天易网

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 325|回复: 3

郭国汀:法治的起源与历史

[复制链接]
发表于 5/15/2017 17:03:57 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 5/15/2017 17:18 编辑

法治的起源与历史
郭国汀
       有基督教法学者指出:“法治源于西方政治学和西方文明,东方历史上虽然也有法制,却没有法治精神。事实上法治起源于旧约,是由基督教推向世俗社会的”。[1]但他并未具体指出旧约中哪一条,也未明确基督教是如何将法治精神推向世俗社会的。亦有学者认为:“法治并非西方文化的共同产物,而是英国本土的历史和法律实践的独特产物”。[2]此说似乎很有英国至上论者之味,其实伯拉图和亚里士多德的法治理论相当精彩,基本包括了现代法治精神;如果说法治实践制度首创于英国可能更贴切。还有学者主张,法律至上并非西方独有的概念。12世纪以前伊斯兰法学家便主张:任何官员包括哈里发(即最高当权者caliph)均不得超越法律。[3] 不过完全意义上的法治源于西方文明,特别是英国历史和司法实践,则应属公论。

       最早阐述法治原理的当属古希腊的伯拉图和亚里士多德。前者在其《理想国》中说:“在法律受制于其它某种权力而非它自身的地方,国家的崩溃即为期不远了。但是如果法律是政府的主人及政府是法律的奴隶(政府完全受制于法律),那么情形就充满希望,人就能充分享受上帝对一个国家的保佑和祝福 ”。[4] 他还论道:“在法律本身受制于或缺乏至上权威之所,我看到此处面临着破坏;但是在法律至高无上或统治者成为法律的奴隶之所,我预见到神赋予城市的安全和所有良好的事物”。[5]伯拉图在《论法律》中进一步指出:“人的统治或在政治社会中的人类至上应受到谴责,因为人性使得人拥有管理一切的专制独裁权力时,完全不能控制人类避免变成自高自大傲慢无礼和不公不义。”[6] 伯拉图确认法治乃“人类内心某种不朽”的理性或理解之治。[7]

       亚里士多德认同法治,他写道:“法律应当统治”,那些“当权者应当成为法律的仆人” [8]。Where laws do not rule, there is no constitution.The law ought to rule over all, and the officials ought to make rulings in individual cases; where everything is governed by decree, is not a democracy at all, for no decree can have general validity.[9]古代的法治概念有别于法制(用法律统治),“两者的区别在于:在法治下,法律是超群的卓越的,并可以起到制约权力滥用的作用;而在法制下,法律仅能作为政府的一种合法方式镇压的工具”。伯拉图的法治观在亚里士多德解释法治时有所反映:“命令法律应当统治的人,可以被视为命令只有上帝和理性应当管制;命令某个人应当统治的人,增加了兽类的性质。各种欲望(高级灵魂亦然)具有此类兽性,即便是最好的人的欲望,也会使任职高官者变坏。因此,法律可以定义为:排除所有情欲或愤恨的理性”。[10]亚里士多德认为“法治的和稳定的宪政是最佳的政府”,但此种宪政应当是建立在广大中产阶级基础上的宪政。但他从未有过三权分立相互制约平衡的概念[11]。亚氏之后,希腊罗马历史学家波里斯首次提出了政府机构分离的概念。他是介于亚氏与孟德斯鸠之间的人物。亚氏仅有阶级平衡的概念,即在富人与穷人之间要有一 个庞大的中产阶级作为平衡。而孟氏则提出了完整的三权分立,限制政府权力,政府各部门之间制约平衡的政治设计[12]

       归纳伯拉图和亚里士多德有关法治的论述,法治的基本精神与实质有:法律至上、法律应当统治、人治由于人性中的兽性最终必然导致不公不义专横跋扈、国王统治者和政府均须受制于法律、法律源于至高无上的上帝及人类理性、权力必须限制。

  在1215年《大宪章》中,英国约翰王将他自已和英国未来的王朝及地方法官均至少部分置于法治制约范围内。[13] 约翰王向贵族男爵们承诺:“非经贵族根据英国法律经合法审判,任何自由人不得被监禁、拘捕、驱逐、或以任何方式毁灭、也不得施加任何强制”。亦即皇权受到了极大限制,除非经由贵族按照法律公开审理,国王不得任意处罚任何自由人也不得限制任何人的自由。
      
