【作者】 唐丰鹤；

【导师】 苏晓宏；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 法学理论， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 本文的主旨在于厘清正当性范式的演变过程，并寻找正当性范式转换之缘由；此外，本文还试图结合正当性范式之演变，提出一种当代的正当性重建模式。在导论部分，本文基于哈贝马斯的经验性正当性与规范性正当性理论，结合美国学者法隆的法学、社会学、道德哲学上的正当性界定，根据它们各自的内在理路，将正当性范式归结为规范性的正当性范式、经验性的正当性范式、通过合法性的正当性范式，以及程序性的正当性范式。规范性的正当性范式认为政治权力和法律的正当性来自于自然或神意；经验性的正当性范式认为政治权力和法律的正当性来自于人民的经验性的同意；通过合法性的正当性范式认为政治权力和法律的正当性来自于符合实证法规定；程序性的正当性范式认为政治权力和法律的正当性来自于经由程序审议达成的共识。本文第一部分详细阐述规范性的正当性范式。文章认为，自古希腊的史诗时代以降，直至启蒙运动，此一时期占主流地位的规范性的正当性就体现在一种二元秩序观当中，这种二元秩序观，在史诗时代的神话里，体现为神法与人法；在哲学化时期，则体现为自然和习俗；在古罗马，体现为神意与民意；在中世纪，体现为永恒法与人法。二元秩序观的要旨在于，二元秩序中的神圣秩序赋予了世俗秩序以正当性，由此，哲学或神话的建构都承担着一定的社会功能。然而，随着变革时代的来临，文艺复兴使人的地位大幅提升；宗教改革让神权土崩瓦解；启蒙运动则令自然烟消云散，当自然与神意都遭革除之后，二元秩序观分崩离析，正当性已是无根的浮萍。正是在这种大写的“人”的背景下，魔鬼般的马基雅维利思想出现了，失却了永恒秩序，马基雅维利事实上废弃了正当性的规范维度，他唯一关心的只剩下统治的有效性，而他所教导的，则是赤裸裸的权术，马基雅维利代表了一个时代的终结。不过，马基雅维利虽然毁坏了西方的正当性传统，但是他大肆破坏之后就甩手走人了，并没有重建正当性。事实上，这个工作是是由霍布斯完成的，他为现代政治重新找到了正当性的根基，即人权。所以，马基雅维利和霍布斯二人一破一立，但是只有霍布斯堪称现代政治哲学之父。霍布斯所开创的正当性依然属于规范性的正当性范式，因为他把正当性建立在基本人权之上，因此他的正当性与古代二元秩序观下的正当性一样，仍然属于道德性正当性的范畴，即认为正当性的标准不是来自于人民事实上的同意或接受，而是来自某种独立道德标准。但是他的正当性的划时代的转变在于，他虽然坚持道德性正当性的进路，但他却同时废弃了古代正当性的彼岸之路，而将正当性建立在此岸的世俗社会之上，更具体地说，就是将古代彼岸的自然与上帝置换成了此岸的人权。由此，霍布斯实际上在规范性的正当性范式下又开创了一个新的传统。沿着霍布斯开创的道路，洛克和卢梭进一步夯实了规范性正当性的人权范式，如果说他们之间有所不同的话，无非是霍布斯更加关注人的安全，而洛克更加关注财产，卢梭更加关注自由而已。本文第二部分详细阐述经验性的正当性范式。文章认为，经验性的正当性之所以在这个时期占据了主流地位，是因为现代性下事实与价值二分的结果。事实与价值二分导致了价值主观主义、价值多元主义、价值相对主义和价值虚无主义，最终正当性的规范之维即价值之维被完全摧毁，于是，马克斯·韦伯的经验性正当性应时而生。首先，韦伯将政治秩序的存在作为一个经验事实来观察和研究，他发现只有具有正当性的秩序才具有最高程度的稳定性，得以比较长的维持下去。其次，根据韦伯的研究，历史上政治秩序的来源既可能是来自于传统的传承，也可能来自于领袖的个人魅力，现在社会的正当性则来自于一套形式理性化的法律之治。在此重要的是，韦伯秉承价值中立的方法，他只是像自然科学家那样考察为什么有些秩序比较稳定，然后客观描述作为这种稳定之基础的正当性的来源或类型，但他并不对这些正当性类型有所取舍或好恶，也就是说不作孰优孰劣的价值判断。本文第三部分详细阐述通过合法性的正当性范式。通过合法性的正当性即认为一个行为只要合乎法律就是正当的，事实上将正当性转换成了合法性。当马克斯·韦伯将现代社会的正当性类型认定为一种法理型正当性时，他已经开创了通过合法性的正当性道路。不过通过合法性的正当性这一独特的范式是在法律实证主义，尤其是凯尔森的纯粹法学那里才呈现出一种比较完善的版本。法律实证主义通过合法性的正当性要求合法性能够独立于传统的正当性，行动或权力只要合乎法律就是正当的，也就是合法性就是正当性。在此种理路之下，法律就成为了判断行动和权力的唯一标准，但是法律自身正当性来自于何处？或者说我们为什么要服从法律呢？因此，实证主义必须说明法律的有效性来源。而正是在这个地方，凯尔森的纯粹法学作出了独特的贡献，他将法律本身是否正当的问题转换成了法律本身是否有效的问题，又用颇有些诡诈的“基础规范”解决了法律为何有效的问题，从而彻底解决了通过合法性的正当性的路径建设，完成了通过合法性的正当性的整个拼图。通过合法性的正当性范式在某种意义上是韦伯经验性正当性范式的延续，它们回应的问题都是事实与价值二分，但是合法性的正当性范式又与韦伯经验性正当性范式在学术旨趣上有所不同。本文第四部分详细阐述通过程序性的正当性范式。法律实证主义的传人哈特，以及规范主义正当性的传人罗尔斯和哈贝马斯，他们为了解答价值多元的社会里如何重建统一的正当性基础的问题，沿着各自的传统都做出了努力。但是他们的从不同方向的努力却都呈现一种惊人的巧合，即都采纳了程序主义的进路。本文通过分疏程序所独有的形式性、包容性和中立性等特点，认定程序主义将是我们重建正当性的不二选择。但是，从法律实证主义处于萌芽状态的程序主义，到罗尔斯与哈贝马斯相互分歧的程序主义版本，都存在着各自的弱点，这一进路若想成功，还需要进一步加以修缮才有希望，为此，本文试图通过他们之间的互勘，从而综合三家之长，提出一种较为完善的程序主义来重建正当性。这种程序基于哈贝马斯的双轨制审议民主理论，是一种包含双轨制民主商谈的大程序：双轨制商谈程序作为一种获得正当性的工具，它的基础依赖于个人权利的保障，而其商谈的目标，主要是一种关于规范的共识，这种共识是一种罗尔斯所说的“重叠性共识”，通过这种装置而获得的正当性，准确地说，是一种通过合法性的正当性。这样，这种双轨制商谈程序的正当性，既继承了法律实证主义通过合法性的正当性道路，将法律置于中心位置，又运用了哈贝马斯的商谈理论的反身性特点来解决程序内嵌价值的循环问题，同时又通过罗尔斯的重叠共识对哈贝马斯商谈理论的目标进行修正，最终我们得以融合各家之长，得出了自己的理论思考。程序性的正当性范式融规范性的正当性范式、经验性的正当性范式与通过合法性的正当性范式为一炉，通过内置双轨制民主商谈的大程序，程序性的正当性范式既强调了规范性的可接受性，又强调了经验上的人民同意，同时，由于商谈的目标，主要集中于获得一种关于法律的共识，因此，程序性的正当性范式也是一种通过合法性的正当性范式。这样，本论文的四种正当性范式就不是由于作者兴趣随机地呈现在读者面前，而是具有一种内在的联系，第一、第二和第三种正当性范式最终都被吸收进了第四种正当性范式当中。更多还原

