论人民主权思想的发展脉络

【作者】 李婷；

【导师】 龚廷泰；

【作者基本信息】 南京师范大学 ， 法学理论， 2014， 博士

【副题名】从卢梭到马克思

【摘要】 主权理论是法学理论与民主政治的基本课题,主权概念自产生以来一直呈现出诸多的争议和矛盾,鉴于此,文章并不试图对主权的概念或功能强加任何定义,而将重点放在研究主权的文献上以及对主权概念的评价方面所进行的争论,同时借助几组主权理论的分析工具,来厘清主权范畴的基本要素。依照福柯对知识发展演进过程的理解,主权学说可以划分为古典时代和现代阶段。古典时代的主权学说以首位主权概念的倡导者博丹及其忠实的追随者霍布斯为代表。至现代阶段,受民族主义和宪政主义两种主要政治意识形态的影响,古典主权学说分离为民族国家主权与宪政主权,并延伸至卢梭一线的康德、黑格尔和马克思与洛克一线的孟德斯鸠和美国联邦党人。两种观念分歧的核心在于对两个“国家”概念——“共同主体”和“专门主体”的综合或分离。民族国家主权为了寻找民族意志的真实表达,以民族之名对两个主体进行了完美的综合；而宪政主权者则对这种综合表现出了坦率的怀疑,他们认为主权权威之归属一“共同主体”的存在是高度形式化的,而关键之处就在于设计一个“专门主体”行动的合理宪法制度。主权观念自中世纪后期于欧洲国家提起以来,在主权归属上经历了君主主权、人民主权到“国家”主权的演变。当“人权天赋”取代了“君权天赋”后,人民就取代了君主成为(?)国主权的根本来源。“人权天赋”的本质是“自然权利”理论,后者成为论证人民主权合理性的理论依据。自理性主义、政治上的自由主义和资产阶级革命后,人民成为国家主权之主体,人民主权理念自此诞生。人民主权的基本内涵,即是一个群体之下的最高政治统治力必须拥有正当性的基础,且此正当性的基础只能来自人民。当然,人民主权理论诞生之后,既有坚定的支持者也有强烈的批判者,但无论两种观点如何对立,一个不容忽视的事实则是：从人民主权观念被完整的提出之后,国家的合法性来源于人民的同意已经成为宪政理论的共识。主权观念产生于西方,最早可追溯至古希腊。主权最初是一个表征主奴关系的概念,是一种绝对的“全总的”权力,无需正当性论证。在部落社会走向城邦社会的过程中,这一概念产生了新的义项：抽象的人民的权力,同样具有绝对性与至高性。古希腊这一文化传统在古罗马得以发扬,共和时代的罗马与希腊持相同的主权观念。但在罗马帝国时代,主权的含义虽然没有质的变化,但主权的归属却由人民转向了君主。不过,于终极意义上古罗马通行的仍然是人民主权理论,或最低限度的是,人民是主权的最终拥有者。至中世纪,主权理论可以分为三个派别：教会主权论、君主主权论和主权在民论。其中的主权在民论体现出一种有别于古希腊古罗马朴素的主权在民思想的所谓“政约论”观点,这种观点隐含了限制君主权力和保护公民权利的思想,对后来的社会契约论和人民主权思想的形成与完善提供了重要启示。博丹的主权理论是欧洲政治思想史上的一件大事,他的主权理论包含了对至高无上的权威的界定,他主张的是一种统治者的主权理论。他赋予主权权力五项基本特征,并以否定混合型政体来论证其主权不可分割的思想。博丹审慎的使用了“有限的最高权力”一词,以自然法、神意法、统治法等对主权进行合理限定,但博丹没有将“统治法”观念充分深入下去,使其原本的有限主权具有了较大的缺陷。延续着博丹的主权理论并将其发挥到极致的是英国人霍布斯。他以个人主义为论述起点,却于结果上走到了国家主义之路,甚至比博丹的国家主义更激进；他开创了新的社会契约论和自然权利思想,这些原本可以作为主权绝对性的限制性条件的,反而成为了绝对主权的合法性依据；他以超乎常人的排除困难的能力否定了博丹对主权的合理限定,而将君主主权与国家主义发挥到几近完美的程度。另一个英国的社会契约论者,却与霍布斯走向完全相反主权理论的是洛克。同样以个人主义为起点,洛克得出了议会主权和人民主权的结论；同样以社会契约论为理论基础,洛克得出了有限政府和权力分立思想。与霍布斯不同,洛克版的自然状态是一种前政治状态而非前社会状态,他的社会契约理论也隐含着相关联的“社会”契约与“政治”契约的双重性。洛克始终未用主权一词而以最高权力代替,最高权力即指立法权。在洛克理论中似乎存在两个最高权力,一是人民全体,二是多数人的议会,但两种最高权力并非同时存在,常态下议会行使主权,而在极端情形的非常态下人民行使主权,议会主权是相对、受限的,而人民主权则是绝对、不受限的。卢梭的人民主权理论从反对传统理性者理性优于自然情感的观点出发,以人类天性善良的论断,批判了霍布斯相同前提下的相异结果。卢梭的社会契约理论遵循着霍布斯的论证方法却沿袭了洛克的理论内容,以被统治者的全体同意作为社会契约成立的基础。卢梭之讨论主权,将前人所认为绝不相容的观念融为一炉,从而实现了以往主权理论史上的第一次重大超越。他的主权的定义与霍布斯的同样圆满而明白,但他所谓主权的归属与作用,又与洛克的主张一致。卢梭人民主权思想的核心表述为：人民即是主权者、主权即是公意的运用、公意即是公共利益的表达、公共利益即是法律的唯一价值取向。主权具有四个基本属性：不可转让、不可分割、不可被代表和绝对正确。政府是联结主权者与臣民的中介。卢梭的诸多学说一直都有着巨大影响,他的反对者与追随者们同样狂热。有人将法国大革命的爆发归咎于卢梭,有人将卢梭视为极权主义者,另有人将卢梭视为近代民族国家的始祖。此种种震荡与批判,如不从卢梭人民主权理论中的焦点问题重新审慎与反思,便无法整理出一个较为清晰的理论阈值线索。公意的概念过于模糊、抽象主权与具体权力的脱节、明显轻视民众的倾向都使得卢梭的伟大学说具有不可避免的自我矛盾性。卢梭的人民主权明显是霍布斯的国家主义主权观和洛克的个人主义主权观的综合与超越。他将在霍布斯那里的君主主权演变为形而上学的人民主权,以与霍布斯相同的主权论述起点和论证思路否定了霍布斯的主权结论,使人民主权最终拥有与霍布斯君主主权一样的绝对性与神圣性,将在洛克那里呼之欲出的大民主权思想激情呐喊了出来。卢梭所理想的政体形式是似于古希腊那样的直接民主制,可如果将对古代城邦的热情直接投入现代民族国家,唯一的结果就是将此前城邦中的公民资格不加批判的适用于现代,于是,卢梭将平民百姓的道德情感加以理想化的努力很快就在康德的伦理学中产生了反响；而康德之后,卢梭的公意理论和参与公共生活的论述,经由黑格尔的唯心主义得以在德国国家哲学中充分体现。法国大革命指导理论与实践后果的强烈反差,引起了欧洲各国政治法学家们的深刻反思,由此导致了大革命后近代政治哲学的分化,这种分化在德意志的最清晰体现则是康德与黑格尔。康德站在一个比霍布斯和洛克更为完整的视野之上,以其形式原则和道德普遍主义为自由主义的普遍化提供了法哲学的论证。他克服了理性(必然)与自由(意志)之间的基本分歧,完成了其温和、审慎的国家学说与人民主权思想的论证。康德沿着卢梭自由和权利、自然状态和社会契约论的线索一路深入下去,而对后者的超越与完善仅在于,通过两条道德律令,即：“作为先验自由的自律”和“人是目的,不是手段”将卢梭的公意理论先验化和个体化,把对政治的道德理解推向空前的高度,用理性观念的契约修正传统式现实的契约,用温和的人民主权修正卢梭式激进人民主权。康德主张共和政体的国家结构形式,以代议制和分权制作为其理想政体的两个基本要素。不过,康德政治哲学的一个很突出的特点是二元论,在其人民主权思想的表述上也明显体现出理想主权与现实主权的两面性。尤其当康德涉及到具体制度设计时,不可避免的体现出了其保守主义倾向,如积极公民与消极公民之分、国家权力的不可限制和公民的消极反抗权上。与康德的法哲学相比,黑格尔的法哲学则具有十分清晰的国家主义倾向,他反对自由主义的自然权利与契约论,也反对康德那种从纯粹自我出发引申出来的没有任何规定性的抽象自由。黑格尔以保守的姿态为德国的君主制开脱,并以其独特的新理性与自由国家的观念将“国家”主权理论发展至顶峰,并以此奠定了君主立宪政体的哲学基础。