   布莱克通(Bracton )法官大约在1250年在被视为英国法律第二份重要文件中重申“皇权必须按照法律行使。” [14]英王爱德华三世在1354年进一步规定:“任何人,无论其身份地位如何,非经正当法律程序,并经法庭审理质证,不得被驱除出境或解除雇佃、拘留、监禁、剥夺继承权、处死”[15] 1608年爱德华库克大法官对詹姆斯一世说:他“不是根据人而是依据上帝和法律”判案。[16]吉姆斯哈林顿于1656年(查理一世被处死后)献给克伦威尔的《大洋国》中坚持:“法律的而非人的王国。”[17] 英国是君主,贵族和民主的权力混和的体制,这三种权力相互平衡制约,从而保障了英国自由的宪政长盛不衰[18]。孟德斯鸠发现在英国既没有政府机构之间的分权,也没有社会阶级平衡,该国是由拥有土地的领主组成的,充满腐败的议会部分行使管理职能。当然其立法与行政之间是分离的,但其分权未能超出司法独立的范围[19]。法治在英国发展成为共同法(通译“普通法”,查布莱克法律词典原义,显然Common Law应译为共同法而非普通法)的基本原则。其最基本的形式即为法律面前人人平等、公正和正义[20]
       上述英国的司法实践确立了如下法治原则:法律至上、皇权受制于法律、自由人受法律同等保护、非经法院按既定法律和正当法律程序公开审理,任何人不得随意被限制人身自由剥夺财产。

       近现代政治法律思想家奠定法治理论原则基础贡献最大者当属塞穆尔之《法论》( Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex (1644) )约翰络克之《政府论》(1690)。随后,孟德斯鸠在其《论法的精神》(1748)中进一步确立了法治原则。[21]

       约翰络克之分权制衡理论设计保障立法至上,将行政和司法置于其次地位,从而预期了依法治理:“在一个宪政国家,只能有一个至上的权力,即立法权,其它一切权力都必须置于其下,因为能为他人制定法律者,必须高于那些被法律约束的人”。[22]用孟德斯鸠的话来说,“国家的法官们仅仅是宣读法律词汇的口,仅是被动使之不能节制法律的暴力或严厉”。[23]上述政治法律思想家最大的历史功绩在于确于了三权分立分权制衡的政治法律原则,使法治原则从理论变成了司法现实。孟氏对平衡政府权力的理论的独创性贡献在于他将三权严格分离[24]。法国大革命的法律理论认为:所有的法律都是立法者的意志,习惯法和司法解释同样被拒绝。法官仅是司法机器上的狭孔,通过类似数学公式那样的一种自动计算机将法律文本适用于判决。[25]因此法国大革命实质上在某种意义上是一倒退。

      司法独立并非自始有之。英国大约是1616年正式确立独立司法,普鲁士(德国)在1749年首次提出司法独立原则。[26] 1776年在缔造美国的过程中,任何人均不得超越法律之上的概念得以流行,例如,托马斯潘恩在其《常识》中称:“在美国法律就是国王。因为在一个绝对的政府中国王就是法律,因此,在自由的国家中,法律应当是国王;且不应当有任何其它更高的权威。”1780年美国第二任总统约翰亚当斯在马萨诸色州宪法中建议:“在马州政府中立法、行政和司法权应当分置于不同的部门,旨在由法律而非由人统治。”[27]
       法律的统治(rule of law法治)一词是19世纪后半叶由英国牛津大学资深法学教授戴西使之流行的。[28]“西欧和北美取得的法治成就,付出过巨大的牺牲和代价,包括战争和革命,历经数个世纪,并非在几个月内或数年内成就”。[29]那些强调文明在构建世界秩序的作用的理论家们认为,“法治是西方独特的产物而不能被出口”。[30]

       当代西方正宗自由宪政民主国家,均早已建立完善的法治。由于法律至上,法律普遍平等适用于一切公民,总统、政府与官员均受同等法律制约,从而“法律面前人人平等”,同时在社会、信仰、政治、经济、文化、教育、文娱体育诸方面均做到人人机会均等成为可能。为创造一个相对公平公正公道的社会,一个人人自由、平等、友善、正义抑强扶弱的和谐社会奠定了坚实的法律基础,个人权利则获得法律的充分保障。

