天易网

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 8809|回复: 1

法治论/郭国汀

[复制链接]
发表于 7/19/2014 17:41:49 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 4/10/2015 16:31 编辑

法治论

郭国汀郭
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?
1、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 oflaw” [法律的统治(简称法治)] ,“supremacy oflaw”[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],“governmentof 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。

流氓专制暴政下根本没有法治生存的余地

根据该定义,中共专制暴政下显然不可能有法治。徐先生论断中国存在法治之说弄错了对象,因为徐先生误将法治视为含义不明的“行动(治理)层面”的东西,这似乎不是法学界讨论争辩的法治内含。尽管徐先生之论,纯从逻辑上看,似乎有理。但是,法治并非出自讲究逻辑推理演译法的大陆法系,而是源于判例归纳法的英美法系;因此,法治并非逻辑的产物,而是西方政治学和司法经验的创制物。确切地说,法治甚至不是西方文化的产物,而仅是英国历史和其司法实判实践的独特创制物。因此徐水良中共国有法治之论断恐怕很难成立。

“法治”一词是1892年,由英国法学家戴西首次提出,尽管法治的部分观念早在两千三百年前的古希腊雅典的伯拉图和亚里士多德便已提出,从严格意义上说,现代法治并非西方文化的产物,而是英国历史与司法实践独特的创制物,而且法治观念与法治实践也非一回事。但是非完全意义上的法治观念,也非纯属西方独有,12世纪时便有伊斯兰法学家主张:“任何官员包括哈里发(caliph即教主和统治者)均不得超越法律”[26]。 有学者论证:法治源于西方政治学和西方文明,东方历史上虽然有法制,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。[27]

中国历史上刑事法律相当发达完备,从秦律到大唐律至大清律,法条详尽细致,但由于历朝历代皇权统治者始终重农轻商,重集体轻个人,导致中国法制史中几乎没有任何值得一提的商法、民法,甚至没有公、私法的概念,至于程序法也几乎等于零。事实上,在民国以前,中国甚至从来没有法院,也没有律师。行政权与司法权是由县太爷合二为一,而县官审理案件,主要靠刑讯逼供间或智慧,而从未依据诉讼程序规则,因此中国历史上从未有过法治观念也就不足为奇。“刑不上大夫”是我国古代耳熟能详的法律原则,“朕就是法律”则是古代皇帝一以贯之的法律原则,皇帝的自由决定权任意决定臣民的生死富贵,皇权至上,法律仅是约束制约臣民的工具,皇帝与国民的关系是主子与奴仆的关系,那有半点法治精神?至于毛泽东的“最高指示”本质上与帝王的圣旨并无二致,只不过远比历朝历代皇帝更为拙劣、蛮横和残暴罢了。因此,可以断言1911年以前,中国历史上从未有过任何实质意义上的法治,至于是否有过零星的法治观念南郭孤陋寡闻迄今未闻;

1911年至1949年期间确有不完全意义上的法治,从国民政府法院审判共党总书记陈独秀案可以印证当时的中国司法独立货真价实。共党的武装判乱,构成“非法暴力颠覆合法政府罪”至为明显,然而作为犯罪集团首犯的陈独秀,不但得到公开公正的审判,而且获得强有力的律师抗辩,当局既未阻止妨碍或威胁辩护律师,也未制止封杀陈案的新闻报导,最终陈独秀居然仅判四年徒刑。足以证实民国法官的独立审判权货真价实。

1949年迄今,法治在台湾继续发杨光大,日益完善,台湾的司法公正有目共睹,前总统陈水扁因涉嫌贪污受贿而受到独立公正的司法追究即是明证。而中国大陆则自中共依赖非法暴力加欺骗手段盗国窃政之日始,法治从未有过,民国原有之法治则早已荡然无存。如今中共宪法虽然明定要建设法治国家,中共党魁及党用文人也口口声声称中国是个法治国家,但皆属自欺欺人的梦呓。特别是自胡锦涛专权以来,中共暴政日益流氓化,而流氓最典型的特征之一正是根本不讲法律、道理、原则、规则,唯耍流氓耳!因此,在流氓专制暴政下决不可能有任何法治生存的余地,而中共政权则是个如假包换的流氓专制暴政!
2、法治的起源与历史
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”。[28]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”。[29]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。[30] 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《共和国》(中译本为《理想国》但吾以为Republic应译为《共和国》才更贴切准确)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 ”。[31] 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”。[32]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。”[33] 伯拉图确认法治乃“人类内心某种不朽”的理性或理解之治。[34]

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” [35]。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”。[36]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[37]。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[38]

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。[39]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。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。”[40]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”。[41]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。[42]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。[43]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[44]。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[45]。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CommonLaw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[46]
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》( SamuelRutherford 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。[47]

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”。[48]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”。[49]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[50]。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。[51]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。[52] 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。”[53]

法律的统治(ruleof 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。[54]“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”。[55]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”。[56]

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。
3、法治的目的

法治通过防范限制统权者和权力部门的权力和保障人民自由两方面的功能实现六项基本目标。首先,法治旨在防范(统治者)专制统治;其次,法治目的在于限制(法官)自由决定权(任意裁决权);再次,法治意在防止行政权及官员滥用权力;第四,法治为公民提供社会秩序体制行为规范以便他们妥善安排生活;第五,法治保障个人权利不受任意侵犯;第六,法治的终极目标在于保障社会公正、公平、公道和正义,维护公秩良俗和法律秩序,实现全社会成员互助互爱,和谐共处,享受自由快乐幸福的人生。从法治的六大目标亦可证实:中共专制暴政下决不可能有所谓法治!

(1)、法治旨在防范统治者的专制统治
“专制(源于拉丁语)表明某一裁决是按照裁决者的自由决定权,而非根据法治做出”。[57]预防统治者的专制权力对国民的统治,是法治的首要目的。即使国王也必须服从法律受其约束,“国王不在任何人之下,但在上帝和法律之下。”“王子犯罪与庶民同罪”,“任何人不得超越法律”等源自古希腊雅典大哲的法律哲思,与中国儒家传统中“君君、臣臣、父父、子子”的上尊下卑,缺乏人与人之间平等,只讲下服从上,却不究限制绝对皇权的“刑不上大夫”,“朕就是法律”及法国路易十六世之“我就是国家”形成绝然相反的概念。或许这就是人性恶与人性善的区别,也是上帝观与市俗观的分野。人性恶的推论,导出对任何人均有可能变坏的预测,因而相应地有用法律制约权力的预防;性本善的推论则反之,于是“德治”大于法治理所当然。在上帝宗教思想指导下,那怕国王也与平民平等,亦即上帝之下人人平等,四海之内皆兄弟也就顺理成章。因此由性恶论和上帝宗教观必然推导出法律至高无上,而性善论和无神论则与专制、德治、人治相伴相生。在特殊情况下,专制国家也可能存在某种意义上的“法治”,但“暴政”下不可能有法治生存的余地,而“极权专制流氓暴政”下,绝对不可能有法治。至于法制仅是“法律制度”的简称,绝大多数国家均有法制,除非无政府状态下或象中共盗国窃政始到1979年期间,但其仅是作为政府合法管理社会或镇压的工具而已。

法治观念最早是由伯拉图提出:“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,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 ”。[58]亦即他认为只有法律至高无上,国家才可能长治久安,否则国家社会随时处于不安定状态;他进一步指出:“在法律本身受制于某种权威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”。[59]这里伯拉图指出了法律的客观公正的精神与维护社会秩序安宁的功能;他论证道:“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”。[60]亦即伯图拉清醒地认识到人性天然的弱点,权力的巨大腐蚀性及人类天性中的恶的原罪因素; 最后他确认法治乃“人类内心某种不朽的理性或理解”之治。[61]亦即他认为人类理性是克服人类天性中恶的原罪的武器,人类理性导向法治,哲学家是最有理性的人,因此,他认为由哲学家当国王最理想。