黑格尔对两种典型的自然权利论进行了总结与批判,以“伦理”国家修正传统“契约”国家,“伦理”国家成为了市民社会特殊利益的消解和普遍伦理实现的最终形式。黑格尔反思了法国大革命及其自由主义的法哲学基础,将政治哲学与法哲学的研究重心从自由主义式的个人权利的关注转向对民族精神和国家有机体的关注,于是,一国主权的归属从“人民”转向了“国家”。当一国主权归属于具有民族意志的“国家”时,当“国家”成为与君主和人民并列的法律人格时,“国家”主权学最终在德国产生。黑格尔将卢梭的主权与霍布斯的君主融为一炉,使抽象的“国家”主权合乎逻辑的落实到了现实君主的身上。黑格尔利用卢梭的公意理论,对它进行了适合民族主义口味的改造,并最终与前洛克、卢梭和康德等人的人民主权观念背道而驰,走到了形式上的“国家”主权、实质上的君主主权。在欧洲近代法哲学出现自由主义与国家主义的对峙背景下,如果说康德提供的是个人在道德选择上的绝对命令,黑格尔提供的是整体优先于个人选择的社会秩序,那么马克思则要论证这种社会秩序是何以可能的。从某种意义上来说,马克思的法哲学及其国家与主权理论可以被视为康德自由主义与黑格尔国家主义的结合,其人民主权思想是主权理论的第二次综合与超越。马克思的法哲学基础是超越了自由主义与国家主义的唯物史观。他不仅批判了黑格尔的君主主权,还揭露了资产阶级人民主权的虚伪性。一国主权的归属坚定地指向了无产阶级为主体的人民主权的本真回归。马克思人民主权思想的核心内容是人民当家作主、自我管理,同时,这种自我管理的人民主权还与公民的基本权利真正统一了起来。马克思批判了资产阶级议会制和分权制的虚幻民主,将社会主义民主共和国视为无产阶级人民主权的政体形式,确立了人民普选制与社会主义代议制、“议行合一”制与廉价政府等一系列民主制度。在马克思看来,实现无产阶级人民主权的道路只有一条,那就是以暴力革命建立无产阶级专政,而后者只是通向无产阶级人民主权的过渡形式。马克思主义的人民主权理念成为新中国民主政治的指导思想与制度基础,对当代中国仍然具有深刻的指导意义和实践价值。作为坚实的理论后盾,马克思主义的人民主权思想成为新中国国家的国体和政体、公民民主参与制度、公民权利宪法保障制度以及服务型人民政府等民主制度的理论依据。在新的历史时期,马克思主义人民主权理论对中国当代民主制度的意义和要求,必将在政治、法律、经济和文化各项制度中显现出来。更多还原

【Abstract】 Sovereignty theory is a fundamental issue of law and democratic politics, the present of the concept of sovereignty has brought on a lot of controversy and contradictions. In view of this,the article does not attempt to impose the sovereignty of any concept or function definitions, but to focus on the study of sovereignty literature and debate on the concept of sovereignty of the evaluation carried out, meanwhile,to clarify the basic elements of sovereignty category by several groups of theoretical analysis tools.According to Foucault’s understanding of the evolution of knowledge development, sovereignty doctrine can be divided into the classical era and modem stage. Sovereignty doctrine of classical era was represented by the first sovereignty concept advocates Bodin and his loyal follower Hobbes. To the modern stage, affected by nationalism and constitutionalism, the two main political ideologies, the classical doctrine was separated to nation-state sovereignty and constitutional sovereignty, furthermore, it extends to the Rousseau line of Kant, Hegel and Marx, and Locke line of Montesquieu and American Federalists. Two concepts lies in the heart of the differences of the two different "states"---the "mutual entity" and "special subject", integrated or separated. National sovereignty, in order to find true expression of the national consciousness, perfectly synthesizes the two subjects in the name of nationality; while the constitutional sovereign expresses straightforward suspicions about this synthesis, and holds the view that the ownership of sovereignty authority---the presence of " mutual entity" is highly formalized, moreover, the key point is to design a reasonable constitutional system to stipulate "special subject" action.The concept of sovereignty, since late Middle Ages in Europe, has evoluted from the monarchical sovereignty, popular sovereignty to "national" sovereignty. As "God-given rights of people" replaced "Devine rights of monarchs", the people, replaced the monarchs and became a fundamental source of national sovereignty. The essence of "God-given rights of people" is "natural rights" theory, which became theoretical foundation of the rationality of popular sovereignty argument. Since rationalism, political liberalism and bourgeois revolution, the people became the subject of national sovereignty, from