       经过三波全球民主化,世界上已有130余个国家实现了选举民主政治。后起的民主国家中,由于法治原则在某些国家仍未确立或不完善,这是少数已实现选举民主制的国家仍然存在司法严重不公政治腐败的重要原因之一。至于中共匪帮骗子国,由于党控一切的极权独裁专制流氓暴政横行霸道,极端自私自利的犯罪既得利益当权集团的顽固不化,与人民为敌的中共视法治为虎,始终依凭党卫军,及公、检、法、司、警、特、监狱等国家暴力机器,对全民实行暴力、谎言、恐怖统治,长期实行严厉党禁、报禁、言禁、网禁,使得中共国根本不存在独立司法,独立媒体,独立政治实体,因而根本没有法治生存的余地,由于中共一贯残酷迫害一切民主志士仁人,六十年强暴国人精神意志,长期强行对全体国人进行洗脑愚民,导致众多民众特别是官员们普遍道德堕落、人心败坏、素质低劣,因此,中共暴政下,政治、司法、社会全面腐败腐烂堕落是必然的。

       唯有及时尽早彻底终结中共极权专制流氓暴政,才能避免中华民族被流氓中共毁灭的巨大危险,才能挽救中国的自然生态环境,才能拯救中国堕落的道德人心,中国才可能有美好的明天与光明的未来,中国人民才能真正走上自由人权法治宪政共和民主的光辉大道。每个真正爱华的中国人,每个中华儿女应当早日认清中共流氓暴政的邪恶本质,尽早唾弃早已病入膏肓无可救药的中共流氓暴政,积极投身于彻底终结中共极权专制流氓暴政这一人类历史上最伟大的政治革命,为建设一个真正自由人权法治宪政共和民主新中国而共同努力奋斗。


2009年11月1日


[1] The idea of the rule of law (regulations) and not the man was proclaimed in the Western European legal and political theory a long time before the idea of democracy came into picture. In fact, the idea of the rule of law was taken over from Old Testament, and the thought became incorporated into the Western civilization through Christianity.  

[2] The Rule of Law was not a cultural attribute common to the West, but rather it was local to England, a distinctive product of English history and legal institutions.

[3] The supremacy of law is not an exclusively western notion. For example, it was developed by Islamic jurists before the twelfth century, so that no official could claim to be above the law, not even the caliph.  

[4] Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.

[5] . Laws IV 715d at 102. Where the law is itself ruled over and lacks sovereign authority, I see destruction at hand for such a place. But where it is despot over the rulers and the rulers are slaves of the law, there I foresee safety and all good things which the gods have given to cities

[6] Plato Laws IV 713c, The Laws of Plato. trans. Thomas L. Pangle Whicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) at 99. And see Laws IX, 875a-876a. In Plato's Laws personal rule or the supremacy of human beings in the political community is condemned because "human nature is not at all capable of regulating the human things, when it possesses autocratic authority over everything, without becoming swollen with insolence and injustice

[7] "...in public life and in private life-in the arrangement of our households and our cities should obey whatever within us partakes of immortality, giving the name *law' to the distribution ordained by intelligence." Laws IV 714a at 100. Plato identifies the rule of law with the rule of reason or understanding--"whatever within us partakes of immortality.

[8] Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the rule of law, writing that "law should govern", and those in power should be "servants of the laws." The ancient concept of rule of law is to be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."

[9] Aristotle The Politics translated by T.A.Sinclair , Penguin Books. P.251. 1292 a.31.

[10] Aristotle, Politics In, 1287a in The Politics of Aristotle. trans. Ernest Barker (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962) at 146. Barker points out in a note that Aristotle here uses the language of Plato's Republic for the paris of the soul. Plato's voice can be heard in Aristotle's account of the rule of law: "He who commands that law should rule may thus be regarded as commanding that God and reason alone should rule; he who commands that a man should rule adds the character of the beast. Appetite has that character, and high spirit, too, perverts the holders of office, even when they are the best of men. Law ...may thus be defined as 'Reason free from all passion'

[11] For Aristotle the touchstones of good government are rule by law (so far as consistent with equity and administrative flexibility to cope with unforeseen situations) and constitutional stability. (6/26)

[12] there originates with Polybius the constitution of checking and balancing organs (not functions as yet). (6/26)

[13] In 1215 AD, a similar development occurred in England: King John placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates at least partially within the rule of law, by signing Magna Carta.  