【Abstract】 The purpose of this article is to describe the paradigm shift of legitimacy, lookfor the causes which have made the paradigm of legitimacy shift; in addition, thisarticle attempts to put forward a contemporary rebuilding mode of legitimacy throughclarifying the evolution of the paradigm of legitimacy.In the introduction of this article, based on Habermas’s theory of the empiricallegitimacy and normative legitimacy, combined with the American scholar Fallon’sdefinition of legal legitimacy, sociologic legitimacy and philosophical legitimacy,according to their inner logic, we attributed to the paradigm of legitimacy as thenormative paradigm of legitimacy, the empirical paradigm of legitimacy, the paradigmof legitimacy through legality, as well as the procedural paradigm of legitimacy. Thenormative paradigm of legitimacy believes that the legitimacy of political power andlaw originates in nature or divine will; the empirical paradigm of legitimacy thinksthat the legitimacy of political power and law comes from the empirical consent of thepeople; the paradigm of legitimacy through legality insists on that the political powerand law own legitimacy when they line with the positive law; the procedural paradigmof legitimacy holds that the legitimacy of political power and law roots in theconsensus reached by procedural deliberation.In the part1of this article, we elaborate the normative paradigm of legitimacy.According to our research, from the epic era of ancient Greek to the Enlightenment, the domain paradigm of legitimacy was the normative paradigm of legitimacy whichembodied in the concept of a binary order, the binary order appeared as the divine lawand human law in the epic era, as the nature and customs in the period of philosophy,as the divine will and public opinion in ancient Rome, as the eternal law and humanlaw in the Middle Ages. The key of the binary order was that the divine order gave thesecular order legitimacy, thus, the construction of philosophy or mythology providedus with certain social functions.However, with the advent of the era of change, the Renaissance increasedpeople’s status dramatically; the Reform of Religion crumbled theocratic; theEnlightenment made natural vanished, while the nature and the divine will both hadbeen thrown off, the binary order was falling apart, so the legitimacy became rootlessduckweed. It was in the context of the great man，the evil Machiavelli thought fallen,with the loss of the eternal order, Machiavelli in fact abandoned the normativedimension of legitimacy, his only concern was only the effectiveness of rule, and whathe taught was blatant trickery. Machiavelli declared the end of an era. However,Machiavelli had destroyed the Western tradition of legitimacy, but he walked awayand left, with no reconstruction of legitimacy. In fact, this work is completed byHobbes, who rediscovered the human rights as the foundation of legitimacy for themodern politics. So, Machiavelli and Hobbes, one broken one stand, but only Hobbesshould be called the father of modern political philosophy.The legitimacy pioneered by Hobbes still belongs to the normative paradigm oflegitimacy, since that his legitimacy was founded on the natural human rights. WhyHobbes’s legitimacy still belongs to the scope of moral legitimacy is that the standardof his legitimacy did not depend on the actual consent or acceptation of the people,but on some independent moral standard. However, the epoch-making changes ofHobbes’s legitimacy is