政府作为公权主体对社会经济生活进行干预的法律。(若从政治哲学的角度审视,政治正当性是指统治者的“政治统治”和民众的“政治服从”间的关系)。换言之,现代经济法是建构在完整的人民主权论上的法律形式,而前经济法则或多或少的依赖非人民主权论,如：君权神授、朕即国家、自然法、理性等的政治正当性理论而存在。本章第三节则是论述政治正当性完整转型的背景,而此一背景则靠的是对十九世纪思想史的梳理而达成,而此一梳理采取的是克劳塞维茨、马克斯·韦伯、马克思三人的视角。论文中认为自三十年战争后的《威斯特伐利亚和约》订立后,民族国家的雏形“主权国家”完全确立。这个主权国家体系在一系列的争霸中,民族意识开始觉醒,民族的概念也才开始生成。而在美国革命与英国光荣革命在欧陆以外另竖一帜建立了另一个政治传统后,欧洲大陆的诸王们开始利用“民族国家”此一新工具,大玩合纵连横,而中世纪的教权式政治正当性也在这种国王的游戏中不断地耗竭。在国王的游戏进入巅峰之际,法国大革命爆发,其改变了整个战争的形态,法国建立了民族国家下的征兵制度,使得国王的游戏变成了全民的战争。而拿破仑也以此为武器横扫整个欧洲大陆,直到所有欧陆国家都接受了这种爆炸性的武器(民族主义),此后战争的形态就再也不是国王的游戏,而是根植于民族国家中的民族精神聚合。而这种民族精神聚合,呼唤的是政治正当性的除魅(要求民众能自动自发的上战场、并不因被征兵上战场而产生过于严重的厌战心理),人民主权理论由此逐渐地征服了整个欧洲大陆。整个十九世纪也可以说是人民主权论与君权神授论的战场,直到了第一次世界大战,新旧思想才通过了战争进行了总结算,世界由近代进入了现代,并以人民主权论完全胜出而告终。本章第四节论述现代经济法正当性的决定性转型,本节认为,第一次世界大战是整个现代经济法政治基础转型的最后一步,也就是现代的人民主权理论是在第一次世界大战中才可能完全确立,在第一次世界大战前,由于技术、兵役制度、政治形态的原因,总体战是不可能实现的。而总体战中有一个必要条件,便是要求的是全社会的所有分子都必须为了民族有牺牲自我的准备(不论是财产、生命),在这种需求下,国家的政治正当性转型就成了完全不可避免之事,因为这种如此高的政治信仰需求就必然呼唤着政治正当性的完整除魅,因此在第一次世界大战中所有超越性意志的正当性都被粉碎,而代之以人民主权正当性。而在转型入人民主权正当性后,现代经济法这种要求全新的政治现代性的法律就油然而生了。本章第五节则是对现代经济法依靠的政权政治正当性结构进行论述,决定政权政治正当性结构取决于国家的政治正当性与控制政权的政治团体(利益团体)所抱持的意识形态。任何一个政治团体取得政府权力都是经过社会中的竞逐而达成的,而这种竞逐在本质上虽然完全靠的是武力或利益来达成,但团结起政治团体向同一目标迈进的粘合剂就是意识形态,也就是说政治团体在国家层面取得统治国家的政治正当性的依靠,就是其所抱持的政治意识形态。(政治意识形态在刨除掉多余的外沿,本质上其实就是一个对社会现状进行解析,确立改造社会的目标,并选择改造社会手段的方法论)掌握政权的政治团体,在很大的层面上来说是依靠着它的政治意识形态取得国家政权正当性的,因此政治意识形态也就决定了掌握国家政权政治团体的正当性。也是因为经济法的正当性与掌握政府的利益团体的正当性是一个连续性的关系,因此才会产生如此之多的现代经济法形态,也论证了经济法形态与政治团体信奉的意识形态具有完全的关联性。本章第六节则是综合了马克思、汤因比社会演化论与戴维·伊斯顿的政治系统论对经济法的政治过程进行了阐述。(经济法的历史合理性是一个由社会演化到政治正当性构成的完整构成)更多还原

【Abstract】 "The Economic Law’s historically rationality" is the theoretical basis of economic law in a very important issue. Marx and Engels once said:"All of science is the science of history".In other words all that has to find the basis of ontological existence in the history.Building economic law in the history of science’important step is to construct the historical rationality of Economic Law, but what is it? In essence, it is a kind of rationality following a historical legitimacy, in other words, to find a reason for the existence and the basis of things the long river of history. Therefore in the history of things to explore a rationality that is from the social history of the political, economic, cultural and social development as well as the macro sense, a historical interpretation, pointing out that it is the significance of space and time in history. The rational study of the history of economic law’s core, that is, is to explain the economic law in the history of space and time exists.This paper is carried out top-down perspective, first of all is the object of study for basic introduction and general interpretation of (first chapter), combing through the literature on the history of economic law to make a reasonable research studies necessary to assume before, the main content is a description of historical rationality, economic law’s language sources, there had been a brief form of the theory and discussed. Followed by the rationality of economic law basis of the study of history:the logical interpretation of the evolution of society (ChapterⅡ), combing through the literature and theory building, to the rationality of the study of history of economic law, the establishment of a historicist framework. The third is from the national level appear on the Economic Law and the former had elaborated and Classification of Economic Law (ChapterⅢ), in this chapter is still based on a historical point of view, to clarify the factors that produce the country, why the State intervention in social life, and how to intervene in the way of social life. Fourth is the economic law and economic law as a common history of pre-rationality of the necessary retroactive (ChapterⅣ), and for some discussion. Fifth is to address the historical legitimacy of economic law (chapterⅤ), and its factors, searching for historical necessity.The first chapter is to study the basis of the initial need for a general introduction to the study of the content and definition. In this chapter, the first exposition of the rationality of history, followed by the academic evolution of the concept of economic law, then followed by the economic law have appeared in several forms, the final papers come to the line taken by the concept of economic law. In the concept of economic law on the evolution of academic pedigree, papers referring to the concept of economic law from civil law countries (Anglo-American law there is no form of the sense of economic law), in addition to Germany, Japan, USSR can be said to affect the economic law of modern theory of economic law department and the development of several of the most important countries, and because the paper is in China in the Context of the analysis, the actual occurrence of the lineage in the history of economic law will be the main choice for China, Germany, Japan, and USSR, the four countries as a research and analysis objects. In the combing their academic pedigree, you can find the practice of economic law can be divided into four different basic forms: economic law under the form of a war economy, the economic law under the form of economic disaster, the market economy under the Economic Law forms and plans Economy Economic Law form, these different forms of economic law corresponding to the concept of their theory of economic law. In the last part of this section, with regard to all the theory and