then on, the idea of popular sovereignty appeared. The basic meaning of popular sovereignty is that the highest political dominance of a group must have a legitimate foundation, and which can only come from the people. Of course, after the appearance of theory of popular sovereignty, both strong supporters and strong critic exist, but no matter how opposite the two views are, one can not ignore the fact that:since the concept of popular sovereignty was brought up, the legitimacy of nation comes from peoples agreement has become the consensus of constitutional theory.The concept of sovereignty came into being in the West, can be traced back to ancient Greece. Initially the concept of sovereignty is a characterization of the relationship between master and slave, which is an absolute power without legitimacy argument. In the process of tribal society to the city-state society, the concept creates new meanings:the abstract power of people, is absolute and supreme as well. The cultural traditions of ancient Greece was promoted in ancient Rome, and Rome in Republican era holds the same concept of sovereignty of Greece. Although there is no qualitative change, but the sovereignty vested in it by the people turned to the monarch. However, in the ultimate sense of the passage of Roman remains popular sovereignty theory, or at least, the people are the ultimate owner of sovereignty. To Middle Ages, sovereignty theory can be divided into three factions:the church sovereignty theory, the monarchical sovereignty theory and the popular sovereignty theory. Among which, the popular sovereignty theory, different from ancient Greece and ancient Rome, reflects the view of so-called "political theory" of popular sovereignty, which implies restriction of monarchical power and the protection of civil rights, and later provides an important ideological inspiration for the formation and improvement of social contract theory and popular sovereignty theory.Bodin’s theory of sovereignty is a major event in the history of European political thought, his theory of sovereignty includes the definition of supreme authority, he advocates the theory of sovereign ruler. He gives five basic characteristics of sovereign authority, and demonstrates its sovereignty inseparable ideas by denying the hybrid form of government. Bodin prudently uses the word of "limited supreme power", and stipulates reasonable limitation on sovereignty through natural law, divine law, the rule of law and so on. But Bodin did not proceed the idea of "the rule of law" further, which made the original limited sovereignty larger defect. The British Hobbes continues the sovereignty theory of Bodin and developes it to maximize. He begins with individualism for discussion,but it results on the road of nationalism, even more radical than Bodin’s nationalism. He created a new social contact theory and natural rights, which were supposed to be the restrictive conditions of absolute sovereignty, has become the legitimacy of absolute sovereignty. Hobes denied Bodin’s reasonable limitation of sovereignty by his superhuman ability to exclude difficulties, and make the monarchical sovereignty and nationalism to near-perfect level. Another British social contract theorists with completely opposite sovereignty theory from Hobbes, is Locke. Similarly, beginning with