Sources of Legal Obligation
法律义务的来源
CONTRACT v. STATUS
合同与地位
Free willed contractors or;
自由意志的承包商或;
Subjects of Received status
处于“已接收”状态 的主题
Frameworks for analysis
分析框架
FREEDOM v. SECURITY
自由与安全
PUBLIC v. PRIVATE
UBLIC诉私人
TRUST v. CONFIDENCE
信任与信心
SOCIAL CONTRACT
社会契约
‘THE NOTION THAT GOVERNMENT RESTS ON CONTRACT’
“政府建立在合同之上的观念”
“IF WE DISCARD THE TRUTH THAT ALL ORGANIZED SOCIETY BEGAN IN A VOLUNTARY CONTRACT – A PROPOSITION THAT FEW HAVE ADVANCED AS A LITERAL TRUTH – WE MAY YET RECOGNIZE THAT AS MEN BECOME MORE ENLIGHTENED THEY CAN TREAT GOVERNMENT AS IF IT WERE A CONTRACTUAL AFFAIR, THAT IS, JUDGE THE SERVICES OF GOVERNMENTAL RULES BY THE PRICE WE PAY FOR THEM. THE GREAT MEN WHO FOUNDED THE RATIONALISTIC LEGAL AND POLITICAL TRADITION OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT…MAY HAVE UNDERESTIMATED THE FORCE OF TRADITION, BUT IN TREATING GOVERNMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER THE CATEGORIES OF CONTRACT, THEY HELPED TO LIBERALIZE AND HUMANIZE OUR INTERNATIONAL AND CRIMINAL LAW, AS WELL AS THE LAW OF PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS.” MR COHEN “THE BASIS OF CONTRACT (1932-33) 46 HARV LAW REVIEW 553
“如果我们抛弃所有有组织的社会都始于自愿契约的真理——很少有人将这一命题作为字面真理提出来——我们可能还会认识到,随着人们变得更加开明,他们可以把政府当作合同事务来对待,也就是说,通过我们为它们付出的代价来判断政府规则的服务。奠定启蒙运动理性主义法律和政治传统的伟人......也许低估了传统的力量,但是在将政府权利和义务归入合同范畴时,它们有助于使我们的国际法和刑法以及私人和商业交易法自由化和人性化。“ 科恩先生 ”合同的基础 (1932-33) 46 HARV LAW REVIEW 553
SOCIAL CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATE OF NATURE
脱离自然状态的社会契约
Hobbes: Leviathan to end war of all against all, chaos to be constrained for any sort of ‘commodious living’
霍布斯:利维坦是为了结束所有人对所有人的战争,混乱是为了任何形式的“商品生活”而受到限制
Locke: Limited Government for our convenience, Gov’t as potential abuser to be constrained
洛克:有限的政府是为了我们的方便,政府不是潜在的滥用者来受到限制
Rousseau: Absolute sovereignty of majority’s
卢梭:多数人的绝对主权
“general will”
“将军意志”
(These are ENLIGHTMENT THINKERS, PICKING UP ON ARISTOTLE & PLATO)
(这些是启蒙思想家,学习亚里士多德和柏拉图)
HOBBES
霍布斯
HOBBES – 1588 – 1697, context of English Civil War re divine right of Monarchy v authority of ‘quasi-democratic’ Parliament
霍布斯 – 1588 – 1697,英国内战的背景:君主制的神圣权利与“准民主”议会的权威
LIFE IN THE STATE OF NATURE: NASTY, SHORT & BRUTISH, limited resources, constant conflict & fear of losing one’s life, a state of perpetual war.
生活在自然状态下:肮脏,短暂和野蛮,有限的资源,持续的冲突和对失去生命的恐惧,永久的战争状态。
(and today?) (2014 Global Peace Index, ongoing conflicts in 67 countries, 752 groups, and11 countries free from conflict.)
(今天呢?(2014年全球和平指数,67个国家、752个团体和11个没有冲突的国家正在进行的冲突。
SO for quality & quantity of life, surrender rights held in the state of nature to an all powerful sovereign (whose duty is to protect the people and keep the peace – if fails, revolt justified)
因此,为了生命的质量和数量,将自然状态下的权利交给一个全能的君主(他的职责是保护人民和维护和平——如果失败了,反抗是合理的)
Hobbes Presumes we are Rational and Equal and that we Value life aBove all else
霍布斯认为我们是理性和平等的,我们珍视生命,珍视其他一切
LOCKE
洛克
LOCKE: 1632 -1704
洛克:1632年-1704年
TWO TREATISES ON GOVERNMENT
两篇政府论著
THE FIRST REFUTES THE IDEA THAT POLITICAL AUTHORITY IS DERIVED FROM RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY—INCLUDING DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.
