the science of right-第25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！



his　adversary。　But　as　such　a　result　takes　place　publicly　and　under　the

consent　of　both　parties；　although　it　may　be　done　unwillingly；　it

cannot　properly　be　called　murder　（homicidium　dolosum）。　What　then　is

the　right　in　both　cases　as　relating　to　criminal　justice？　Penal　justice

is　here　in　fact　brought　into　great　straits；　having　apparently　either

to　declare　the　notion　of　honour；　which　is　certainly　no　mere　fancy

here；　to　'be　nothing　in　the　eye　of　the　law；　or　to　exempt　the　crime

from　its　due　punishment；　and　thus　it　would　become　either　remiss　or

cruel。　The　knot　thus　tied　is　to　be　resolved　in　the　following　way。

The　categorical　imperative　of　penal　justice；　that　the　killing　of　any

person　contrary　to　the　law　must　be　punished　with　death；　remains　in

force；　but　the　legislation　itself　and　the　civil　constitution

generally；　so　long　as　they　are　still　barbarous　and　incomplete；　are

at　fault。　And　this　is　the　reason　why　the　subjective

motive…principles　of　honour　among　the　people　do　not　coincide　with

the　standards　which　are　objectively　conformable　to　another　purpose；　so

that　the　public　justice　issuing　from　the　state　becomes　injustice

relatively　to　that　which　is　upheld　among　the　people　themselves。



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　II。　The　Right　of　Pardoning。



