the science of right-第20章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



people　that　properly　can　judge　in　a　cause…　although　indirectly

representatives　elected　and　deputed　by　themselves；　as　in　a　jury。　It

would　even　be　beneath　the　dignity　of　the　sovereign　head　of　the　state

to　play　the　judge；　for　this　would　be　to　put　himself　into　a　position　in

which　it　would　be　possible　to　do　wrong；　and　thus　to　subject　himself　to

the　demand　for　an　appeal　to　a　still　higher　power　（a　rege　male

informato　ad　regem　melius　informandum）。

　　It　is　by　the　co…operation　of　these　three　powers…　the　legislative；

the　executive；　and　the　judicial…　that　the　state　realizes　its　autonomy。

This　autonomy　consists　in　its　organizing；　forming；　and　maintaining

itself　in　accordance　with　the　laws　of　freedom。　In　their　union　the

welfare　of　the　state　is　realized。　Salus　reipublicae　suprema　lex。*　By

this　is　not　to　be　understood　merely　the　individual　well…being　and

happiness　of　the　citizens　of　the　state；　for…　as　Rousseau　asserts…　this

end　may　perhaps　be　more　agreeably　and　more　desirably　attained　in　the

state　of　nature；　or　even　under　a　despotic　government。　But　the

welfare　of　the　state；　as　its　own　highest　good；　signifies　that

condition　in　which　the　greatest　harmony　is　attained　between　its

constitution　and　the　principles　of　right…　a　condition　of　the　state

which　reason　by　a　categorical　imperative　makes　it　obligatory　upon　us

to　strive　after。



　　*＇〃The　health　of　the　state　is　the　highest　law。〃＇



　　　　　　Constitutional　and　Juridical　Consequences　arising　from

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　the　Nature　of　the　Civil　Union。



