学位级别：硕士
提交日期：2003年5月
答辩日期：2003年5月
论文中文题目：合法性视野：对权利与权力关系的历史性解读
论文英文题目：From the Perspective of Legitimacy :A Historical Reading on the Relationship between Right and Power
作    者：刘小平
所在单位：吉林大学法学院
指导教师：姚建宗
所在单位：吉林大学法学院
分类标识：DF0
中文主题标识：合法性   权利   权力
英文主题标识：Legitimacy   Right    Power
总页数：67

中文摘要：
权力是什么?我们该如何对待权力？进一步的问题是,我们如何看待权力和权利的关系?也许这并不是两个问题,而实际上只是一个问题。本文将论题聚焦于权力与权利的关系，实际上就是想要为这个问题的解决提供一个思路。本文所提供的思路就是，历史性的看待和考察权力与权利，并在二者历史发展的特定语境中来把握和解读二者的关系。为了真正的历史性地解读权力与权利的关系，本文引进了政治学上的合法性概念，合法性概念既是个历史性概念，又是个分析性概念，本文试图借助这一概念所提供的分析平台，来更好的达致对本文主旨的把握。
本文总共分为三个部分：
本文的第一部分，对权力及其合法性内核进行了解析。在对权力现象的理解上，本文认为，不仅要认识到权力表现出来的外在特征，而且要把握权力背后的深刻的内涵。权力意味着一种能力，外在地表现为一种命令—服从模式，但更要把权力作为社会关系的范畴去理解，权力的背后体现了权力双方之间一种相对稳定的具有规范性的社会关系。本文接下来探讨，什么才是权力的本质方面和基础所在？本文认为，强制力虽然是权力的一个非常明显的外观特征并且对于权力而言非常的必要，但是并不能将权力等同与强力，强力不是权力的本质性层面。作为一种相对稳定的关系模式，必须在权力双方之间存在着一种最起码的意向性合作，因此权力必须具备一种最起码的合法性。所谓合法性，是指权力应当具备的一种正当性属性，权力只有具备某种正当性属性，才能够为权力对象所承认、接受和自愿服从，权力才能形成一种稳定有效的统治。因此，权力在本质上是一种“合法性”的统治，合法性正是权力的本质和基础所在，是权力的内核。权力并不是天然就具有合法性的，权力的合法性在结构上，不仅来源于统治者的合法性证明，而且来自于被统治者的价值确证和体认，是二者在价值上互动和相互契合的过程，因而合法性外在地以观念的形态存在，但是合法性的依据和基础却并不在观念本身。笔者认为，作为权力的内核，合法性的真正基础在于一定历史阶段的社会的物质生产方式，合法性是一定社会历史发展阶段中的社会生产关系对权力的时代性要求的体现，权力的合法性的一个基本特征是历史性和时代性，权力的合法性内核会随着社会历史发展的阶段不断地发生变化。
本文的第二部分，对权力合法性内核接着进行了历史考察，论述了在新的历史阶段中，随着一种新型的权利文明的兴起，权力的合法性发生了怎样的变换。本文认为，在古代社会特有的历史条件下，古代社会中权力的合法性由宗教、神学等外在于人的彼岸世界所支撑，古代社会的权力，往往要借助神的意志或是神法规则，借助超人的力量和外在的先验秩序来赋予自身统治的合法性。在这样的一种权力合法性下，权力表现出来人格化、绝对性、任意性、单向性等时代性特征，并且其强制性意味也非常明显。随着西方社会的大转型，在社会经济领域、思想文化领域、社会结构方面的全方位的整体性变革严重的颠覆了古代社会权力合法性的基础，古代社会权力的合法性出现了全面的危机。正是在这样的一种历史背景下，权利文明作为一种崭新的话语模式和实践模式得以兴起，现代权利概念得以产生。现代权利概念在价值内涵上，强调人的价值和尊严，张扬人的主体性地位，弘扬平等的人格观念和关系模式，把世俗的个人权利树立为至高无上的道德原则，并且导向一种多元主义的价值观念。现代权利概念体现的正是一种时代性的精神内涵，在权利兴起的背景下，权力的合法性内核发生了现代意义上的转换，权力不再从彼岸世界，从神话、宗教等外在于人的先验秩序中寻求其合法性资源，权力实际上为个人权利所主导，权力的合法性要从世俗的人的主导性地位，从人道，从人的权利中去寻求，个人的权利成了权力存在的理由、依据、出发点、限度和目的。
本文的第三部分，在对权力的合法性的现代转换的考察的基础上，指出，权力已经由“强权统治”转变为一种“权利的统治”。所谓“权利的统治”，首先是对权力的合法性状况、权力与权利的关系及其价值诉求的描述，权力来源于权利，权利优先于权力，在权力与权利的关系上，是一种权利本位；其次，“权利的统治”代表对权力的基本看法和定位，从个人权利的视角来看，权力存在着两重性，权力的存在既为权利所必须，其内在扩张和相对独立性又会对权利造成危害；最后，“权利的统治”是对权力的制度安排和实践，“权利的统治”通过现代法治，对权力的产生、行使的方式和过程进行规范和控制，使权力得以制度化、规范化、理性化。在“权利统治”下，权力在其运作的各方面都有了一定的准则：在来源上，权力来源的观念基础是人民主权原则，在现实形式上表现为一种法定权力；在权力的配置上，宪法和法律同样对权力进行分立、平衡，建立起一个合理、适度、有效的权力体系，以实现权力的自我约束和分工合作；在权力的动态运行上，同样通过法律的实体性规定和程序性设定对权力的运行进行全面的制度监控和规定；在权力的限度上，“权利的统治”把权力定位为一种有限的权力，权力当有所为有所不为，只有有限的权力才是一种有效的权力，并且同样通过法律为权力的有限性提供了坚实的制度框架，而权利的自治属性又为权力的有限性提供了深厚的社会基础。

英文摘要：
　　 What is power? How should power be treated? Furthermore, how should we consider the relationship between power and right? Perhaps they are not two problems and practically one united problem instead. This text focuses the theme on the relationship between power and right, aiming to provide a way of thinking for the solution of this problem. The train of thought provided in this text is to historically consider and investigate power and right, at the same time, to comprehend and grasp their relationship in the peculiar context of historic development. In order to truthfully and historically read the relationship between power and right, this text quotes the concept of legitimacy used in politics. The concept of legitimacy is not only a historical notion, but an analytical one. It is attempted to utilize the analysis platform provided by this notion to obtain better comprehension of the purport presented by this text.