that, although he insisted on the approach of moral legitimacy,but he abandoned the divine road of ancient legitimacy, and established his legitimacyin the secular society, more specifically, he shifted the foundation of legitimacy fromthe natural or God of ancient society to human rights of modern society. Thus, Hobbesactually pioneered a new tradition under the normative paradigm of legitimacy. Along the way pioneered by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau further reinforced the normativeparadigm of legitimacy based on human rights, the difference among Hobbes, Lockeand Rousseau was no more than that Hobbes paid more attention to human security,Locke was more concerned about property, and Rousseau was more concerned aboutfreedom.The part2of this article elaborated empirical paradigm of legitimacy. We believethat the empirical paradigm of legitimacy accounted for the mainstream in this periodbecause of dichotomy of facts and values under modernity. Dichotomy of facts andvalues led to value subjectivism, value pluralism, value relativism and value nihilism,ultimately the normative dimension of legitimacy was completely destroyed, in thiscontext, Max Weber putted forward the empirical paradigm of legitimacy timely. First,Weber took the political order as an empirical fact to observe and study, he found thatonly the order which has the legitimacy can be maintained longer with the highestdegree of stability. Secondly, according to Weber, the sources of legitimacy ofpolitical order in the history may come from the tradition, or may come from theleader’s personal charisma, and the legitimacy of modern society come from theformal rational law. Here it is important to know that Weber is just like a naturalscientist to investigate why some order is relatively stable adhering to his free-valuemethod, then make an objective description of the legitimacy which is the basis of thisstable political order, but he refuses to evaluate the legitimacy is good or badaccording to morality, which means no value-judgment in Weber’s approach oflegitimacy.The part3of this article elaborated the paradigm of legitimacy through legality.According to the paradigm of legitimacy through legality, a behavior or politicalpower is legitimate as long as it complies with the laws. In fact, the paradigm oflegitimacy through legality converted legitimacy into legality. When Max Weberrecognized the legitimacy of modern society come from the formal rational law soshould be called a legal-rational legitimacy, he has been pioneered the road oflegitimacy through legality. However, where the paradigm of legitimacy throughlegality showed a relative mature version is in legal positivism, especially in Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law. Legal positivism requires legality independent to traditionallegitimacy, action or power is legitimate as long as comply with the law, i.e.,legitimacy equals to legality. According to such a theory of legitimacy, the lawbecomes the sole criterion to judge whether the actions and powers are legitimate ornot, but where the legitimacy of law itself comes from? Or why do we have to obeythe law? Therefore, legal positivism must indicate the source of the validity of the law.And it is in this place, Kelsen’s