亚里士多德是伯拉图的高足,他认为:“法律应当统治”,那些“当权者应当成为法律的仆人” 。[62] 他论证说: “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”。[63]由此可见,亚里士多德受伯拉图的影响至深,他的法治观,人性论及法律精神和人类理性均有非常深刻的理解,他同样持理性至上论,认为唯有不偏不依客观公正的法律精神,方能克服人类天然具有的各种欲望,因为那怕是最好的人的欲望,最终亦有可能变坏,而法律至上就是制约人类欲望限制权力保护个体的最佳良方。

2)、法治的直接目的在于限制法官的自由决定权
“法官必须具体适用法律规则,然而,显然此种理想状态从来未能完全实现。法治理论的作用乃是陈述‘典型的理想’境界”。[64]

自由决定权,亦称做任意裁决权或自由心证权,是任何国家的法官判案时均享有的一项有限权力;因为任何法律都是抽象的原规、规则和行为规范,由于人的思想异同,人类的活动行为差异千差万别,法律不可能事无巨细,包罗万象,因此,必须赋予法官有限的自由心证权,才可能有效地行使审判权。一般而言,罗马成文法系的法官,注重逻辑推理演译,法律大多为成文法和制定法,因而其自由心证权相当有限;而不成文判例法的英美法系的法官侧重归纳综合和经验,其判案依据多为先例和由习惯法形成的共同法,因而英美法官的自由心证权要大于大陆法系的法官。英美等国高等法院以上的法官所做的判决,具有判例效力,亦即有造法功能。绝对没有任何自由决定权的法官,必定成为机器人,当然并非法治的要求和目的。工匠式的法官和政治家式的法官的区别在于,前者虽然更保守也缺乏主观能动性但更遵循法治,这或许正是美国最高法院的大法官绝大多数属于保守的工匠式法官的原因;而后者更能与时俱进,配合时代社会政治发展之需,然而却更趋向于破坏法治。法治要求法官判案必须依据具体的法律规则,而不得随心所欲,自由心证的运用必须限制在极少数情况下为之。

3)、法治最主要的直接目标乃是防止行政权及官员滥用权力[65]
任何社会均由立法、行政和司法三个主要权力部门组成;三权分立相互制约平衡原则是防止专制暴政最有效的手段。法治要求行政官员必须在法律约束范围内行事,依法行政,依法办事,禁止官员超越法律权限范围,旨在制止官员滥用权力,侵害公民权利。在三权绝对不分的国家,无一例外全部是专制暴政;在形式上三权有所分立,但实质上三权不分之所,同样只能是专制暴政,仅是不如前者赤裸裸而已,但此种政权往往比前者具有更大的欺骗性,因而对国民的危害未必比前者更轻;因为前者人们容易认清其严重危害性,也就不易受骗上当,国民也易极时奋起反抗终结专制暴政;后者则由于恐怖的实际暴力加上伪善的欺骗宣传,导致国民因长期在愚民政策宣传误导,暴力恐怖的威吓下,麻木不仁丧失反抗精神,因此长期蒙受专制暴政的揉躏欺凌而更加痛苦。真正的法治,即有效地防止政府官员滥用权力侵害公民个人权利。


4)、法治意在为(公民遵循)社会公秩良俗体制提供行为规范[66]
例如在刑法领域法治具体体现为:法院为更好地维护正义及更有效地保护公民权利而采用的一系列规则、技术和程序。

(a)   在司法程序中所有的人一律平等,法院审理时均应同等对待。
(b)   “那些自认为自已的权利受到侵犯的任何人均得自由诉诸法院,而那些被认为违反了法律的任何人应当被带至法院面前”。[67]这也是中共暴政下决不可能有法治的根据之一,中国人的诉权被严重限制,中共撑控下的法院不时以内部文件的方式,非法剥夺国人的诉权,诸如,下岗工人,法轮功,宪法权利,强制拆迁等受害者往往告状无门,法院公然拒绝受理案件的情事比比皆是。
(c)   迅速带至法官或司法官员面前听证的权利。
(d)  非经正当司法程序不得非法搜查、扣押、拘禁。中共专制暴政下,非法任意搜查、扣押、拘禁、绑架、暴力欧打甚至酷刑几成家常便餐。
(e)   任何人均应推定无罪,举证责任归控方或主张事实的一方。[68]
(f)   禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或处罚。
(g)  刑讯逼供案的举证责任倒置 。犯罪嫌疑人一旦被刑事拘留或逮捕,则完全处于一种孤立无援和与外界隔离的状态,审讯又是在秘密、封闭的状态下进行的,一旦发生了刑讯逼供或犯罪嫌疑人、 被告人指控受到刑讯逼供,必须实行刑讯逼供举证责任倒置制度。依反酷刑公约第13条和第16条之规定,凡有此种指控即应迅速由公正权力机构或法官举行公正的审查。而且不得应嫌疑人举报加重处罚。
(h)  律师辩护的权利。
(i)    律师在场权 。 在防止酷刑方面最关健的是在侦察、审讯过程中的律师在场权 。该项权利包括:警察必须履行法定告知程序:嫌疑人有权保持沉默,其任何陈述都将被当作呈堂证供,其有权请律师,每次讯问其有权要求律师在场;规 定违反这些程序规定的强制后果。采用录音录像纪录审讯的时间地点全过程以供查核,律师有权查阅复制。
(j)    任何人不得被强迫自我证罪或被强迫坦白认罪。[69]中共暴政之“坦白从宽,抗拒从严”的刑事审判规则,听起来似乎不错,但在实务中往往是“坦白从严,抗拒更严”。是典型的法盲规则。
(k)  沉默权  。被告人在调查及审讯过程中的沉默权源于无罪推定及不被强迫自证其罪权和不被强迫供述权。
(l)    排除非法证据规则。依国际法凡依酷刑或残忍或不人道或有辱人格的方式取得的口供必须从证据中排除。
(m)自然正义的准则。自然正义的规则包括如下原则:任何人不得自我审判;判决不得依据不诚信,不当动机,偏见或预定意见作出;任何权利受到判决影响的人有权听证;[70]
(n)  独立司法官的公正审判。
(o)  迅速有效地执行裁决。[71]
   上述十五项具体法治规则,在大陆中国基本上不存在,足以证实中共专制暴政下决没有法治生存之余地。
5)、法治的目的在于使公民免受任何个人或小集团的控制和任意侵犯
法治的保护功能主要体现为保护公民个人自由,使公民免受任何人或团体的控制与任意侵犯。正由于中共专制暴政下,仅有宪法“国家实行法治”的一纸空文,而没有任何如何实现法治的切实可行的具体规则与程序保障,因此,中国人在该暴政下,从本质上看人人均无自由。国家主席刘少奇的下场就不必细说,政治局委员中共上海市委书记陈良宇的下场,再次印证,专制暴政下没有任何人可以幸免暴政的淫威。
六、法治的终极目标旨在保障社会公正、公平、公道和正义,维护公秩良俗和法律秩序,实现全社会成员互助互爱,和谐共处,自由快乐幸福。

  根据法治的法律至上,法律的统治的根本要求,法律普遍性,恒定性和周知性等基本原则和限制政府权力保障个人权利及法律面前人人平等;通过上述十五项具体法治刑事法律规则,限制约束政府权力,充分保障公民人身、财产和精神信仰自由免受任何非法侵害,保障社会公正、公平、公道和正义,唯其如此,全社会成员才有可能和谐共处,人人自由快乐幸福。

4、法治的基石

“法治的基石乃是法律的普遍性原则。法律的普遍性乃是法律面前人人平等的基础:在某种措施面前不可能有平等,无论该措施是源于行政机构还是立法权力。如果法律的普遍性是法律国家的基石,其奠基石乃是由独立法官执行的行政行为的合法性,并使法官服从法律”。[72]

