摘要
在制宪权理论中,施密特沿着西耶斯民族制宪权的路径发展出了决断论的制宪权理论,而阿伦特则通过对西耶斯民族制宪权的反思提出了制宪权与制宪权威相分离的制宪理论。施密特的决断论完全排除了制宪过程中不同政治主体间协商与妥协的可能,而阿伦特则将制宪权建立在"约束和承诺、联合和立约"的基础上,但其过于强调制宪权威与制宪权力相分离的理论则限制了其对制宪合法性的理论解释力。通过将制宪分为实质合法性和形式合法性两个逐步达成的进程,进而区分出民主制宪与共和制宪的不同,仍然将制宪的合法性建立在人民行使制宪权的基础之上,但制宪权的基础不是制宪权主体做出的政治决断,而是具有政治权威的不同政治主体间的协商与妥协。
In the theory of constituent power,Karl Schmidt developed decisionist constitutional theory along the way of Sieyes' national constituent power.But Hanna Ahrendt proposed a constitutional theory that constituent power should separate with constituent authority through reflection on Sieyes' theory.Schmidt' s decisionist theory ruled out the possibility of negotiation and compromise of different political groups in the process of constitution-making.In the constitutional theory of Ahrendt,constituent power is based on 'constraint and promise,union and covenant.' But Ahrendt puts too much emphasis on the separation of constituent power and constituent authority,and limits the explanation of the theory on the process of constitution-making.This paper divides constitutional legitimacy into formal legitimacy and substantive legitimacy,and then distinguish democratic constitution-making and republican constitution-making.In the theory of this paper,constituent power is not based on political decisionism,but on the negotiation and compromise of different political groups.
出处
《学术界》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第10期63-71,共9页
Academics
关键词
制宪权
决断
协商
民主制宪
共和制宪
constituent power
political decisionism
negotiation