patterns of economic law are some of the common economic laws of history as a study of the soundness of the basic assumptions. Based on six:(1) the concept of economic law and complete the form exists only in civil law countries, (2), formally created the concept of economic law on the First World War, Germany, (3) the concept of economic law should include all forms Economic Law, (4) economic law legal function is to adjust the social and economic life, (5) the legal form of economic law is that the Government as a public right to intervene in the main social and economic life, (6) the concept of economic law before the formation of the Government as a public the right to intervene in the socio-economic life of the main laws and policies for the former economic law. The six papers in the history of economic law under the assumption of rationality of small-scale unfolding.ChapterⅡ:The content is the exposition of the logic of social evolution, the purpose is to construct a historical context to grasp the whole methodology. Section of this chapter is the use of analytical tools, presentations, respectively Toynbee’s philosophy of history, Marx’s philosophy of history, philosophy of history based on the theory of evolution, these three papers is a rational analysis of the history of economic law of gravity. SectionⅡof this chapter of history began to elaborate the logical evolution of the "social form" theory:paper advocates the historical evolution of society as a protagonist, there are four forms, namely the sound development of society, of social recession and stagnation, loss of order in chaos social, shock transition community, with the perspective of social evolution to observe, the birth of any society, development, decline and even extinction are four kinds of social formation process of conversion and exchange between, and this endless conversion is the adoption of The challenge of human history and human history of the response were completed, in this paper are four different types of social formations which are to Toynbee’s philosophy of history, Marx’s philosophy of history, Western economics, a certain amount of analysis of separate. The main point is still focused on Marx’s on top of changes in social patterns, are determined by changes in the economic base and superstructure. SectionⅢof this chapter is to set out the logic of the historical evolution of the driving force of social evolution:social pressure. First, the paper argues that in the social evolution of logic, resulting in the four community in the history of the continuous cycle of operation is the driving force of social pressure, combined with a different philosophy of history and historical facts of the social pressure to form a brief classification; followed by the probe when the social pressure to go beyond the social carrying capacity, the social morphology of conversion problems. Section IV of this chapter is to explain the combination of several discussion papers used in the social evolution of logic:This logic is based on four kinds of social forms as the core, to promote circulation and four kinds of social forms changes of the social pressure, when the social pressure than when the social carrying capacity of morphological changes in society as a whole will be carried out, of which the community response to social pressure, decided the community exist between social forms in four ways.ChapterⅢis the Government’s response to social pressure. In this chapter can be divided into three parts started. ChapterⅢSectionⅠis to demonstrate the social, national, inter-governmental relations. Its first community and the country, the government carried out the necessary to clarify the concept; followed by the Plato beginning to Giddens’s society, our country and the Government to sort out relationship theory; the third is the theory in many countries, select the Marx’s Theory of State and the theory of corporatism as a national perspective on the analysis of the relationship among the three, and came a "Marx-corporatism," the interpretation of architecture, and came to two conclusions:(1) the State only society for the sake of survival and development tools, (2) represents the national government is a tool for interest groups. Fourth is "Marx-corporatism" perspective on government intervention in the cause of the community the necessary inference. Government intervention in the community’s argument is based on:(1) countries for social survival and development (response to social pressure) resulting in a kind of institutional arrangement; (2) to rule on behalf of the state of society with the social pressure to respond to the main body of the Government; (3) The Government is a tool of interest groups. From the above three conclusions can be social pressure on the Government to respond to the reasons for giving a complete answer. SectionⅡof this chapter to respond to social pressure on the Government’s approach to the exposition of this exposition is by ways and means of distinction, exclusion of non-economic law govern the scope of areas. As the economic law under the civil law system is rooted in the concept, and the paper finds that the economic law is the most common intervention in the Government as a public right of the main socio-economic life, we as two common definitions of the methodology of economic law and to begin discussion This commenced. First