“如果法律的普遍性是法律国家的基石的话,其基础则是行政行为的合法性,独立法官及法官受制于法律” [73]。中共暴政下,行政行为非法非常普遍,法官根本不独立,完全受中共操控,法官很多时侯不是依据法律判案,而是依据中共的指令,或政治需要甚至大量公然枉法裁判。
“法律的普遍性是法律面前人人平等原则的根基”。[74]若法律可以厚此薄彼,如中共暴政下,则法律面前人人平等的原则即不复存在。

“法治的基石是法律的普遍性原则” [75]。亦即法律的普遍适用性是法治的首要原则。

“立宪主义和法治是宪法的基石,并反映我们国家的承诺:一个全体社会成员均受持续的规则、原则和作为最高法律渊源及权威的宪法价值的约束有序的公民社会”。[76]"

5、法治的实质
“法治的实质在于强调:任何权力均必须限制。无论是政府的还是贵族的或是人民大众的权力,均必须限制”。[77]人民民主或大众民主若无法治制约,必定演变成多数人的暴政,中外历史充分证明了此点。法国大革命后期的雅格滨专政便是典型,苏联及中共均曾有所谓人民民主之论,但皆是没有法治保障的实质是最坏的“极权民主”。

“法治的实质乃是宪政理论与实务中的立法至上原则;质言之,立宪主义乃是立法权至上,辅之以对该权力仅在法内行使主权的自我限制,再加上使行政官员和法官均必须受制于法律约束的所有安排”。[78]

6、法治与民主的前提与条件

“司法独立原则是法治的首要前提。由于法院是保护性的机构,是法律国家的堡垒,法院必须保护法律的完整统一,以对抗行政权力的越权行为。同时法院的判决必须受其先例的约束。因此,法院只受法律本身的制约,法官则必须保障其待遇不受立法和行政权力的干预”。[79]

极度无知且恶至极的流氓中共则故意将共产党凌架于国家之上,故意将行政,立法,司法牢牢撑控在自已手中,这一切与人民利益无关,仅仅是为了中共当权犯罪利益集团的极端私利:独裁撑控一切国家权力,目的则在于通过权钱交易谋取超级暴利!因此,中共流氓统治六十年,根本不存在“司法独立”,虽然中共匪帮的法律也规定:法院独立审判权。但流氓中共通过“政法委书记”撑控着中共法院的最终决定权。世界各国的法律仅有:法官独立审判权。因为法院作为一个国家组织部门根本不具备审判的功能。因此,中国法官实质上是“审者无判,判者不审”,亦即审案的法官根本没有判决权,而定案的政法委书记则根本不亲自审理案件,在许多情况下,他们仅仅是党棍,而根本不具备必要的法律常识,更不用说法官必备的技能和职业道德伦理。因此,中共极权流氓暴政下决无法治生存的任何可能。

“欲堪称民主称号,就必须有一个立法独立司法均能作为针对行政部门潜在滥用权力的制约力量。必须拥有能够通知公众,并向公众提供使之成为负责任的公民所需信息的自由媒体。还必须有具有完全功能的非政府组织的公民社会,代表其中从人权到无论任何类型面临的危险所有的事业和原则目标。他们亦起到在政府制定决策政策过程中的制约作用”。[80]

亦即,三权分立、自由媒体、非政府组织和公民社会是宪政民主的前提条件。不具备任何一项,便不可能有真正的宪政民主。立法机关的必须由定其选举产生的代表组成,而且必须分成上下(参众)两院,前者代表少数精英利益,后者代表人民大众利益,两者相互制约,民主的实质正是社会各阶层人民均在公平游戏规则制约下讨价还价协调妥协达成协议。自由媒体则是公众意见转递交流最有效的,也是监督政府权力最有力的工具,凡是不存在自由媒体的国度,决无任何民主可言,也必定是极度腐败无能的政权。存在大量不受任何政府控制的非政府组织,即各种学术研究,公益慈善事业,行业公会,学会,协会组成的公民社会,是宪政民主正常运行的前提条件。中共极权专制暴政下,上述条件无一存在,因此,抛开这些前提条件而奢谈自由民主纯属愚弄国人的欺局。


7、法治的基本原则
法治到底有那几项基本原则?法学理论家们从未有过公认一致的论断,不同时期不同国家的法学家各有所见,有些相差还不小。例如:
英国著名法学家戴西指出:“法治有三层含义:一是任何人均不得因法律未明文禁止的行为,而受到惩罚或支付赔偿;[81]二是每个人的法律权利和自由均得由普通法院决定;[82]三是每个人的个人权利均源于英国的共同法,而非源于一部成文宪法,因此,英国宪法乃是法院通常作用的产物,而非法院管辖权的渊源”。[83]

海瓦德(Heward)勋爵特别强调法治的三项原则:除非经普通法院法官和培审团依法定程序审理确认违法事实,任何人不得被非法拘禁,惩罚或判处损害赔偿;每个人,无论其地位如何,均受国家共同法律的管辖,且均应对其违反法律的任何行为按照普通法院(民事和刑事)承担个人责任;任何人不得以他的违法行事是因服从上级的命令为由有效抗辩。[84]

约瑟雷兹(JosephR)归纳法治原则如下:1、法律应该是可预期而非溯及既往的;2、法律应当稳定而不能经常变更,因为若不了解法律内容,将妨碍人们受法律的指导;3、制定法律应当有清晰的规则和程序;4、必须保障司法官的独立;5、应当遵守自然正义的原则,尤其那些关于公正审理听证的权利;6、法庭应当有对其他原则执行情况的司法审查的权力;7、法庭应当是可接近的,任何人不得被拒绝正义;8、控制罪行防范机构的执法自由决定权以防滥用法律”。[85] [86]

富勒认为法治原则包括:法律的普遍性众所周知,不得溯及既往,明确清晰,法律的连贯性,可行性(不得要求不可能的事),法律的恒久性,以及在公布的规则与官员行为之间完全相符。[87]

贝尔顿(Kleinfeld Belton)认为“虽然未确立对所有实践均适用的法治的定义,但该基本领域有共同原则。他确认法治有如下五项原则: 1。政府受法律制约和统治;2。法律面前人人平等;3。法律和秩序的建立;4。正义的有效和可预测的适用;5。人权的保护”。[88]
“法治的三项伟大原则乃是:法律的普遍性,立法权至上,司法和行政行为的合法性”。[89]
“法治成为共同法的基本原则。其最基本的形式即为法律面前的平等,公正和正义”。[90]

8、极权暴政下决无法治生存的余地
正如所有的专制国家皆称自已是民主国家一样,世界上所有的国家,无论其是多么专制蛮横,都宣称自已是法治国家。“任何政府,毫无例外地在国际和国内事务上均宣称自已是法治,即便最残酷和臭名昭著的独裁者也会将任何他想得到的东西指向法律并使之合法化。每个政府均认为其在法治范围内,无论其是多么恐怖”。[91]胡锦涛、温家宝及秦刚之流皆大言不惭地称:我国是“法治国家”!甚至连民运理论家徐水良先生也认为:中国仅是法治服从人治因而中国也有法治!
确实,国际上也有法学家称专制国家(君王)也可能有法治。例如:
1“一般而言,法律是国家说明某种行为应受处罚或会有什么后果的规则实体。占主导地位的法治概念大多未言及法律本身的正义性,而仅涉及法律制度如何运作。按此种概念,一个非常不民主的国家,或一个不尊重人权的国家,也能够有法治,如现代好些专制国家。法治可以是民主的一项条件,但不是充要条件”。[92]

(2)“从逻辑上看,在法治与专制主义之间并无茅盾。因为专制君主为了区分官僚作用及有效的分工的利益,他也能用法律来统治他的臣民”[93]

(3)“法治要求一个不同的政府职能部门。但此种要求乃历史或心理的要求,而非逻辑的要求。因为法治并非逻辑的结果,即便一个专制君王也可以实行法治”。[94]