　　　　　　　A。　Right　of　the　Supreme　Power；　Treason；　Dethronement；

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Revolution；　Reform。



　　The　origin　of　the　supreme　power　is　practically　inscrutable　by　the

people　who　are　placed　under　its　authority。　In　other　words；　the　subject

need　not　reason　too　curiously　in　regard　to　its　origin　in　the　practical

relation；　as　if　the　right　of　the　obedience　due　to　it　were　to　be

doubted　（jus　controversum）。　For　as　the　people；　in　order　to　be　able

to　abjudicate　with　a　title　of　right　regarding　the　supreme　power　in　the

state；　must　be　regarded　as　already　united　under　one　common　legislative

will；　it　cannot　judge　otherwise　than　as　the　present　supreme　head　of

the　state　（summus　imperans）　wills。　The　question　has　been　raised　as

to　whether　an　actual　contract　of　subjection　（pactum　subjectionis

civilis）　originally　preceded　the　civil　government　as　a　fact；　or

whether　the　power　arose　first；　and　the　law　only　followed　afterwards；

or　may　have　followed　in　this　order。　But　such　questions；　as　regards　the

people　already　actually　living　under　the　civil　law；　are　either

entirely　aimless；　or　even　fraught　with　subtle　danger　to　the　state。

For；　should　the　subject；　after　having　dug　down　to　the　ultimate

origin　of　the　state；　rise　in　opposition　to　the　present　ruling

authority；　he　would　expose　himself　as　a　citizen；　according　to　the

law　and　with　full　right；　to　be　punished；　destroyed；　or　outlawed。　A　law

which　is　so　holy　and　inviolable　that　it　is　practically　a　crime　even　to

cast　doubt　upon　it；　or　to　suspend　its　operation　for　a　moment；　is

represented　of　itself　as　necessarily　derived　from　some　supreme；

unblameable　lawgiver。　And　this　is　the　meaning　of　the　maxim；　〃All

authority　is　from　God〃；　which　proposition　does　not　express　the

historical　foundation　of　the　civil　constitution；　but　an　ideal

principle　of　the　practical　reason。　It　may　be　otherwise　rendered

thus：　〃It　is　a　duty　to　obey　the　law　of　the　existing　legislative　power；

be　its　origin　what　it　may。〃

　　Hence　it　follows；　that　the　supreme　power　in　the　state　has　only

rights；　and　no　（compulsory）　duties　towards　the　subject。　Further；　if

the　ruler　or　regent；　as　the　organ　of　the　supreme　power；　proceeds　in

violation　of　the　laws；　as　in　imposing　taxes；　recruiting　soldiers；

and　so　on；　contrary　to　the　law　of　equality　in　the　distribution　of

the　political　burdens；　the　subject　may　oppose　complaints　and

objections　（gravamina）　to　this　injustice；　but　not　active　resistance。

　　There　cannot　even　be　an　Article　contained　in　the　political

constitution　that　would　make　it　possible　for　a　power　in　the　state；

in　case　of　the　transgression　of　the　constitutional　laws　by　the　supreme

authority；　to　resist　or　even　to　restrict　it　in　so　doing。　For；

whoever　would　restrict　the　supreme　power　of　the　state　must　have

more；　or　at　least　equal；　power　as　compared　with　the　power　that　is　so

restricted；　and　if　competent　to　command　the　subjects　to　resist；　such　a

one　would　also　have　to　be　able　to　protect　them；　and　if　he　is　to　be

considered　capable　of　judging　what　is　right　in　every　case；　he　may　also

publicly　order　resistance。　But　such　a　one；　and　not　the　actual

authority；　would　then　be　the　supreme　power；　which　is　contradictory。

The　supreme　sovereign　power；　then；　in　proceeding　by　a　minister　who

is　at　the　same　time　the　ruler　of　the　state；　consequently　becomes

despotic；　and　the　expedient　of　giving　the　people　to　imagine…　when　they

have　properly　only　legislative　influence…　that　they　act　by　their

deputies　by　way　of　limiting　the　sovereign　authority；　cannot　so　mask

and　disguise　the　actual　despotism　of　such　a　government　that　it　will

not　appear　in　the　measures　and　means　adopted　by　the　minister　to

carry　out　his　function。　The　people；　while　represented　by　their

deputies　in　parliament；　under　such　conditions；　may　have　in　these

warrantors　of　their　freedom　and　rights；　persons　who　are　keenly

interested　on　their　own　account　and　their　families；　and　who　look　to

such　a　minister　for　the　benefit　of　his　influence　in　the　army；　navy；

and　public　offices。　And　hence；　instead　of　offering　resistance　to　the

undue　pretensions　of　the　government…　whose　public　declarations　ought

to　carry　a　prior　accord　on　the　part　of　the　people；　which；　however；

cannot　be　allowed　in　peace；　they　are　rather　always　ready　to　play

into　the　hands　of　the　government。　Hence　the　so…called　limited

political　constitution；　as　a　constitution　of　the　internal　rights　of

the　state；　is　an　unreality；　and　instead　of　being　consistent　with

right；　it　is　only　a　principle　of　expediency。　And　its　aim　is　not　so

much　to　throw　all　possible　obstacles　in　the　way　of　a　powerful　violator

of　popular　rights　by　his　arbitrary　influence　upon　the　government；　as

rather　to　cloak　it　over　under　the　illusion　of　a　right　of　opposition