be defined to exclude the public and private law, not in the public right of the main areas for social intervention, and then to exclude the right of the Government as a public, but not interfere with the main areas of social and economic life, the rest is the economic law areas. PartⅢof this chapter is to illustrate the different social pressures from the public right of the main historical practice of social intervention, and in the first chapter of part of the paper there is a definition:the concept of economic law was formally created in the First World War; In order to solve the formal economic law before the formation of the concept of government as a public right of intervention in social and economic life of the main legal attribution of papers to create a term "former economic law"; In this connection, will the concept of economic law before the formation of the government as a public right of the main intervention in social and economic life of the law that "Former Economic Law", and the concept of economic law after the election of the Government as a public right of the main intervention in social and economic life of the law known as the "economic law", and have seen in this section of the Economic Law and Economic Law of the pre-addressed social pressure are discussed in this paper with the list, in this exposition with the list, the former Economic Law and Economic Law are made to address social pressures exist.The fourth chapter is the economic law of economic law in common with the previous history of a reasonable interpretation. Paper argued that all laws of common historical rationality, or both is to address the social pressure, but how to determine from the economic laws, or the former economic law to solve a certain type of social pressure is the rationality of history of economic law to solve problems. In the discussion section of this chapter, the Government will adopt to address the economic law of economic law, or the former because of social pressure, is based on economic means to resolve the social pressures on a combination of convenience, national security needs, the market is not entirely a result of market failure and government to pursue their own interests; these three forms of economic law why the Government to adopt some kind of social pressure to interfere with all the reasons. ChapterⅣSection then in relation to the theory of national security, lineage, discusses why the Government chose to intervene in economic law and the former social factors of economic law, and in respect of theory and examples of explanation.Ⅲ, chapterⅣis the economic law of market failure theory, in which there are many scholars carried out a detailed description, so the paper chose not to start discussion, just alluded to. Section IV of this chapter is the Government’s interest, this means is that apart from the interests of the public interest outside the government interest, the Government’s interest consists of three parts:first, control the Government’s interest groups, self-interested behavior, the Government’s rent-seeking behavior, bureaucratic system expansion. SectionⅤof this chapter is a response to social pressure of the government decision-making model of economic law on the subject. Can be found in this chapter means to resolve the social pressures based on economic convenience, the national security, market failure, government interests have formed a common economic law economic law with a history of reasonable.ChapterⅤis a rational discussion of the history of economic law, that is why the problem of economic law. Section of this chapter is to discuss the analysis of economic law approach to paper’s view of the economic base determines the production of economic law is in total support, but its role in the economic base to generate economic law in the process of inevitable political life of change. So that (→production relations and productive forces→Economic Law) model can not be too hasty formation of economic law to conduct a proper interpretation should be changed (→production relations and productive forces in political life→→Economic Law) be possible to correct economic law causes of the interpretation. Discussed in sectionⅡof this chapter, then based on (→production relations and productive forces in political life→→Economic Law) architecture, on the economic law and the former drew a distinction between economic law, papers that the economic law is the product of political modernity (political modernity the transformation of political legitimacy and economic modernity is the establishment of the global economic system, but economic modernity and political modernity has led to the conversion), economic law is a completely transformed the political legitimacy of the Government as a public right of the main social and economic life to intervention, law, economic law is the political legitimacy of the former pre-transition or the transition process in the Government as a public right of the main social and economic life of the intervention of law. (Political legitimacy if the examination from the perspective of political philosophy, political legitimacy refers to the ruler’s "political rule" and the people’s "political subject" inter-relations). In other words, the modern economic law is constructed in a complete theory of popular sovereignty on the legal form, and the former more or less