(4)即使一个法律规定统治者的意志至上的专制国家,在形式意义上也可以基于法治,因为是法律规定统治者的权力[95]

(5)“由于法治注重的是法律技术而非法律的内容,因此从理论意义上,专制国家也可能有法治,但在实践意义上,专制国家的法治,如果有的话,在涉及私法及刑法和行政法领域是以不直接触及政府为限”。[96]

必须指出的是:上述五种说法,姑且不论其是否正确,他们皆仅提及“专制国家”“专制君王”及“专制君主”制下也能有法治。确实被称作威权政府的新加坡不但有法治而且其法治水准在国际社会名列前茅。但是“专制国家、君主、君王”与威权政府并非同一概念,与“极权流氓暴政”更相差十万八千里,前者有可能存在开明君主或开明专制,而极权流氓暴政性质远比专制恶劣百倍。迄今从未有过任何一位法学家提及“极权流氓暴政”下也有法治之说。问题在于中共政权是否“极权流氓暴政”?!答案是肯定的!其次,上述学者在言及专制国家(君王)也可能有法治时,其“法治”概念内涵有特定限制,正如政治理论家朱迪斯(Judith N. Shklar)说,“法治一词由于意识形态的滥用和过份通常地被使用,业已变得毫无意义,但无论如何该词组过去有着特定和重要的意义”。[97]“当今许多法治理论家实质上确有拒绝区分法制理论及其法院实践的趋势”[98]。法治的实质乃是:任何权力,无论是君王的、政府的还是贵族的或是人民大众的权力,均必须限制;及立法至上,法律至高无上。开明专制国家及君王若依法限制其自身的权力且立法至上,在此意义上做到法治当然有可能,问题在于极权流氓暴政下,决无任何可能限制极权流氓当权集团的绝对权力,也根本不可能做到立法法律至上,否则它就不叫“极权流氓暴政”了。


法治与恐怖统治两者的区别在于:“法律若无效力一文不值。为使实在法成为法律,必须使之有效力。但这并不意味着无论何时法律事实上有效力,均是法律为王(法治),因为法律亦可以仅因为恐怖为王(恐怖统治)时产生效力。仅是任何事形式上合法,并不意味着恐怖已被排除;仅是非法获取政权的事实,并不意味着法律为王(法治)不能实现。如果人民并非完全自愿遵守规则,而是由于恐惧或威胁,至少在该时,可以有法律,但没有法律为王(法治),显然仅有恐怖为王(恐怖统治)。此种恐怖统治的社会注定不稳定,因为人民之间永远相互争斗,迟早人民其中的一部份会发生分裂”。[99]

权力与法治及恐怖统治及民主选举之间的关系如下: “如果有权力,人民不反对或不能反对它,即有法律。若仅有权力,则没有法律为王(法治),但法律被滥用作为恐怖为王(恐怖统治)的工具;假如有权力和被统治者的同意,即有法治。质言之,任何国家未能提供自由的和充满活力的竞争选举,根本不可能证明它是法律为王(法治)的体制,不可避免地结论乃是恐怖为王(恐怖统治)的体制。此种国家可以有法律,但没有任何意义上的法治”。[100] 亦即民主虽然不是法治的充要条件,但是民主确是真正意义上的法治的必要前提。没有选举民主条件下的法治是有限的不完全意义上的法治。

“如果没有任何强制,决不会有规则和法律。在每桶苹果中总会有一些烂苹果。如果国家不保护公众对抗其公敌,公众成员将不得不自已执行。这不是法治,而是恐怖统治。而恐怖只会孳生更多的恐怖。它不是文明法律,而是丛林法则。试图取消一切强制,并未引导共产主义国家消除恐怖,而是导致永恒的恐怖”。[101]杨佳事件及日前新疆“七五”暴乱事件的根源正在于中共专制暴政下不存在法治,因为没有独立司法,当然不可能有司法公正和社会正义。而一个没有司法公正,社会正义的国度,人民只有通过自已来执行强制的自然法则,因而导致恐怖。因此,必须尽早及时终结中共一党独裁极权专制流氓暴政,才能彻底解决中华民族大家庭的和平和谐相互尊重互助互爱的民族共处问题。

“每个法律体制都必然包含某些强制和同意;如果完全不具有该两项因素,则根本不存在任何法律。没有某种强制,不存在法律,但没有被统治者的同意,便不存在法治”。[102]中共匪帮骗子国最大的问题即在于流氓中共蛮横无理盗国窃政60年来,一直凭据党卫军、及公检法司警特监狱等国家暴力机器,蛮横拒绝还政还权于民,中国实质上不存在被统治的人民的同意,因而根本没有任何法治生存的余地,而唯有恐怖统治。人民的同意必须体现为定期公开公正公平自由真实的民主选举。此种选举的对象,除了国家总统以外,所有的参众两院议员(包括省级议员),所有省长市长县长,全部必须按前述条件定期选举产生。西方自由宪政民主国家早已实现此种选举数百年。仅此一点便足以证实:中共专制暴政是个极端自私自利的流氓犯罪利益集团。中国人民决不能容忍此种下三滥的流氓犯罪团伙继续蹂躏欺凌我大中华民族!

综上所述:开明专制国家(君主)制下有可能存在法治,没有民主选举的国家也可以有法治。真正完全意义上的法治,只有在选举民主制下才可能得以实现,而法治则能有效地保障民主政治的健康发展。民主虽然不是法治的充要条件但民主是法治的必要前提。单纯讲民主或抛开民主讲法治,既不可能有真正意义上的法治,也不可能有完全意义上的民主。无论如何,极权暴政和流氓暴政下决无任何法治生存的余地。因此,中共极权专制流氓暴政下决不可能有任何意义上的法治和民主。

9、法治余论
Human rights, as legal rules, cannot exist without asociety based on the rule of law. The rule of law is a logical precondition to humanrights.[103] However, though the rule of law is anecessary precondition to human rights, it is not a sufficient condition.[104] It is entirely possible to havea society founded upon the rule of law, i.e. a formeller Rechtstaat which doesobserve basic principles of just laws (e.g. no crime without law, noretroactive laws), yet which does not acknowledge, or respect, substantivehuman rights, or even acknowledge the existence of procedural rights. Consequently, to understandhuman rights, we must also understand that human rights are a possible, but nota necessary, consequence of the rule of law.[105]

1)、法治与立宪

“立宪主义是立法权的主权,然而,伴随着对此种权力的自我限制,要求其依据法律来行使主权,加上将行政官员和法官限制在法律范围内的所有这些安排,亦即,限制在行政和司法的自由决定权范围内”。[106]独立的律师公会是法治机器中的一个重要齿轮[107]。“与独立公正司法同样重要的是一个免受行政、立法和司法影响和控制的独立法律专业和律师公会”。[108]法律研究机构主要包括大学和研究所,在中共专制暴政下,完全受中共一党操控;中华全国律师协会纯属中共专制暴政下被阉割了真精神的太监型伪律师协会,因此这是中共暴政下不可能有法治的另一证据。