The text is composed of three parts altogether:
　　 Part One is focusing on the analysis of power and its essence of legitimacy. In order to understand the phenomenon of power, it is deemed in this text that we ought not only to know the exterior characteristics power reflects, but to master the hidden profound meaning of it. power means a certain kind of ability, reflected externally as an order--- mode of obedience. However, authority should be more importantly explained in the scope of social relations. The inward of power demonstrates a sort of normative and relatively stable social relations existing between the subjects of power. The text subsequently discusses what is the essence and foundation of power. It is deemed hereby that, power is not equivalent to force because force does not reach the core stratum of power, though the compelling force is one of power’s important exterior characteristics and significantly necessary to power. As a kind of relatively stable mode of relationship, there has to be a proper-intentioned cooperation existing between subjects of power. So power must encompass at least the quality of legitimacy. The so-called legitimacy means power ought to possess a legitimate attribute. Only when authority possesses the legitimate attribute will it be justified, accepted and subordinated willingly by the objects of power. And only such kind of power can form a stable sovereignty so forth. Thus, power is a sort of “legitimacy” ruling in essence. And legitimacy is precisely the essence, foundation and core meaning of the power. Power is not attributed originally to be legitimate. The power’s legitimacy is derived not only from the legality verification of rulers, but also from the value justification and evaluation of the people ruled. It is a process of interacting and corresponding on the basis of value. Legitimacy is present externally in the form of notion, but its reasons and bases do not lie in the notion itself. I personally point out, as the essence of power, the real basis of legitimacy lies in the material production pattern of the society under a certain historic stage. Legitimacy is the reflection of contemporaneous requirements for the power the societal production relations command in a certain stage of historic development of the society. Historic and modernity are basic features of legitimacy and the quality of legality of power will transform constantly along with the historic development of the society.