O. John Rogge * of the New York Bar (New York City).O. John Rogge, The,Rule of Law, 46 A.B.A. J.  (1960)  pages 981 to 986
[14] F. 5b. In 1215 in Magna Charta, King John promised his barons at Runnymede: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him, nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or [per legem terrae] by the law of the land." Bracton in his Tratatus de legibus, the second great treatise on English law, the main part of which was probably written between  1250-58, stated that the royal power  should be exercised subject to the law

[15] 28Edw. 3. c. 3 (1354). Edward III (1327-77), in addition to his frequent confirmations of Magna Charta, in 1354 further provided "that no man of what estate or condition that he be, shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer [par due proces de lei] by due process of law

[16] Edward Coke in his famous Sunday morning conference (1608) with James I of England quoted himself as saying, attributing them to Bracton, NON SUB HOMINE SED SUB DEO ET LEGE [not under man but under God and the law]. Bracton was an English judge and writer who died in 1268.

[17] At 27 (Morley ed. 1887). James Harrington in his The Commonwealth of Oceana, published in 1656 after the execution of Charles I and dedicated to Oliver Cromwell, insisted on "an empire of laws, and not of men

[18] It is by this mixture of monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical power, blended together in one system, and by these three estates balancing one another, that our free constitution of government hath been preserved so long inviolate. (6/26)

[19] In England, where Montesquieu professed having found the doctrine in operation, there existed neither a separation of government organs nor a balance of social classes. The country was ruled, partly through a system of pervasive parliamentary corruption, by an oligarchy of land- owning peers. There was, to be sure, a distinction of functions between legislation, on the one hand, and executive action under the residues of the royal prerogative, on the other. A separation of powers, however, did not go farther than the independence of the judges, guaranteed by the Act of Settlement (1700). (6/26)

[20] the rule of law become a fundamental principle of the common law. in its most basic form the rule of law means eauality, fairness, and justice before the law. By Barrie J.Saxton & Ronald T.Stansfield, Understanding Criminal Offences, Carswell 1996.P.3. (6/22)

[21] Subsequently, two of the first modern authors to give the principle theoretical foundations were Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex (1644) and John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government (1690). Later, the principle was further entrenched by Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748).  

[22] Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, ch. 12 §§ 149-50 (1685).)His separation of functions is plainly designed to guarantee the supremacy of the legislative, the rigorous sub- ordination of administration and judging, and hence predictable rule by law: “In a Constituted Commonwealth . . . there can be but one Supreme Power, which is the Legislative, -to which all the rest are and must be subordinate... For what can give Laws to another, must needs be superior to him.”

[23] In Montesquieu's words, "The national judges are no more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law, mere passive beings incapable of moderating either its force or rigor. 11 Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois 6 (1748). Almost identically, see Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 866 (1824).

[24] The only innovation he contributed to the mixed-government doctrine lies in the nature of the governmental balance, it is his rigid separation of the three powers, coupled with the unwarranted implication in which it is necessary for organs (powers) and functions to coincide. (6/26)

[25] the legal doctrine of the French Revolution. All law is legislative will. Customary law and judicial interpretation alike are rejected. The judge becomes a "juridical slot machine," a "subsumption automaton" calculating decisions from the legal texts by means of mathematic-like formulae. (7/1)

[26] The first steps toward judicial independence in Prussia were taken in the Judiciary Act (Justizressortreglement) of 1749, fathered by the natural law jurist, Samuel von Cocceji.

[27] 4 Charles Francis Adams The Works Of JOHN Adams 230 (1851). In the next century John Adams,  in his The Report of a Constitution, or Form of Government, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, proposed: "In the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the legislative, executive and judicial power shall be placed in separate departments, Lo the end that it might be a government of laws, and not of men。 In 1776, the notion that no one is above the law was popular during the founding of the United States, for example in the pamphlet Common Sense by Thomas Paine: "in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish "a government of laws and not of men." (6/30)

[28] the specific phrase "the Rule of Law" was first popularized only in the last half of the nineteenth century by A.V. Dicey, Vinerian Professor of English law at Oxford from 1882 to 1909.