2)、法治与立法公正
“以马内利康德按照‘已所不欲,忽施于人’(不要对他人做我们不想他人对我们做的事)的黄金规则,以明确命令的语气向所有的立法者提供了一项指导原则:制定和颁布那种可以普遍适用的、合理的、不会被严重反对的法律。这意味着被通过的法规应当普遍和平等适用于所有的人。然而,我们经常目击被采用的规则几乎难以证明其合法正当性的情形,或一方或某个群体并不愿意授予与他方或其他群体同等的权利的情况,反之亦然。它与法治原则的观念相抵触。法律的统治(法治)与其他规则一道,意味着所有的人均有平等权利和同等义务,进一步为表明所有的人均有平等的法律机会”。[109]法治的精神除了法律必须是众所周知的,普遍适用的,恒定的三项基本要件之外,立法者还应当奉行“已所不欲,忽施于人”的原则。制定的法律必须符合自然法精神或上帝法原理,为全体社会成员的利益着想,并使得全体社会成员能够一视同仁,平等适用同等保护,真正做到‘法律面前人人平等’进而做到全社会人人在政治、社会、经济、文化、教育、宗教、信仰、工作、创业等方面机会均等。唯其如此,在该国家中各民族各种族之间才能真正和谐互助互敬互爱和平共处,社会才有可能长治久安。
3)、法治与良法
“由国会或者议会制定,或由法官制作的法律,确定受其控制的游戏规则。如果这些法律并不明智或不适当,秩序并不会随之而来,秩序来自良法的有效强制执行。如果适当制定的法律不被执行和服从,那么整个执法的职责便会陷于声誉毁坏。必须检讨我们是否一直在制作不适当的法律,或者是否我们仅仅是未能执行良法”。[110]“法律的目的并非限制或取消自由,而是反之;没有法律之所不可能有自由”。[111]许多人认为法治最主要的直接目标乃是针对防止行政权及官员滥用权力[112]。中共匪帮的严重问题在于:立法者绝对不合格,立法机构纯属中共流氓一党撑控,而司法不公最根本的原因在于立法不公,由于中共的立法机构,即全国人民代表大会的所谓代表们,既不合格又不合法,要么没有能力,要么没有客观公正的原则立场,结果必然使得其制定的法律仅是反映当权犯罪利益集团的意志。正如污染河源后,整条河必定被污染一样,立法不公导至司法必定不公,进而严重损害了社会“正义、公平、公正、公道”的最高原则。真正的法律必须在社会上个体灵魂中起到理性作用[113]

4)、法治与恶法
“严重不公的法律也可以长存。此种法律是病态的东西,应当在它害人之前及时纪正或废除。更高的法,包括宗教,道德或自然法。法律之所以为法律,并非由于法院在任何法律义务遵守它,而是因为他们事实上得到遵守”。[114] “法治原则在宪法中得以确立,作为立法权的司法限制,因此,任何违背该原则的立法均得由法院裁定无效”。[115]沙蒙德说:“法律可定义为司法部门承认和执行的原则实体。质言之,法律是由法院承认和实行的规则组成。”[116]法律的主要目的在于维护权利,伸张正 义,保护权利,惩罚犯罪。正义是终极目标,法律仅是实现正义的手段和工具。因此,当实体法超出正义范围,服务于不正当的目的,停止其服务功能时,它也就不再成为法律。亦即恶法非法,而人民没有义务服从恶法。中共专制暴政随心所欲制定了无数恶法,因为中共暴政的所谓法律,从本质上看并非为了社会正义,而是为了维护共匪残暴无耻的私利,因此,国人从严格意义上说,并无遵守中共暴政恶法的义务。 中共国的所谓宪法不但没有丝毫法治原则,而且极端无耻地公然将马列毛邓江之狗屁不通的东西强加入宪法,“四项基本原则”即是典型。最可耻的是,温家宝之流,反复公然欺骗国际社会,大言不惭地称:“中国是个法治国家”!更可怜的是,居然迄今仍有民运人士,还认为中共国也有法治!

5)、法治与正义
“开放的市场和民主以及透明度,可靠的法治和行政正义,是一个国家发展的重要前提,在很多方面它是最难取得的,因为法治的一个必要前提,乃是确立一个公正和有效的行政正义。因此,民主并不自动地建立法治和正义”。[117]社会的稳定并非基于法律的细节,而是基于人民对该法律的公正和尊严的信仰[118]。法治包含法律制度的特殊组织方法及司法正义。此问题大部分涉及司法机制和技术,但该技术中固有一系列维护最低标准的正义的重要原则。[119]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。“任何人不得超越法律”戴西如是说。[120]“法治亦强烈反对预防性的拘禁,以及任何未经审判的长期拘禁”[121]。中共暴政则反其道而行之,动辄拘禁逮捕任何暴政不喜欢的任何人,近年来甚至经常滥用纯属黑社会的非法绑架流氓手段对付人权律师和人权活动人士。大连人权律师王永航于2009年7月5日被暴政非法绑架是最新的案例。“法治的一项要求乃是那些自认为自已的权利受到侵犯的任何人均必须得自由诉诸法院,而那些被认为违反了法律的任何人应当被带至法院面前”[122]。这也是中共暴政下决不可能有法治的根据之一,中国人的诉权被严重限制,中共撑控下的法院不时以内部文件的方式,非法剥夺国人的诉权,诸如,下岗工人,法轮功,宪法权利,强制拆迁等受害者往往告状无门,法院公然拒绝受理案件的情事比比皆是。IvorJennings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[123]

6)、法治与民主
“民主经常被视为理想的法治的一个先决条件。然而,基于历史的分析正好相反,法治才是民主的必要前提。历史表明无论何时何处,法治被任意变动,民主即处于危境”。[124]法治是民主的前提条件挨或反之?或两者必须同时并存?一般而言,没有法治不可能有民主,没有民主也不可能存在真正完全意义上的法治;因此,两者互为前提。但法治,尽管可能并非完全意义上的,应当早于民主而存在。民主在远古全球仅古希腊雅典有之,而不完全意义上的法治则比民主制普遍得多。特别在英国,早在1215年之《大宪章》及随后一系列法律文件与司法实务中,即反复强调法律至上的原则。而英国的民主原则直至1688年的光荣革命以后才确立。在此意义上,法治先于民主而存在。然而完全意义上的法治必须以民主为条件,一旦民主不存,法治也难存续,若法治荡然无存,民主当然也难以为继。

7)、法治与法制

法治与法制两者一字之差,实质相差万里;前者指法律的统治的简称亦叫做法律至上,与“依法治理”含义并不相同,乃自由人权宪政民主社会的一项前提条件;后者是法律制度的简称,即便专制极权暴政也可能有法制;与法治对应的词乃是人治而非法制。法治除了法律至上之义外,含有法律(包括修改或废除法律的规则)是恒定的、众所周知的(至少是可知的)、及普遍适用的三大要素,因此法律面前人人平等、法律至上、任何人不得超越法律为其题中之义。法制只不过是依法处理争议纠纷有法可依之意,充其量仅有依法治理之意,主要指法律工具主义;至于法律是否恒定,是否国民能知道或是否普遍适用则无关紧要;法制也不含有法律面前人人平等,国王与平民同等适用法律,或法律至上的含义。因此,特权阶级与普通国民分别享受不同的法律待遇、朝令夕改、厚此薄彼、依秘密潜规则处理各种事务,在法制社会乃家常便餐,政府或当权集团任意破坏法律司空见贯;凡此种种在法治社会则完全不可能。因为法治社会那怕总统犯罪也同样受到同等法律追究,而法制社会绝不存在国王与平民同罪之概念。中共专制暴政充其量有法制而绝无法治,因此,胡、温及秦刚辈信口胡说中国是“法治国家”,纯属法盲的瞎扯,或是公然强暴国民意志的谎言。而徐水良君的法治与法制论则恐怕搞错了对象。  

[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 supremacyof law, is a general legal maxim according to which decisions should be made byapplying known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion intheir application. This maxim is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrarygovernance. The word "arbitrary" (from the Latin "arbiter")signifies a judgment made at the discretion of the arbiter, rather thanaccording to the rule of law.