pure theory of law made a unique contribution to thelaw because it converted legitimacy into validity, then solved the validity of law withquite mirthful "basic norms", thus constructed the theory of legitimacy throughlegality completely. The paradigm of legitimacy through legality, in a sense, was acontinuation of Weber empirical paradigm of legitimacy, they both responded to theproblem dichotomy of fact and value, but the paradigm of legitimacy through legalitydistinguished with Weber’s empirical paradigm of legitimacy in academic purport.The part4of this article elaborated the procedural paradigm of legitimacy.H.L.A.Hart, descendant of legal positivism, as well as John Rawls and Habermas,descendant of normative paradigm of legitimacy, in order to rebuild legitimacy in avalue pluralistic society, made efforts along their respective traditions. It is amazingthat their efforts from different directions had presented coincidences, i.e. they haveadopted the same approach of procedure. By pointing out the characteristics offormalization, inclusiveness and neutrality of the procedures, we confirmed that theprocedure will be the only choice to rebuild the legitimacy. However, whether theprocedure of Hart, the procedure of John Rawls, or the procedure of Habermas, aredistinguished each other and there are fatal weakness among them. So this approachto be successful, further repairmen is indeed. For this purpose, this article put forwarda more comprehensive procedure to rebuild legitimacy by trying to absorb advantageof procedure of Hart, Rawls and Habermas. This procedure, based on the theory oftwo-track deliberative of democratic of Habermas, is a procedure comprisingtwo-track democratic discourse. The procedure of two-track democratic discourseroots in civil society, goals for consensus about norm, this consensus is an"overlapping consensus" in Rawls’s word. The legitimacy got through the procedure of two-track democratic discourse is legitimacy through legality. In this way, thelegitimacy got through the procedure of two-track democratic discourse inherited theparadigm of legitimacy through legality of legal positivism to put the law at the centerposition, and use Habermas’s theory of discourse to solve the problem of cycle valuewhich embedded in procedure, at the same time, use Rawls’s theory of overlappingconsensus to correct the goal of discourse. Thus, by integrating advantage of everyone,we have drawn their own theoretical thinking.The procedural paradigm of legitimacy melted the normative paradigm oflegitimacy, the empirical paradigm of legitimacy, and the paradigm of legitimacythrough legality in one. Through procedure which embedded in two-track democraticdiscourse, the procedural paradigm of legitimacy stressed both acceptability ofnormative consensus and the consent of the people in fact, at the same time, the goalof discourse, is a consensus about law, so the procedural paradigm of legitimacy isalso a the paradigm of legitimacy through legality. Thus, four paradigms of legitimacyelaborated in this article are not random presented to readers because of interest, buthas an intrinsic link among them, the first, second and third paradigm of legitimacyeventually have been absorbed into the fourth paradigm of legitimacy.更多还原