dependent on non-economic principles of popular sovereignty theory, such as: divine right of kings,Ⅰam the state, natural law, rational and equal political legitimate theory exists. Discussed in SectionⅢof this chapter is a complete transformation of the political legitimacy of the background, and this one is depends on the background is the nineteenth-century history of ideas comb reached, and this is a comb to take Clausewitz, Marx and Weber, Karl Marx trio perspective. Thesis that since the Thirty Years War in the "Peace of Westphalia" entered into after the rudiments of the nation-state "sovereign state" fully established. The sovereign state system in a series of hegemony in the national consciousness began to awaken the nation, the concept began to build. In the American Revolution and the Glorious Revolution in the United Kingdom continental erect a flag other than the establishment of another political tradition, the European continent kings began to use "nation-state" This is a new tool, big play vertical and horizontal alliances, while the Middle Ages the political legitimacy of the clerical-style game was also the king’s constant depletion. King of the game into the pinnacle of the occasion, the French Revolution broke out, which changed the shape of war, the French established a nation-state under the conscription system, making the king of the game into a full war. Napoleon used this as a weapon to sweep the entire European continent, until all European countries have accepted this explosive weapons (nationalism), after which the form of war is no longer on the king’s game, but is rooted in the nation-state aggregation of national spirit. Which aggregate national spirit, calling the political legitimacy of Disenchantment (required can be self-motivated people on the battlefield, is not due to conscription to war weariness resulting from too severe psychological), the people’s sovereignty theory, this gradual conquest the entire European continent. Throughout the nineteenth century can also be said on the sovereignty of the people and the divine right of kings on the battlefield, until World War I, old and new thinking was the adoption of a general settlement of the war, the world entered the modern from the modern times and to the people’s sovereignty on the total win in the end. Section IV discusses the legitimacy of this chapter, the decisive transformation of economic law, in this section that the First World War is the political foundation for the transformation of the whole of economic law last step, that is the modern theory of popular sovereignty is possible in the First World War fully established before the First World War, due to technical, military service system, the political form of the reasons for the overall war is impossible to realize. While overall there is a necessary condition for war is asking for is that all elements of society as a whole must have sacrificed the interest of national self-preparation (whether in property, life), in which demand, the country’s political legitimacy of transitions into the completely unavoidable matter, because such a high demand for political beliefs inevitably calls for the complete disenchantment of political legitimacy, and therefore all the transcendence of the First World War the validity of the will have been shattered and replaced by the legitimacy of popular sovereignty. In the transition into the legitimacy of popular sovereignty, the economic law that required a new political modernity of law that arises spontaneously. Section V of this chapter is the political legitimacy of the regime of economic law on the structure of discussion, decided to political power structure of political legitimacy depends on the country’s political legitimacy and control of the regime’s political groups (interest groups) the hold ideology. Any one political group to obtain the authority of government is to compete through the society reached, which, in essence, although the competition for entirely by the use of force or benefits to achieve, but the unity and political groups since the glue to the same goal is the ideology, political groups that ruled at the national level to achieve the country’s political legitimacy to rely on, that is, they hold a political ideology.(Political ideology is used to get rid of the extra outer edge, in essence, it is a methodology to analyze the social status,to establish the goal of transforming society, and to choose a means of transforming society) the political groups in power, to a large level,is relying on its political and ideological to achieve the legitimacy of state power,and therefore political ideology also determines the legitimacy of political organizations which control the state power. But also because a continuous relationship between the legitimacy of Economic Law and the legitimacy of the interest groups which master the Government,and therefore it could generate so many forms of economic law, also demonstrated the complete relevance between the economic law form and the ideology of political parties believe in. SectionⅥof this chapter is a synthesis of Marx, Toynbee’s theory of social evolution and the David·Easton’s political system theory and discussed the economic law of the political process.(The history of rationality of the Economic Law is constituted by a social evolution to the legitimacy of political rights.)更多还原