　　The　right　of　pardoning　（jus　aggratiandi）；　viewed　in　relation　to

the　criminal；　is　the　right　of　mitigating　or　entirely　remitting　his

punishment。　On　the　side　of　the　sovereign　this　is　the　most　delicate

of　all　rights；　as　it　may　be　exercised　so　as　to　set　forth　the　splendour

of　his　dignity；　and　yet　so　as　to　do　a　great　wrong　by　it。　It　ought

not　to　be　exercised　in　application　to　the　crimes　of　the　subjects

against　each　other；　for　exemption　from　punishment　（impunitas　criminis）

would　be　the　greatest　wrong　that　could　be　done　to　them。　It　is　only

an　occasion　of　some　form　of　treason　（crimen　laesae　majestatis）；　as　a

lesion　against　himself；　that　the　sovereign　should　make　use　of　this

right。　And　it　should　not　be　exercised　even　in　this　connection；　if

the　safety　of　the　people　would　be　endangered　by　remitting　such

punishment。　This　right　is　the　only　one　which　properly　deserves　the

name　of　a　〃right　of　majesty。〃



　　　　50。　Juridical　Relations　of　the　Citizen　to　his　Country　and

　　　　　　　　to　Other　Countries。　Emigration；　Immigration；　Banishment；

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Exile。



　　The　land　or　territory　whose　inhabitants…　in　virtue　of　its

political　constitution　and　without　the　necessary　intervention　of　a

special　juridical　act…　are；　by　birth；　fellow…citizens　of　one　and　the

same　commonwealth；　is　called　their　country　or　fatherland。　A　foreign

country　is　one　in　which　they　would　not　possess　this　condition；　but

would　be　living　abroad。　If　a　country　abroad　form　part　of　the　territory

under　the　same　government　as　at　home；　it　constitutes　a　province；

according　to　the　Roman　usage　of　the　term。　It　does　not　constitute　an

incorporated　portion　of　the　empire　（imperii）　so　as　to　be　the　abode

of　equal　fellow…citizens；　but　is　only　a　possession　of　the

government；　like　a　lower　house；　and　it　must　therefore　honour　the

domain　of　the　ruling　state　as　the　〃mother　country〃　（regio　domina）。

　　1。　A　subject；　even　regarded　as　a　citizen；　has　the　right　of

emigration；　for　the　state　cannot　retain　him　as　if　he　were　its

property。　But　he　may　only　carry　away　with　him　his　moveables　as

distinguished　from　his　fixed　possessions。　However；　he　is　entitled　to

sell　his　immovable　property；　and　take　the　value　of　it　in　money　with

him。

　　2。　The　supreme　power；　as　master　of　the　country；　has　the　right　to

favour　immigration　and　the　settlement　of　strangers　and　colonists。　This

will　hold　even　although　the　natives　of　the　country　may　be　unfavourably

disposed　to　it；　if　their　private　property　in　the　soil　is　not

diminished　or　interfered　with。

　　3。　In　the　case　of　a　subject　who　has　committed　a　crime　that　renders

all　society　of　his　fellow…citizens　with　him　prejudicial　to　the

state；　the　supreme　power　has　also　the　right　of　inflicting　banishment

to　a　country　abroad。　By　such　deportation；　he　does　not　acquire　any

share　in　the　rights　of　citizens　of　the　territory　to　which　he　is

banished。

　　4。　The　supreme　power　has　also　the　right　of　imposing　exile

generally　（jus　exilii）；　by　which　a　citizen　is　sent　abroad　into　the

wide　world　as　the　〃out…land。〃　And　because　the　supreme　authority　thus

withdraws　all　legal　protection　from　the　citizen；　this　amounts　to

making　him　an　〃outlaw〃　within　the　territory　of　his　own　country。



　　　　　　　　　51。　The　Three　Forms　of　the　State：　Autocracy；

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Aristocracy；　Democracy。



　　The　three　powers　in　the　state；　involved　in　the　conception　of　a

public　government　generally　（res　publica　latius　dicta）；　are　only　so

many　relations　of　the　united　will　of　the　people　which　emanates　from

the　a　priori　reason；　and　viewed　as　such　it　is　the　objective

practical　realization　of　the　pure　idea　of　a　supreme　head　of　the　state。

This　supreme　head　is　the　sovereign；　but　conceived　only　as　a

representation　of　the　whole　people；　the　idea　still　requires　physical

embodiment　in　a　person；　who　may　exhibit　the　supreme　power　of　the　state

and　bring　the　idea　actively　to　bear　upon　the　popular　will。　The

relation　of　the　supreme　power　to　the　people　is　conceivable　in　three

different　forms：　either　one　in　the　state　rules　over　all；　or　some；

united　in　relation　of　equality　with　each　other；　rule　over　all　the

others；　or　all　together　rule　over　each　and　all　individually；　including

themselves。　The　form　of　the　state　is　therefore　either　autocratic；　or

aristocratic；　or　democratic。　The　expression　monarchic　is　not　so

suitable　as　autocratic　for　the　conception　here　intended；　for　a　monarch

is　one　who　has　the　highest　power；　an　autocrat　is　one　who　has　all

power；　so　that　this　latter　is　the　sovereign；　whereas　the　former　merely

represents　the　sovereignty。

　　It　is　evident　that　an　autocracy　is　the　simplest　form　of　government

in　the　state；　being　constituted　by　the　relation　of　one；　as　king；　to

the　people；　so　that　there　is　one　only　who　is　the　lawgiver。　An

aristocracy；　as　a　form　of　government；　is；　however；　compounded　of　the