individualism, Locke comes to a conclusion of parliamentary sovereignty and popular sovereignty. Also taking same social contrat theory as the theoretical basis, Locke comes to a conclusion of government ruled by law and the separation of powers. Unlike Hobbes, Locke’s natural state is a version of the former political status rather than the former social status, his social contract theory also implies duality "social" contract and "political" contract. Locke has always been using the highest authority instead of sovereignty, the highest authority referred to legislative authority. It seems that there are two highest authority existing in Locke’s theory, one is all the people, the other is, the majority of parliament, but the highest authority does not co-exist. Parliamentary sovereignty is exerted under normal parliamentary sovereignty, while people’s sovereignty is exerted in very extremely cases. Parliamentary sovereignty is relative and constrained, while people’s sovereignty is absolute and unconstrained.Rousseau’s popular sovereignty theory begins with opposing the viewpoint that the traditional rational reason is better than natural emotion, and criticizes the different results under the same premise of Hobbes with the assertion in nature and goodness of human. Rousseau’s social contract theory follows Hobbes’s method of reasoning,but with Locke’s theory of content, that is, social contract theory is based on the consent of all the governed. Rousseau’s discussion of sovereignty combines the viewpoint which the predecessors never considered compatible with, consequently, it realizes the first major beyond in sovereignty history. His definition of sovereignty is as successful and clear as Hobbes, but the ownership and function of his sovereignty is consistent with Locke’s proposition. The core ideas of Rousseau’s popular sovereign are:people are sovereign, sovereignty is the exertion of public will, public will is the expression of public interest, public interest is the only value orientation of law. Sovereignty has four basic attributes:non-negotiable, indivisible, cannot be representatives and absolutely right. Government is the intermediate to link sovereign and subjects.Rousseau’s theories exercises a great influence, his opponents are as fanatical as his followers. Some people blamed the outbreak of the French Revolution on Rousseau, some people considered him as the totalitarian, other people regarded him as the ancestor of the modern nation-state. These kinds of storming and criticism, if are not carefully reconsidered from Rousseau’s popular sovereignty theory, cannot be classified a clearer theoretical threshold clues. The concept of public will is too vague, the disconnection of abstract sovereignty and specific powers, people tends to be underestimated significantly, these facts all lead to the inevitable self-contradiction of Rousseau’s great doctrines. Rousseau’s popular sovereignty is clearly integrated with but beyond Hobbes’s concept of national sovereignty and Locke’s concept of individualistic sovereignty. He evolves the monarchical sovereignty Hobbes into metaphysical sovereignty of people, with the same starting point for discussion and demonstration, he denies conclusion of Hobbes, and makes the sovereignty of people as absolute and divine as the monarchical sovereignty