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

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

[5] The rule of law refers to theregulation of the relationship between the state and individuals bypre-established and knowable laws. The state, no less than the individuals itgoverns, must be subject to and obey the law. The state’s obligation to obeythe law is central to the very existence of the rule of law. Without thisobligation, there would be no enforceable limit on the state’s power overindividuals...." (Hitzig)

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

[7] First, that the rule of law providesthat 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 thecreation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws which preservesand embodies the more general principle of normative order". ... A thirdaspect of the rule of law is ... that "the exercise of all public powermust find its ultimate source in a legal rule. Put another way, therelationship between the state and the individual must be regulated bylaw." (Re References re Secession of Quebec)  

[8] (Kenneth Henley ,The Impersonal Rule of Law, 5 Can. J. L. &Jurisprudence (1992) pages, 299) The rule orsupremacy of law is a political ideal requiring that the authority of thepolitical community be exercised only within the confines of ordainedstructures, 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 theexistence of law and order and denotes that a political society rests on somesystem of law and not on anarchy  whichdisregards law,[9] in other words that legal relations have been substitutedfor relations of force.[9]

[10] The Rule of Law, is that principle ofa 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 measuredif they are to be treated as legitimate. It is a law which governs the governors.  

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

[12] the Rule of Law its central meaningthat the law rules or issupreme in every society, that all rules or powers must derive from dulyenacted or established law.

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

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

[15] Equality in the law as well as beforethe 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, butunder God and the law" (Bracton).

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

[19] As Keith puts it, in defining the Ruleof Law, "legislation must favor the limitation of execu- tive and judicialpower 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 ofthe law, he is also its guardian. This explains the need for judicialindependence.

[22] That individuals, persons andgovernment shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitraryaction 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 influenceor pressure by the executive and legislative branches of government" (R vCampbell)  

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

[25] peopleare not the servants of law, but law is the servant of people, and that unlesslaw serves its proper function, the people will not, ought not, and cannot beexpected to obey "the law."

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

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

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

[29] The Rule of Law wasnot a cultural attribute common to the West, but rather it was local toEngland, a distinctive product of English history and legal institutions.

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

[31] Where the law is subject to some other authority and hasnone of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but iflaw is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then thesituation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the godsshower on a state.

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

[33] 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 Lawspersonal rule or the supremacy of human beings in the political community iscondemned because "human nature is not at all capable of regulating thehuman things, when it possesses autocratic authority over everything, withoutbecoming swollen with insolence and injustice

[34] "...in public life and in private life-in thearrangement of our households and our cities shouldobey whatever within us partakes of immortality, giving the name *law' to thedistribution ordained by intelligence." Laws IV 714a at 100. Plato identifies the rule oflaw with the rule of reason or understanding--"whatever within us partakesof immortality.

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

[36] Aristotle, Politics In, 1287a in The Politics of Aristotle.trans. Ernest Barker (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962) at 146. Barker pointsout in a note that Aristotle here uses the language of Plato's Republic for theparis of the soul. Plato's voice can be heard in Aristotle's account of the rule of law: "He whocommands that law should rule may thus be regarded as commanding that God andreason alone should rule; he who commands that a man should rule adds thecharacter 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 ...maythus be defined as 'Reason free from all passion'

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

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

[39] In 1215 AD, a similar development occurred in England: KingJohn placed himself and England's future sovereigns and magistrates at leastpartially 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 ofLaw, 46 A.B.A. J.  (1960)  pages 981 to 986
[40] F. 5b. In 1215 in Magna Charta, KingJohn promised his barons at Runnymede: "No freeman shall be takenor imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we goupon him, nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or [perlegem 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 probablywritten between  1250-58, stated that theroyal power  should be exercised subjectto the law

[41] 28Edw. 3. c. 3 (1354). Edward III (1327-77), in addition tohis frequent confirmations of Magna Charta, in 1354 further provided "that no man of what estate orcondition that he be, shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, norimprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer[par due proces de lei] by due process of law

[42] 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.

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

[44] It is by this mixture of monarchical, aristocratical, anddemocratical power, blended together in one system, and by these three estatesbalancing one another, that our free constitution of government hath beenpreserved so long inviolate. (6/26)

[45] In England, where Montesquieu professed having found thedoctrine in operation, there existed neither a separation of government organsnor a balance of social classes. The country was ruled, partly through a systemof pervasive parliamentary corruption, by an oligarchy of land- owning peers.There was, to be sure, a distinction of functions between legislation, on theone hand, and executive action under the residues of the royal prerogative, onthe other. A separation of powers, however, did not go farther than theindependence of the judges, guaranteed by the Act of Settlement (1700). (6/26)

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

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

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

[49] InMontesquieu's words, "The national judges are no more than the mouth thatpronounces the words of the law, mere passive beings incapable of moderatingeither its force or rigor. (11 Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois 6 (1748). Almostidentically, see Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Osborn v. Bank of theUnited States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 866 (1824).)

[50] The only innovation he contributed to the mixed-governmentdoctrine lies in the nature of the governmental balance, it is his rigidseparation of the three powers, coupled with the unwarranted implication in whichit is necessary for organs (powers) and functions to coincide. (6/26)

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

[52] The first steps toward judicial independence in Prussia weretaken in the Judiciary Act (Justizressortreglement) of 1749, fathered by thenatural law jurist, Samuel von Cocceji.

[53] 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 Formof Government, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, proposed: "In the government of theCommonwealth of Massachusetts, the legislative, executive and judicial powershall be placed in separate departments, Lo the end that it might be agovernment of laws, and not of men。 In 1776, thenotion that no one is above the law was popular during the founding of theUnited States, for example in the pamphlet Common Sense by Thomas Paine:"in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king islaw, 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 Constitutionby seeking to establish "a government of laws and not of men." (6/30)

[54] the specific phrase "the Rule of Law" was firstpopularized only in the last half of the nineteenth century by A.V. Dicey, Vinerian Professor of English law at Oxfordfrom 1882 to 1909.

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

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

[57] The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, This maxim isintended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance. The word"arbitrary" (from the Latin "arbiter") signifies a judgmentmade at the discretion of the arbiter, rather than according to the rule oflaw.

[58] Where the law is subject to some other authority and hasnone of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but iflaw is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then thesituation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the godsshower on a state.

[59] . Plato, Laws, IV 715d at 102. Where the law is itself ruledover 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 tocities."

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

[61] Plato, Laws, IV 714a at 100. Plato identifies the rule of law withthe rule of reason or understanding--"whatever within us partakes ofimmortality.""...in public life and in private life-in thearrangement of our households and our cities shouldobey whatever within us partakes of immortality, giving the name *law' to thedistribution ordained by intelligence."

[62] Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the rule of law, writing that"law should govern", and those in power should be "servants ofthe laws."

[63] Aristotle, Politics In, 1287a . trans. Ernest Barker (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1962) at 146. Barker points out in a note thatAristotle 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: "Hewho commands that law should rule may thus be regarded as commanding that Godand reason alone should rule; he who commands that a man should rule adds thecharacter 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 ...maythus be defined as 'Reason free from all passion'。

[64] “The direct object of the Rule of law(legal state) is toconfine discretion”. Judges must "individualize" legal rules andadministrators must act within legal bounds. Yet it is manifestly true thatthis is never fully possible. The function of the theory of the Rule of Law isto state the "ideal-typical" situation.

[65] many look upon the Rule of Law as mainly directed againstexcess or abuse of power by the executive and by officialdom.

[66] the rule of lawaims at freeing us from personal or factional domination as well as guidingbehavior to provide a framework of social order.

[67] a requirement of the Rule of Law that there must be free access to the courts for allpersons whose rights are infringed and that those who contravene the law bebrought before the courts.

[68] See (1959) 2 Journal of the International Commission ofJurists, p. 13; Heuston, Essays in Constitutional Law, p. 41.

[69] Ibid., p. 251.

[70] See Local Government Board v. Arlidge, [1915] A.C. 120;Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning, [1948] A.C. 87; Dabner v.South African Railways, 1920 A.D. 583.