conceded　to　the　people。

　　Resistance　on　the　part　of　the　people　to　the　supreme　legislative

power　of　the　state　is　in　no　case　legitimate；　for　it　is　only　by

submission　to　the　universal　legislative　will；　that　a　condition　of

law　and　order　is　possible。　Hence　there　is　no　right　of　sedition；　and

still　less　of　rebellion；　belonging　to　the　people。　And　least　of　all；

when　the　supreme　power　is　embodied　in　an　individual　monarch；　is

there　any　justification；　under　the　pretext　of　his　abuse　of　power；

for　seizing　his　person　or　taking　away　his　life　（monarchomachismus

sub　specie　tyrannicidii）。　The　slightest　attempt　of　this　kind　is　high

treason　（proditio　eminens）；　and　a　traitor　of　this　sort　who　aims　at　the

overthrow　of　his　country　may　be　punished；　as　a　political　parricide；

even　with　death。　It　is　the　duty　of　the　people　to　bear　any　abuse　of　the

supreme　power；　even　then　though　it　should　be　considered　to　be

unbearable。　And　the　reason　is　that　any　resistance　of　the　highest

legislative　authority　can　never　but　be　contrary　to　the　law；　and　must

even　be　regarded　as　tending　to　destroy　the　whole　legal　constitution。

In　order　to　be　entitled　to　offer　such　resistance；　a　public　law　would

be　required　to　permit　it。　But　the　supreme　legislation　would　by　such

a　law　cease　to　be　supreme；　and　the　people　as　subjects　would　be　made

sovereign　over　that　to　which　they　are　subject；　which　is　a

contradiction。　And　the　contradiction　becomes　more　apparent　when　the

question　is　put：　〃Who　is　to　be　the　judge　in　a　controversy　between

the　people　and　the　sovereign？〃　For　the　people　and　the　sovereign　are　to

be　constitutionally　or　juridically　regarded　as　two　different　moral

persons；　but　the　question　shows　that　the　people　would　then　have　to

be　the　judge　in　their　own　cause。



　　The　dethronement　of　a　monarch　may　be　also　conceived　as　a　voluntary

abdication　of　the　crown；　and　a　resignation　of　his　power　into　the　hands

of　the　people；　or　it　might　be　a　deliberate　surrender　of　these

without　any　assault　on　the　royal　person；　in　order　that　the　monarch　may

be　relegated　into　private　life。　But；　however　it　happen；　forcible

compulsion　of　it；　on　the　part　of　the　people；　cannot　be　justified　under

the　pretext　of　a　right　of　necessity　（casus　necessitatis）；　and　least　of

all　can　the　slightest　right　be　shown　for　punishing　the　sovereign　on

the　ground　of　previous　maladministration。　For　all　that　has　been

already　done　in　the　quality　of　a　sovereign　must　be　regarded　as　done

outwardly　by　right；　and；　considered　as　the　source　of　the　laws；　the

sovereign　himself　can　do　no　wrong。　Of　all　the　abominations　in　the

overthrow　of　a　state　by　revolution；　even　the　murder　or　assassination

of　the　monarch　is　not　the　worst。　For　that　may　be　done　by　the　people

out　of　fear；　lest；　if　he　is　allowed　to　live；　he　may　again　acquire

power　and　inflict　punishment　upon　them；　and　so　it　may　be　done；　not

as　an　act　of　punitive　justice；　but　merely　from　regard　to

self…preservation。　It　is　the　formal　execution　of　a　monarch　that

horrifies　a　soul　filled　with　ideas　of　human　right；　and　this　feeling

occurs　again　and　again　as　of　as　the　mind　realizes　the　scenes　that

terminated　the　fate　of　Charles　I　or　Louis　XVI。　Now　how　is　this　feeling

to　be　explained？　It　is　not　a　mere　aesthetic　feeling；　arising　from

the　working　of　the　imagination；　nor　from　sympathy；　produced　by

fancying　ourselves　in　the　place　of　the　sufferer。　On　the　contrary；　it

is　a　moral　feeling　arising　from　the　entire　subversion　of　all　our

notions　of　right。　Regicide；　in　short；　is　regarded　as　a　crime　which

always　remains　such　and　can　never　be　expiated　（crimen　immortale；

inexpiabile）；　and　it　appears　to　resemble　that　sin　which　the

theologians　declare　can　neither　be　forgiven　in　this　world　nor　in　the

next。　The　explanation　of　this　phenomenon　in　the　human　mind　appears

to　be　furnished　by　the　following　reflections　upon　it；　and　they　even

shed　some　light　upon　the　principles　of　political　right。

　　Every　transgression　of　a　law　only　can　and　must　be　explained　as

arising　from　a　maxim　of　the　transgressor　making　such　wrong…doing　his

rule　of　action；　for　were　it　not　committed　by　him　as　a　free　being；　it

could　not　be　imputed　to　him。　But　it　is　absolutely　impossible　to

explain　how　any　rational　individual　forms　such　a　maxim　against　the

clear　prohibition　of　the　law…giving　reason；　for　it　is　only　events

which　happen　according　to　the　mechanical　laws　of　nature　that　are

capable　of　explanation。　Now　a　transgressor　or　criminal　may　commit

his　wrong…doing　either　according　to　the　maxim　of　a　rule　supposed　to　be

valid　objectively　and　universally；　or　only　as　an　exception　from　the

rule　by　dispensing　with　its　obligation　for　the　occasion。　In　the　latter

case；　he　only　diverges　from　the　law；　although　intentionally。　He　may；

at　the　same　time；　abho