of Hobbes, cries out popular sovereignty passionately which is almost certain in Locke’s theory. Similar to that of the ancient Greek, Rousseau’s ideal form of government is direct democracy, but if the enthusiasm about ancient city-state were put directly into modern nation-state, the only result is that the citizenship of the city-state had uncritically applied to the modern stage. Thus, Rousseau’s effort to idealize civilian moral soon produced a response in Kant’s ethics, and after Kant, Rousseau’s theory of public will and discourse in public life are fully reflected in the German national philosophy through Hegel’s idealism.The strong contrast between guiding theory and the consequences of practice of French Revolution caused profound reflection among European political jurists, which led to the division of modern political philosophy after the French Revolution, and the most clearly reflection in Germany are Kant and Hegel. Kant stands on a more complete view than Hobbes and Locke, and provides liberal generalization an philosophical argument in the form of its principles and moral universalism. He overcomes the fundamental differences between the rationality(inevitability) and freedom(will), completes gentle and careful reasoning of the state sovereignty theory and popular sovereignty thought. Kant follows further Rousseau’s clue along freedoms and rights, the state of nature and social contract theory. The transcendence and perfection of latter is just, through two moral law, that is,"the transcendental freedom self-discipline" and "people is the goal, not the means" to Rousseau’s general will theory and individual, the political moral understanding to an unprecedented height,and the Rousseau radical people’s sovereignty the theory of Kant’s realistic correction. Kant advocated republican form of state structure, with its presentative system and decentralized as the two essential elements of the ideal polity. However, a very prominent feature of Kant’s political philosophy is dualism, and the dualism of idealistic and realistic sovereignty are also reflected on the expression of popular sovereignty thoughts. Especially when Kant involves specific system design, it inevitably reflects the conservative tendencies, such as the active citizens and the passive citizens, the illimitable state power and the passive resistance of citizens.Compared with Kant’s philosophy of law, Hegel’s is very clear with nationalistic tendencies,he is opposed to natural rights and contract theory of liberalism, also opposed to Kant’s purely self-starting which does not arise out of any of the provisions of abstract freedom. Hegel absolved the German monarchy from guilty and blame with an conservative attitude,and developed the "national" sovereignty theory to the summit with his unique new concept of rationality and freedom,thus, laid the philosophical foundation of constitutional monarchy. Hegel summarized and criticized the two typical natural rights theory, amended the traditional "contract" country with "ethical" country, therefore,"ethical" country has become the ultimate form of citizen special interest consuming and general ethical implementation. Hegel rethought the philosophical foundation of the French Revolution and its liberal laws, he shifted his research concentration on the spirit of the nation