[71] Cf. Harry W. Jones, The Rule of Law and the Welfare State,58 COLUM. L. REV.  143, 145 (1958)(listing open courts, an independent judiciary, and a reasoned  justification for decisions). In terms ofprocedure, certain institutional arrangements are required: (1) regular availabilityof tribunals for resolving disputes; (2) impartial decision-makers; and (3)prompt and effective implementation of decisions。

[72] The bedrock of the Rule of Law is the principle of thegenerality of law. the generality of law is essential to the principle ofequality before the law: There can be no equality before a measure, whetherthat measure originates with the executive or legislative power. if thegenerality of law is the bedrock of the legal state, its cornerstones are thelegality of administrative action enforced by independent judges, and thesubordination of the judge to the law.

[73] if the generality of law is the bedrock of the legal state,its cornerstones are the legality of administrative action (action only intravires) enforced by independent judges, and the subordination of the judge tothe law (limitation of judicial discretion).

[74] the generality of law is essential to the principle ofequality before the law:]

[75] The bedrock of the Rule of Law is the principle of thegenerality of law.  

[76] Constitutionalism and the rule of law are cornerstones ofthe Constitution and reflect our country’s commitment to an orderly and civilsociety in which all are bound by the enduring rules, principles, and values ofour Constitution as the supreme source of law and authority."(Lalonde)  


[78] The essentiale of the Rule of Law is represented in theconstitutional theory and practice of the systems of legislative supremacy,most clearly in the British system. Abstracting from these systems we mayformulate as follows: Constitutionalism is the sovereignty of the legislativepower, coupled, however, with a self-limitation of that power requiring it toexercise its sovereignty only by law, plus all such arrangements as keepexecutive officials and judges within legal bounds, i.e., limits onadministrative and judicial discretion.

[79] The first of these principles is the independence of thejudiciary." This is the only necessary element of Montesquieu's separationof powers; but it is indispensable, as the courts are the protective machinery,the buttress of the legal state. They must guarantee the integrity of lawagainst transgressions by the executive power. They must also hold their ownjudgments within the limits of antecedent legal prescriptions. When dealingwith offenses committed by individual citizens, the courts are the mechanismwhich enforces the principle of rule by calculable norms. Nullapoena sine legemay be the "Magna Carta of the criminal," but it is also the MagnaCarta of the innocent. The courts, therefore, must be "bound" only tothe law itself. The judges must have security of tenure and be free fromexecutive or legislative interference.

[80] For a democracy worthy of the name, you have to have a legislatureand a judiciary that are each capable of being a counterweight to the potentialabuse of power by the executive branch. You have to have media that is free toinform the public and can give them the information they need to be responsiblecitizens. You also need civil society that has a full range of non-governmentalorganizations, representing all the causes out there, from human rights towhatever endangered species there are. They also play their part in the waygovernment reaches its decisions on policy.

[81] See A.V. A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law ofthe Constitution,  179-201 (7th ed. 1908)(the Rule of Law in England).at 183. As Dicey defined it, the Rule of Law had three meanings in England1) no one can be made to suffer punishment or to pay damages for any conductnot definitely forbidden by law; (2) everyone's legal rights and liabilitiesare determined by the ordinary courts of the realm; and (3) everyone'sindividual rights are derived from the ordinary law of the land, not from awritten constitution, so that the English Constitution is the product of theordinary functioning of the courts and not the source of the courts'jurisdiction

[82] See A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of theConstitution, 179-201 (7th ed. 1908) (the Rule of Law in England). at 189.

[83] See A.V. A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law ofthe Constitution,  179-201 (7th ed. 1908)(the Rule of Law in England). at 191.

[84]The Rt. Hon. Lord Hewart of Bury, The New Despotism (Benn,1929) at 26-27. Hewart explained what he meant by the Rule of Law. His account,drawing heavily on Dicey, is unexceptional. He emphasised three principles inparticular: that no one can lawfully be restrained or punished or condemned indamages save for a violation of the lawestablished to the satisfaction of a judge or jury in proceedings regularlyinstituted in one of the ordinary courts; that everyone, whatever his position,is governed by the ordinary law of the land and personally liable for anythingdone by him contrary to that law, being subject to the ordinary courts, civiland criminal; and that no one charged with a violation of the law mayeffectively plead, in any court, that his act was done in obedience to thecommand of any superior.

[85] Joseph Raz's principles of rule of law are as follows: •That laws should be prospective rather than retroactive. • Laws should bestable and not changed too frequently, as lack of awareness of the law preventsone from being guided by it. • There should be clear rules and procedures formaking laws. • The independence of the judiciary has to be guaranteed. • Theprinciples of natural justice should be observed, particularly those concerningthe right to a fair hearing. • The courts should have the power to judicialreview the way in which the other principles are implemented. • The courtsshould be accessible; no man may be denied justice. • The discretion of lawenforcement and crime prevention agencies should not be allowed to pervert the law.

[86] 另一作者归纳Joseph Raz法治原则如下:"TheRule of Law and Its Virtue" in The Authority Law, (Oxford: ClarendonPress. 1979 at 214-18.) (1 prospectivity, publicity andclarity; (2) stability; (3) making of particular laws and orders should beguided by public, stable, clear general rules; (4) independence of thejudiciary; (5) conformity to natural justice (due process considerations suchas fair hearing by unbiased tribunal) (6) judicial review (limited to ensuringconformity to rule of law); (7) easy accessibility to courts; and (8) controlof discretion of crime-preventing agencies so that the law is not perverted.-Joseph Raz's list, which he considers incomplete, is: (1)可预期性,公开性和明确性;(2)稳定性;(3)制定特定的法律或命令应当受公开,稳定,清晰的一般原则指导;(4)司法独立;(5)与自然正义相符 (正当程序考虑诸如由公正的法庭公正审理);(6)司法审查(限制并确保符合法治);(7)容易诉诸法院;(8)控制犯罪防范机构的自由决定权以防法律被滥用。

[87] Lon Fuller, The Morality of Law (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress. 1964) at 41-44.)principlesor precepts of the rule of law. Lon Fuller's list has been rightly influential:generality of law. promulgation. non-retroactivity, clarity, consistency oflaws, not requiring the impossible, constancy of law through time, and congruencebetween official action and declared rule;

[88] while there is no set definition of the rule of lawencompassing all its practices, there is a basic realm of common principles.The scholar Rachel Kleinfeld Belton identifies five: 1. a government bound byand ruled by law; 2. equality before the law; 3. the establishment of law andorder; 4. the efficient and predictable application of justice; and 5. theprotection of human rights.  

[89] the three great principles of the Rule of Law are thegenerality of law, the supremacy of the legislative power, and the legality ofadjudication and administrative action.

[90] Barrie J.Saxton & Ronald T.Stansfield, UnderstandingCriminal Offences, Carswell 1996.P.3. the rule of law become a fundamentalprinciple of the common law. in its most basic form the rule of law meansequality, fairness, and justice before the law.

[91] Naturally every government, without exception, claims to beunder the Rule of Law, in international as well as in local affairs. Even themost ruthless and foul dictator will point to "the law" and the"legality" of everything he can think of。every government sees itself as being within the Rule ofLaw, no matter how much Terror it takes to do it.

[92] Generally speaking, law is a body of rules prescribed by thestate subject to sanctions or consequences.The predominant view is that theconcept of "rule of law" per se says nothing about the"justness" of the laws themselves, but simply how the legal systemoperates.As a consequence of this, a very undemocratic nation or one withoutrespect for human rights can exist with a "rule of law" — a situationwhich may be occurring in several modern dictatorships. The "rule oflaw" or Rechtsstaat may be a necessary condition for democracy, but it isnot a sufficient condition.  

[93] Logically, there is no contradiction between Rule of Law andabsolutism. As the absolute prince distinguishes bureaucratic functions in theinterest of an efficacious division of labor, so also can he rule his subjectsby law.

[94] the Rule of Law requires a differentiation of governmentalfunctions.  