[29] Samuel P. Huntington The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order , 68-72 (1996). theorists who emphasize the role of civilizations in shaping world order suggest that the Rule of Law is uniquely Western and that it may not be "for export.

[30] Samuel P. Huntington The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order ,  68-72 (1996).



 楼主| 发表于 5/17/2017 19:12:21 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 5/17/2017 19:13 编辑

钟明

法治是民主的保障,没有法治,民主不可能正常运转。中国大陆的问题是,中共绝不会允许法治,

在目前的险恶环境下,为未来民主做准备的最好方式,是传播法治的思想。事实上,80年代以来,在法律专业人士与民间共同努力下,中国大陆法治思想的传播,已经有了非常可观的进展。不但是在理论上,“死磕派” 律师们的坚韧与勇敢,更起到了实例教育的效果。这也是为什么,深知其中利害的习近平反动集团,要对这批律师痛下杀手。

我没有去听这篇采访,但我可以从文字介绍,大致了解王天成先生要表达的东西。中国大陆法治现状,令人绝望。王先生立论根据肯定不错,但其中显然有一个巨大误区,那就是把习近平的“依法治国”,与法治混为一谈。“民主對中國人太遙遠,應該先行法治,實現依法治國。。。”,在同一个句子中出现这样的陈述,实在是荒唐。须知,中国大陆的悲惨现状,不是实施法治的问题,而是习近平“依法治国”导致的法治惨遭践踏的问题。

“依法治国”,甚至在字面上,也是不折不扣的人治,更遑论实际上的执行。把习近平的“依法治国”与法治混为一谈,进而论证法治不成,客观效果恰恰是陷入习近平的圈套,无意中帮助了习近平偷换法治概念,以“依法治国”实施专制统治。我不懂得王先生作为宪政学者,怎会也落入这样的误区。






 楼主| 发表于 5/17/2017 19:14:00 | 显示全部楼层
海外有人提出民主對中國人太遙遠,應該先行法治,實現依法治國,然後再進行中國的民主化轉型,甚至以香港和新加坡為例來支持其觀點,“法治先行,民主緩行”的觀點再次甚囂塵上。張傑博士為此專訪了著名憲政學者王天成先生。王天成先生認為“法治先行,民主緩行”的觀點是一種異想天開的有毒的玫瑰夢,並認為以香港和新加坡為例來支持該觀點是香港和新加坡法治歷史的誤讀。中國的漸進式改革是不切實際的臆想,將會使國家分崩離析,使民族付出更高昂的代價。
 楼主| 发表于 5/17/2017 19:21:55 | 显示全部楼层
法治论
郭国汀
温家宝在答记者问中共当局将如何处理胡佳案时称:“我国是个法治国家,中国政府将依法处理胡佳案”。随后胡佳即因六篇博客文章,被中共暴政枉法重判三年半!近日外交部发言人秦刚同样在新闻发布会上称:“中国是个法治国家,中国政府会依法处理刘晓波案”,预计刘晓波将因20余篇博文及《零八宪章》被流氓暴政以文字狱枉法重判。

日前,民运理论家徐水良先生在驳斥刘路有关“石首暴徒”的谬论时却称:“法制是法治赖以指导行动的抽象的制度层面,法治是法制赖以贯彻的具体的行动(治理)层面。两者互为依存,不可分割”;“任何法律体系,都会有法治和法制两个方面。不可能单独存在没有法治的法制;”“任何现实社会都不可能只有法治,没有人治;或者只有人治,没有法治”;“说中国没有法治,实际上只是说,中国是法治服从人治的专制社会,而不是人治服从法治的文明社会”。“中国…怎么是没有“法治”[1]

按徐先生之论,任何国家在任何时侯都有法治,中共国也有法治。不过,徐先生并未说明什么是“法治”?他称“法制赖以贯彻的具体的行动(治理)层面”即是法治,但该行动(治理)到底为何物?令人不知其所云。事实上,徐先生的法治观,倒很象法律外行的逻辑推论,与法治的实际含义相去甚远。至于徐先生指责他人论及法治都是“低水准的学者”,我实在确看不出徐先生的高明之处,尽管徐先生可能是民运人士中理论水准较高的一位。