from the liberal individual rights, which meant that the attribution of national sovereignty was turned to the "state" from the "people". When the attribution of a country’s sovereignty had the characteristic of national will "state", when "state" became legal personality in parallel with the monarch and the people, the sovereignty of "state" was eventually founded in Germany. Hegel combines Rousseau’s sovereignty with Hobbes’s monarch, makes the abstract sovereignty of "state" in line with the implementation of logic to the real monarch. Hegel made use of Rousseau’s theory of public will, transformed it to suit the nationalism, and ultimately ran counter to the former popular sovereignty of Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and so on, with the form of "national"sovereignty but monarchical sovereignty in essence.In modern European, under the confronted background that the philosophy of law appears liberalism and nationalism, if Kant is regarded to provide individuals with categorical imperative on moral choice, Hegel is regarded to provide the overall social order that taking precedence over individual choice, while Marx has to demonstrate how this social order functions. In a sense, Marx’s philosophy of law and the theory of sovereignty and state can be regarded as a combination of Kant’s liberalism and Hegel’s nationalism, his popular sovereignty is the second time of synthesis and transcendence of sovereignty theory. The basis of Marx’s philosophy of law is materialism, which beyond liberalism and nationalism. He not only criticized Hegel’s monarchical sovereignty, but also exposed the hypocrisy of bourgeois popular sovereignty. The country’s sovereignty vested firmly in possession of the people,with the main subject are the proletariat. The core ideas of Marx’s popular sovereignty are:people are the masters, self-management, meanwhile, there is a unity of such popular sovereignty of self-management and basic rights of citizens. Marx criticized the illusory democracy of bourgeois parliamentary and separation of powers, he regarded the socialist democratic republic as the form government of the popular sovereignty of proletariat, established the people’s general election system and the representative government system,"unity of legislative and administrative"system, incorrupt and cheap government and many other democratic systems. In Marx’s view, the only way to realize popular sovereignty of proletariat is to establish proletarian dictatorship through violent revolution, but it is just a transitional form of the proletariat leading to popular sovereignty.Marx’s concept of popular sovereignty has become the basic guiding ideology and system of new democracy in China, which still has a profound significance and practical value to the contemporary China. As the theoretical solid backup force, Marx’s thought of popular sovereignty has become a new Chinese national state system and regime, democratic participation system, civil rights constitutional protection system, service people’s government and democratic system theory. In the new historical period, the requirements of Marx’s popular sovereignty theory on contemporary Chinese democracy, will be in the political, legal,economic and cultural institutions, appeared not only political slogans stay in the propaganda level.更多还原