　　 Part Two explores the legitimacy of power from the historic perspective. Under the circumstance of a new historical age, we expound hereby how the legitimacy of power is transforming along with the burgeoning of a new style of conception of rights. It is deemed here that the legitimacy of power under the peculiar conditions of ancient societies was destined by the other world outside of human beings’, such as religion, theology, etc. In ancient societies, the power and governance were justified by means of God’s will, divine regulations, exceptional human power and exterior transcendentalism. Under such kind of rules, power was characterized as personalized, absolute, arbitrary, one-directional with an outstanding feature of compelling. Along with the societal transformation in western world, the all-around and integrated changes in the aspects of economics, culture and social structure disrupted the foundation of power’s legitimacy in ancient societies. The legitimacy of power in ancient societies is therefore encountering an overall crisis. Exactly under such kind of historic background, the conception of rights is rising as a completely new mode in both ways of communication and practice. It also paves the way for the modern concept of right. The modern concept of right places emphasis on human value and dignity. This concept advocates the importance of subjectivity and equality of different mentalities and human relationship. It sets secular human right as the paramount ethic principle, leading to a pluralistic notion of value. The modern concept of right reflects a kind of modernist spirit connotation. With the rise of the conception of rights, the essence of legitimacy of power is experiencing a modernist conversion. Power is seeking proper reasons no longer from transcendentalism which is apart from human beings themselves, such as myth, religion, etc. Instead, power is actually guided by individual’s right. And the legitimacy of power should be attained through the realization of the guiding function of mundane human beings, humanity and human right. The individual right becomes the reasons, basis, starting point, limitation and destination for the existence of power.
Part Three points out, on the establishment of the penetration into the modernist conversion of the power legitimacy, that power has been transformed from the one determined by “mandatory force” to the one by “right standards”. The so-called “right standards” is firstly to be an account for the legitimacy status of power, the relationship between power and right, and the value orientation. Power is originated from right and right is prior to power. In managing the relationship between power and right, it is literally a matter of right centralization and standardization. Secondly, the “right standards” represents the basic attitudes towards power and how the power is positioned. From the perspective of individual’s right, power holds a dual nature. Power is a must element of right, meanwhile, its inner expansion and relative independence jeopardize right on the other side. Lastly, “right standards” is aimed for the regulation arrangement and practice of power. The “right standardized power” is regulated, standardized and rationalized by means of modern law-ruling and subsequently manipulating the emergence, ways of implementation and process of the power. Under the “right standards”, power has certain norms in all aspects of its operation. In the aspect of its origin, the basic concept for the origin of power is the principle of people’s sovereignty. It is displayed as a legalized power in the actual form. In the aspect of the power’s allocation, constitution and law share the same right to allocate and balance the power. In this way, a reasonable, moderate and efficient power system will be set up in the goal of achieving power’s self-constraint and cooperative division. In the aspect of power’s dynamic movement, we similarly implement the law’s substantial and procedural regulations to thoroughly supervise and stipulate the power’s movement. In the aspect of power’s limitation, “right standards” positions power to be a restricted power. And power ought to be utilized and realized when it is necessary rather than anytime. Only a limited power is an efficient power. Similarly, law provides a solid frame of regulation for power’s limitation. And the quality of autonomy of right equips the limited power with a reinforced social foundation.