那么到底什么是法治?中共专制暴政下是否有法治?法治与法制之间的关系到底如何?
一、法治的定义
任何争论首先必须界定争论主题,明确其定义,否则难免各自说东辩西,公婆互相有理,鸡对鸭讲,以致离题万里。
首先从词源上看,法治据称转译自日文,而英文原文至少有如下同语:“The rule of law” [法律的统治(简称法治)] ,“supremacy of law”[法律至上],“legal state” [法律国家];美国法学界多用“ government under law”[法律的管制],“government of laws and not of men”[法律的而非人的管制],“due process of law”[正当程序法],取代“法律的统治(法治)称谓。据此,大体上可知[法治]一词有其特定的含义,主要指法律的统治,法律至上,法律的管制。强调和突出的是法律的至高无上。

其次,从众多法学家给法治下的各种定义,我们可以进一步了解法治的具体含义。

“法治(法律的统治),亦称做法律至上,这一法律格言是指,判决必须按照已知的原则或法律做出,其适用不受任意裁决权(自由决定权)的干预。该格言旨在防范统治者的专制。而‘专制’一词源于拉丁语,表明某一裁决是按照裁决者的任意,而非根据法治做出”[2]
“法律统治(法治)术语在英国法中的原始含义是指个体不得超越法律,意指政府行为应当符合某种事先确定的标准。如今,就政府的行为而言,法治概念通常由司法审查明确。它指政府的决定,必须透明并符合由一个独立的机构(法院)事先确定的标准”。[3]

“法律的统治或法律至上(即法治),是议会至上的第二层次的含义;美国学者则乐于用“法律的管制”、法律的管制而非人的管制”或“正当程序法”取代“法律的统治”。法治一词是戴西首创,但可以追溯到中世纪之“法律应当统治”。[4]

“法治乃涉及通过事先确立的和众所周知的法律,调整国家与个人之间关系的规则。国家与个人一样,受法律管制,必须受法律制约并服从法律。国家服从法律的义务,是法治生存的核心。若无此种义务,国家针对个人的权力便不能被有效限制”。[5]

“法治的进一步要求乃是必须遵守法律。任何人,无论其地位身份如何,无论是公民个人,还是政府官员或是议员,均必须遵守法律。而任何违反法律的人,必须提交法院依法审判。用戴西的话说即:‘任何人不得超越法律’”。[6]

“首先,法治规定法律高于政府和个人。简言之,有一个高于一切的法律。其次,法治要求创设和维护那些保护和包含规范化次序更为一般原则的实际制定法。法治的第三方面的内容乃是,所有公共的权力必须有其法律规则的最终渊源。质言之,国家和个体之间的关系必须受法律的制约”。[7]

“法治或法律至上是指一种政治观念,要求政治社区当局在授权结构范围内,按既定程序,已知的法律规则和标准,行使权力,对于那些受法律制约的人创设某种合理的期望”。[8]

Ivor Jennings勋爵指出:“法治仅是指存在法律和秩序,并意味着在一个政治社会中,基于某种法律体制,而非否认法律的无政府状态。质言之,法律关系取代了暴力关系”。[9]
“法治是指法律的管制而非人的管制的原则;即便国王也不能高于法律;有某种更高的法律,所有的法律和法规若要被视为合法必须进行调整;它是管制管理者的法律”。[10]

“法治国家是指承认作为立法者创制的法律规范,约束其作为行政部门本身的国家”。[11]

“法治的中心意思乃是法律统治或法律至上,所有的统治或权力必须源于正当颁布实施的法律或业已确定的法律”。[12]

“法治是管制管理者的法律”[13]

“人民应当受法律的管理并服从法律”。[14]

“在法律内以及在法律面前的平等”。[15]

“在法律的眼睛里我们全部是平等的”。[16]

“国王不在任何人之下,但在上帝和法律之下”。[17]

“传统的英国和欧洲大陆版本的法治拒绝任何针对公共权力的绝对保护”[18]

凯斯给法治的定义乃是:“立法必须限制在处理个体权利时的行政和司法权”。[19]

“法治的基础在于约束法官于法律之下,并使行政部门从属于法律”。[20]

“法官不仅是法律的仆人,而且是法律的监护人。这也是为何司法应当独立的理由”。[21]

“法治是指个人,群体和政府均应服从和顺服法律的管理,而不受任何个人或团体的任意行为的制约”。[22]