[95] even a dictatorshipin a country where it is established law that the will of the ruler is suprememay in this formal sense be said to be based on the Rule of Law, because it isthe law which gives the ruler his powers. Melvin Nord, The Rule ofLaw, 38 U. Det. L.J.  (1960-1961)  pages 316。

[96] the principles of theRule of Law will generally only be applied, if applied at all, in respect ofthe system of private law and in respect of those aspects of the criminal lawand of administrative law which do not touch directly on government.

[97] the phrase 'the Rule of Law' has become meaningless thanksto ideological abuse and general overuse", but nevertheless this phrasehas in the past had specific and important meanings.  

[98] It has been thetendency of many theorists of the Rule of Law to present the ideal as theactual, or at least to refuse to distinguish between the theory of rule by lawand the practice of the courts.

[99] law" ismeaningless without the concept of effectiveness. in order for the"positive law" to be "law" at all, it must be effective. Butthis does not mean that whenever "law" is in fact effective, theReign of Law prevails, because "law" may be effective for a time eventhough it is in effect only through a Reign of Terror. The mere fact that everything is, in form,"legal" doesn't mean that Terror has beenput aside; and the mere fact that there has been an "illegal" seizureof power doesn't mean that the Reign of Law is not in effect. If they follow them, not on thewhole voluntarily, but only because they are terrorized or coerced, we have"law," at least for the time being, but we do not have the"Reign of Law" or "Rule of Law." We have, obviously,the Reign of Terror. Suchsocieties are inherently unstable, because people are permanently pittedagainst each other. Sooner or later, a breakthrough of the people, or someportion of them, occurs.

[100] If there is power,and the people do not or cannot resist it, there is "law." That is so in every state, no matter how despicable itsactivities may be. Ifthere is power only, this is not the Reign of Law, but is "law"abused-used as an instrument of the Reign of Terror. If there is power and the"consent of the governed," there is a Reign of Law. In otherwords, any country whichfails to afford freely and vigorously contested elections has no way of provingthat it is a Reign of Law regime, and the unavoidable conclusion is that it isa Reign of Terror regime. Such a country may have "law," but itdoes not have the "Rule of Law" in any meaningful sense.

[101] if there is nocoercion whatever, there is no "Rule" and no "Law." There will always be some rotten apples in every barrel. If the state doesn't protect thepublic from these public enemies, the members of the public will have to dotheir own "enforcement." This is not the Rule of Law, but the Reignof Terror. Andterror simply breeds more terror. It is not civilized law; it is the "lawof the jungle." Theattempt to have no coercion at all has not led in Communist countries to theextinction of Terror, but to the perpetuation of Terror.

[102] Melvin Nord, The Rule ofLaw, 38 U. Det. L.J.  (1960-1961)  pages 316。every system of lawmust contain some blending of coercion and consent; if either is completelymissing, there will be no "law" at all. Without some coercion, thereis no "law," but without the consent of the governed, there is no"Rule of Law."[102]

[103].   Report of theJoseph R. Crowley Program, One Country, Two Legal Systems?, 23 FORDHAM INT'LL.J. 1, 6 (1999).

[104] Similarly, there is also no necessary connection betweendemocracy and the rule of law. Michel Rosenfeld, The Rule Of Law And TheLegitimacy Of Constitutional Democracy, 74 S. CAL. L. REV. 1307, 1308 (2001).

[105] Eric Engle ,Universal Human Rights A Generational History,12 Ann. Surv. Int'l &Comp. L. (2006)  p, 253

[106] Constitutionalism is the sovereignty of the legislativepower, coupled, however, with a self-limitation of that power requiring it toexercise its sovereignty only by law, plus all such arrangements as keepexecutive officials and judges within legal bounds, i.e., limits onadministrative and judicial discretion.

[107] An independent Bar is thus an important cog in the machineryof the Rule of Law. (7/9)

[108] An important concomitant of an impartial and independentjudiciary is an independent legal profession and Bar, free from interference orcontrol by the executive, by the legislature and even by the judiciary. (7/9)

[109] Emmanuel Kant, guided by a golden rule - not to do to theothers what we don't want to be done to us, with his categorical imperativegave an important guiding principle to all lawmakers: to pass the laws that canbe applied universally, which are reasonable and which will not be seriouslyobjected to. This means that the passed regulation should be universallyapplicable and equal for all. Nevertheless, we often witness the situationswhen adopted rules can hardly be justified or the situations where one side orgroup is not willing to grant the same rights they enjoy to the other group andvice versa. It is contrary to the notion of the Rule of Law principle. The Ruleof Law, among other, signifies the equal rights and obligations for all, whichfurther means equal legal opportunities for all.

[110] The laws which are enacted by Congress or Parliament, ormade by the Judges, lay down the rules by which the game is controlled. Ifthese laws are not wise and appropriate, order will not follow. Order comesfrom the efficient enforcement of good laws. If laws properly made are not enforcedand obeyed, the whole business of law enforcement falls into disrepute. we mustdecide whether we have been making bad laws, or whether we are just failing toenforce the good ones.

[111] The objective of the law is not to abolish or limit but tokeep and augment freedom(...) where there is no law there is no freedom"

[112] many look upon the Rule of Law as mainly directed againstexcess or abuse of power by the executive and by officialdom. (7/10)

[113] true laws must function in the society as reason functions inthe individual soul. (7/2)

[114] law which is seriously unjust can long endure. Such"law" is a sick thing and it ought to be cured or killed before itkills people. "higherlaw," whether it be religious, moral, or "natural" law。"Lawis law not because the courts are under any legal obligation to observe it, butbecause they do in fact observe it.

[115] the principles of theRule of Law have been set out in the constitution as legal restraints on thepowers of the legislature, so that legislation in conflict with theseprinciples can be declared invalid by the courts.

[116] Salmond's definition of law: "The law may be defined asthe body of principles recognized and applied by the state in theadministration of justice. In other words, the law consists of the rules recognizedand acted on by the courts of justice." The primary purpose [of law] is .. . to maintain right, to uphold justice, to protect rights, to redress wrongs.Justice is the end, law is merely the instrument and the means。when the "positive law"goes out of bounds and is made to serve improper ends, i.e., when it stopsserving its function, it is no longer "law。 (7/10)

[117] Open markets and democracies as well as transparent,reliable rule of law and administration of justice are important preconditionof development, and in many respects it is the hardest to achieve because a necessary pre-condition to the rule of law was toestablish a fair and efficient administration of justice. thus, democracy doesnot automatically set up the rule of law and justice.  

[118] the stability of our society is not based on the details ofour laws, but on the faith of our people in their over-all fairness anddecency. (7/11)

[119] The concept of the Rule of Law, implies a particular methodof organising the legal system and the administration of justice, and ofsecuring observance of the law. Most of this is a question of legal mechanicsor technique, but inherent in the technique is a number of important principlesbest described as minimum standards of justice. (7/10)

[120] A further consequence of the Rule of Law is that the lawmust 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, andthose who transgress the law must be brought to book according to law asadjudicated upon by the courts. "No man is above the law" statesDicey (7/10)

[121] The Rule of Law is strongly opposed to preventive detention, andto detention for any long period without being brought to trial. (7/9)

[122] a requirement of the Rule of Law that there must be free accessto the courts for all persons whose rights are infringed and that those whocontravene the law be brought before the courts. (7/9)

[123] as Sir Ivor Jennings has pointed out, the Rule of Law simplymeans the existence of law and order and denotes that a political society restson some system of law and not on anarchy which disregards law, in other wordsthat legal relations have been substituted for relations of force. (7/6)

[124] Democracy has often been considered as a prerequisite forthe ideals of the rule of law. On the basis of a historical analysis, however,to the contrary, that the rule of law is a necessary precondition fordemocracy. History shows us that when and wherever the rule of law is being tamperedwith, democracy is jeopardized.



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, 11/24/2017 11:19 , Processed in 0.100458 second(s), 9 queries , Gzip On, Apc On.

Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

© 2009-2015 .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表