union　of　two　relations：　that　of　the　nobles　in　relation　to　one

another　as　the　lawgivers；　thereby　constituting　the　sovereignty；　and

that　of　this　sovereign　power　to　the　people。　A　democracy；　again；　is　the

most　complex　of　all　the　forms　of　the　state；　for　it　has　to　begin　by

uniting　the　will　of　all　so　as　to　form　a　people；　and　then　it　has　to

appoint　a　sovereign　over　this　common　union；　which　sovereign　is　no

other　than　the　united　will　itself。　The　consideration　of　the　ways　in

which　these　forms　are　adulterated　by　the　intrusion　of　violent　and

illegitimate　usurpers　of　power；　as　in　oligarchy　and　ochlocracy；　as

well　as　the　discussion　of　the　so　called　mixed　constitutions；　may　be

passed　over　here　as　not　essential；　and　as　leading　into　too　much

detail。

　　As　regards　the　administration　of　right　in　the　state；　it　may　be

said　that　the　simplest　mode　is　also　the　best；　but　as　regards　its

bearing　on　right　itself；　it　is　also　the　most　dangerous　for　the　people；

in　view　of　the　despotism　to　which　simplicity　of　administration　so

naturally　gives　rise。　It　is　undoubtedly　a　rational　maxim　to　aim　at

simplification　in　the　machinery　which　is　to　unite　the　people　under

compulsory　laws；　and　this　would　be　secured　were　all　the　people　to　be

passive　and　to　obey　only　one　person　over　them；　but　the　method　would

not　give　subjects　who　were　also　citizens　of　the　state。　It　is　sometimes

said　that　the　people　should　be　satisfied　with　the　reflection　that

monarchy；　regarded　as　an　autocracy；　is　the　best　political

constitution；　if　the　monarch　is　good；　that　is；　if　be　has　the　judgement

as　well　as　the　will　to　do　right。　But　this　is　a　mere　evasion　and

belongs　to　the　common　class　of　wise　tautological　phrases。　It　only

amounts　to　saying　that　〃the　best　constitution　is　that　by　which　the

supreme　administrator　of　the　state　is　made　the　best　ruler〃；　that　is；

that　the　best　constitution　is　the　best！



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　52。　Historical　Origin　and　Changes。

　　　　　　　　　A　Pure　Republic。　Representative　Government。



　　It　is　vain　to　inquire　into　the　historical　origin　of　the　political

mechanism；　for　it　is　no　longer　possible　to　discover　historically　the

point　of　time　at　which　civil　society　took　its　beginning。　Savages　do

not　draw　up　a　documentary　record　of　their　having　submitted

themselves　to　law；　and　it　may　be　inferred　from　the　nature　of

uncivilized　men　that　they　must　have　set　out　from　a　state　of

violence。　To　prosecute　such　an　inquiry　in　the　intention　of　finding　a

pretext　for　altering　the　existing　constitution　by　violence　is　no

less　than　penal。　For　such　a　mode　of　alteration　would　amount　to

revolution；　that　could　only　be　carried　out　by　an　insurrection　of　the

people；　and

not　by　constitutional　modes　of　legislation。　But　insurrection　against

an　already　existing　constitution；　is　an　overthrow　of　all　civil　and

juridical　relations；　and　of　right　generally；　and　hence　it　is　not　a

mere　alteration　of　the　civil　constitution；　but　a　dissolution　of　it。　It

would　thus　form　a　mode　of　transition　to　a　better　constitution　by

palingenesis　and　not　by　mere　metamorphosis；　and　it　would　require　a　new

social　contract；　upon　which　the　former　original　contract；　as　then

annulled；　would　have　no　influence。

　　It　must；　however；　be　possible　for　the　sovereign　to　change　the

existing　constitution；　if　it　is　not　actually　consistent　with　the

idea　of　the　original　contract。　In　doing　so　it　is　essential　to　give

existence　to　that　form　of　government　which　will　properly　constitute

the　people　into　a　state。　Such　a　change　cannot　be　made　by　the　state

deliberately　altering　its　constitution　from　one　of　the　three　forms

to　one　of　the　other　two。　For　example；　political　changes　should　not

be　carried　out　by　the　aristocrats　combining　to　subject　themselves　to

an　autocracy；　or　resolving　to　fuse　all　into　a　democracy；　or

conversely；　as　if　it　depended　on　the　arbitrary　choice　and　liking　of

the　sovereign　what　constitution　he　may　impose　on　the　people。　For；　even

if　as　sovereign　he　resolved　to　alter　the　constitution　into　a

democracy；　he　might　be　doing　wrong　to　the　people；　because　they　might

hold　such　a　constitution　in　abhorrence；　and　regard　either　of　the　other

two　as　more　suitable　to　them　in　the　circumstances。

　　The　forms　of　the　state　are　only　the　letter　（littera）　of　the　original

constitution　in　the　civil　union；　and　they　may　therefore　remain　so　long

as　they　are　considered；　from　ancient　and　long　habit　（and　therefore

only　subjectively）；　to　be　necessary　to　the　machinery　of　the

political　constitution。　But　the　spirit　of　that　original　contract

（anima　pacti　originarii）　contains　and　imposes　the　obligation　on　the

constituting　power　to　make　the　mode　of　the　government　conformable　to

its　idea；　and；　if　this　cannot　be　effected　at　once；　to　change　it

gradually　and　continuously　till　it　harmonize　in　its　working　with　the

only　rightful　constitution；　which　is　that　of　a　pure　republic。　Thus　the

old　empirical　and　statutory　forms；　which　serve