“法治要求司法裁决,必须由一个不受政府行政或立法部门影响或压力的独立法院做出”。[23]"
法治在“依据法律的正义”意义上更能保护权利和确保正义。[24]

“人民并非法律的仆人,但法律是人民的仆人,除非法律向人民提供恰当的服务,人民不会,也不应该,更不能服从该法律”。[25]

从上述与法治有关的定义,可见法治概念的内含极为丰富,包括叁方面的内容,一是有关个人团体国王的权利地位:(1)任何人不得超越法律,政府行为须符合既定的法律;(2)在法律内及在法律面前人人平等;(3)国王不在任何人之下,但在上帝和法律之下,国王不能高于法律;(4)个人,团体和政府均应服从和顺服法律的管理,而不受任何人的任意行为的制约;(5)国家与个人一样,必须受法律管制,制约并服从法律;(6)任何人,无论其地位身份如何,无论是公民个人,还是政府官员或议员或总统,均必须遵守法律;;(7)法律高于政府和个人,国家和个体之间的关系须受法律制约;(8)任何违反法律的人,必须提交法院依法审判。二是对权力法官政府和国家的约束:(1)立法者制定的法律,约束国家本身;((3)所有的统治或权力须源于正当颁布实施的法律或业已确定的法律;(4)判决必须按照已知的原则或法律做出,旨在限制任意裁决权;(5)法律的管制,是管制管理者的法律(6)拒绝绝对保护公共权力;((7)法律关系取代暴力关系;(8)法律至上,但法律是人民的仆人;(9)约束法官于法律之下,并使行政部门从属于法律。三是按既定程序调整:(1)通过事先确立的和众所周知的法律,调整国家与个人之间关系的规则:(2)当局在授权范围内,按既定程序,已知的法律规则行使权力;

据此,我的定义乃:法治是指国家按照既定的法律原则、规则、标准和程序,对全体社会成员,按公平平等原则,同等适用、规范、处理和审理一切社会、政治、经济、法律、文化、宗教等事务和交易的实体和程序规则的总称。任何人包括国王或总统及国家本身均不得超越法律并受到法律的同等制约、约束与保护,任何人在法律面前一律平等,任何人违法一律受到独立司法审判的同等追究,法律高于并约束任何个人、团体、国王、总统、议员、立法者和国家本身。法治旨在制止任意决定权的滥用,以保护个体权利不受非法侵害。


[1]徐水良,“驳刘路的两个谬论兼批夸大法治、贬低法制等谬论”,博讯2009年6月29日:“法制和法治讲的是法律体系的不同方面,法制讲制度层面,法治讲行动(治理)层面。法制是法治赖以指导行动的抽象的制度层面,法治是法制赖以贯彻的具体的行动层面。两者互为依存,不可分割。 法制,是法治得以进行的前提和基础;而法治,必须中心法制、服从法制。法治不能离开法制,否则,法治就不成其为法治。法制也不能离开法治,否则,法制就只是一纸空文。任何法律体系,都会有法治和法制两个方面。不可能单独存在没有法治的法制,因为没有法治、没有实际执行法制,法制就停留在空想,不成为法制。没有法制的法治,没有法制为指导为依据,法治也就根本不存在。实际上,任何现实社会都不可能只有法治,没有人治;或者只有人治,没有法治。问题只是谁服从谁的问题。人治服从法治,还是法治服从人治,区分了现代文明社会和野蛮专制社会。因此,说中国没有法治,实际上只是说,中国是法治服从人治的专制社会,而不是人治服从法治的文明社会。中国的法律体系每天都在运转,政府、公安、检察、法院,每天都在根据它们自己的需要或人治的需要,引用法律条文,进行治理,怎么是没有“法治”?不过这种法治服从于人治,人治可以否定法治而已。 实际上,无论是法治和人治,还是法治和法制,都是不可能完全分割开来的,都只能互相依赖而存在的”。   

[2] The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, is a general legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion in their application. This maxim is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance. The word "arbitrary" (from the Latin "arbiter") signifies a judgment made at the discretion of the arbiter, rather than according to the rule of law.

[3] The original meaning of the Rule of Law phrase in English law was that no individual should be "above" the law-meaning that governmental actions should be accountable to some set of predetermined standards. Today, with respect to actions initiated by government, the ROL idea is usually manifested by judicial review. It means that government decisions must be transparent and accountable to predetermined standards applied by an independent body, probably a court.

[4] It may be traced back to the medieval notion that law ought to rule。(Beinart, B. The Rule of Law, Acta Juridica  (1962)p 99。)“the rule or supremacy of the law was the second main feature, in addition to the sovereignty of parliament, American writers, usually do not use the expression and prefer phrases such as "government under law", or "government of laws and not of men", or "due process of law".

[5] The rule of law refers to the regulation of the relationship between the state and individuals by pre-established and knowable laws. The state, no less than the individuals it governs, must be subject to and obey the law. The state’s obligation to obey the law is central to the very existence of the rule of law. Without this obligation, there would be no enforceable limit on the state’s power over individuals...." (Hitzig)

[6] A further consequence of the Rule of Law is that the law must be observed. Every person, whatever his position or status, must do so, whether he be a private citizen or a member of government or of parliament, and those who transgress the law must be brought to book according to law as adjudicated upon by the courts. "No man is above the law" states Dicey

[7] First, that the rule of law provides that the law is supreme over the acts of both government and private persons. There is, in short, one law for all. Second, ... the rule of law requires the creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order". ... A third aspect of the rule of law is ... that "the exercise of all public power must find its ultimate source in a legal rule. Put another way, the relationship between the state and the individual must be regulated by law." (Re References re Secession of Quebec)  

[8] Kenneth Henley ,The Impersonal Rule of Law, 5 Can. J. L. & Jurisprudence (1992) pages, 299 The rule or supremacy of law is a political ideal requiring that the authority of the political community be exercised only within the confines of ordained structures, established procedures, and known legal rules and standards, creating reasonable expectations on the part of those subject to the law.

[9] as Sir Ivor Jennings has pointed out, the Rule of Law simply means the existence of law and order and denotes that a political society rests on some system of law and not on anarchy  which disregards law,[9] in other words that legal relations have been substituted for relations of force.[9]

[10] The Rule of Law, is that principle of a government of laws and not of men; that not even a king is above the law; that there is a higher law against which laws and ordinances must be measured if they are to be treated as legitimate. It is a law which governs the governors.  

[11] the state in which the Rule of Law prevails simply as the state that acknowledges the legal norms created by itself as legislator as binding upon itself as executive.

[12] the Rule of Law its central meaning that the law rules or is supreme in every society, that all rules or powers must derive from duly enacted or established law.

[13] The Rule of Law is a law to govern the governors.

[14] That people should be ruled by the law and obey it (Rossiter)  

[15] Equality in the law as well as before the law (References re French Language)  

[16] All are equal in the eyes of the law (References re French Language)  

[17] the king "is under no man, but under God and the law" (Bracton).

[18] the traditional English and continental versions of the Rule of Law deny any absolute protection against public power

[19] As Keith puts it, in defining the Rule of Law, "legislation must favor the limitation of execu- tive and judicial power to deal arbitrarily with individual rights." (In Ridges, Constitutional Law of England 26 (Keith ed., London, 1937)).

[20] essential to the Rule of Law as "bind" the judge to the law, subordinate the executive to the law

[21] Not only is the judge the servant of the law, he is also its guardian. This explains the need for judicial independence.

[22] That individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or a group of individuals.

[23] The rule of law requires that (judicial) decisions be made by a court which is independent of any influence or pressure by the executive and legislative branches of government" (R v Campbell)  

[24] the Rule of Law in the sense of justice according to law is much more likely to protect rights and to ensure justice.

[25] people are not the servants of law, but law is the servant of people, and that unless law serves its proper function, the people will not, ought not, and cannot be expected to obey "the law."



您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则


站内文章仅为网友提供更多信息,不代表本网站同意其说法或描述,也不构成任何建议。本网站仅为网友提供交流平台,对网友自由上传的文字和图片等,本网站
不为其版权和内容等负责。站内部分内容转载自其它社区、论坛或各种媒体,有些原作者未知。如您认为站内的某些内容属侵权,请及时与我们联络并进行处理。
关于我们|隐私政策|免责条款|版权声明|网站导航|帮助中心
道至大 道天成

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|联系我们|天易综合网 (Twitter@wolfaxcom)

GMT-5, 6/24/2017 00:25 , Processed in 0.120556 second(s), 11 queries , Gzip On.

Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

© 2009-2015 .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表