第一种观点驳斥了政治权威来源于宗教权威的观点,包括国王的神圣权利。
THE SECOND, “AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE TRUE ORIGINAL EXTENT AND END OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT” REGARDS THE AIMS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR CIVIL GOVERNMENT.
第二,“关于文官政府的真正原始范围和目的的论述”,论的是文官政府的目的和理由。
STATE OF NATURE, PRE POLITICAL BUT NOT PRE-MORAL, EQUAL, FREE ACTORS ENDOWED WITH NATURAL RIGHTS, RELATIVE PEACEFUL BUT PROPERTY DISPUTES ARISE (ONE OBTAINS PROPERTY BY MIXING ONES LABOUR W/IT)
自然状态,前政治但不是前道德的,平等的,被赋予自然权利的自由行动者,相对和平但财产纠纷出现(一个人通过混合劳动与它来获得财产)
CREATE CIVIL GOVERNMENT TO HANDLE DISPUTES, RETAIN NATURAL RIGHTS
创建文官政府处理争端,保留自然权利
IF GOV’T INFRINGES ON NAT’L RIGHTS, REVOLT IS JUSTIFIED
如果政府不侵犯国家权利,反抗是有道理的
A real-world social contract
现实世界的社会契约
AMERICAN REVOLUTION & CONSTITUTION
美国革命与宪法
LOCKE’S INFLUENCE ON THOMAS JEFFERSON AND OTHER FOREFATHERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
洛克对托马斯·杰斐逊(THOMAS JEFFERSON)和其他美国革命先驱的影响
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (1776)
独立宣言 (1776)
“WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,--THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT, LAYING ITS FOUNDATION ON SUCH PRINCIPLES AND ORGANIZING ITS POWERS IN SUCH FORM, AS TO THEM SHALL SEEM MOST LIKELY TO EFFECT THEIR SAFETY AND HAPPINESS.”
“我们认为这些真理是不言而喻的,人人生而平等,造物主赋予他们某些不可剥夺的权利,其中包括生命、自由和追求幸福的权利。为了保障这些权利,政府是在人中间建立的,其公正的权力来自被统治者的同意,--每当任何形式的政府破坏这些目的时,人民有权改变或废除它,并建立新的政府,以这些原则为基础,以这种形式组织其权力, 对他们来说,似乎最有可能影响他们的安全和幸福。“
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (1787)
美国宪法 (1787)
“WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”
“我们合众国人民,为了建立一个更完美的联邦,建立正义,确保国内安宁,提供共同防御,促进普遍福利,并确保 我们自己和我们的后代享有自由的祝福,为美利坚合众国制定和制定本宪法。“
US BILL OF RIGHTS (1789)
美国权利法案 (1789)
WITH AMENDMENTS INCLUDING 13TH, 14TH AND 15TH: “THE PEOPLE TODAY ARE ALL THE PEOPLE, AT LEAST ALL CITIZENS. TODAY ONLY THE NON-CITIZEN IS GOVERNED WITHOUT ANY OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT…” (LOUIS HENKIN “THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AS SOCIAL COMPACT” (1987)
包括第13条,第14条和第15条在内的修正案:“今天的人民是所有人民,至少是所有公民。 今天,只有非公民才能被统治,而没有任何机会参与政府......“(路易斯·亨金,”作为社会契约的美国宪法“(1987年)
TREATY OF WAITANGI/TE TIRITI (1840)
《怀唐伊/蒂蒂里蒂条约》(1840年)
ROUSSEAU
卢梭
ROUSSEAU – 1712 – 1778 (pre French Revolution)
卢梭 – 1712 – 1778(法国大革命前)
STATE OF NATURE PEACEFUL & IDYLLIC, much time for LEISURE, until the invention of Private Property…then Greed, pride, Contempt, inequality, class, sin, vice, Strife – LEAD TO GOV’T, but GOV’t ONLY IN THE INTEREST OF PROPERTY HOLDERS.
自然状态,宁静而田园诗般的田园诗般的生活,有很多时间休闲,直到私有财产的发明......然后是贪婪、骄傲、蔑视、不平等、阶级、罪恶、罪恶、纷争——导致 GOV'T,但 GOV 不仅是为了财产所有者的利益。
ROUSSEAU’S NORMATIVE SOCIAL CONTRACT (1762)
鲁梭的规范性社会契约 (1762)
“MAN WAS BORN FREE, AND HE IS EVERYWHERE IN CHAINS”
“人生而自由,他到处都被锁链束缚”
THE QUESTION IS HOW CAN WE BE FREE AND LIVE TOGETHER?
问题是我们如何才能获得自由并共同生活?
ALL MEN ARE EQUAL, THEREFORE THE ONLY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY IS THAT OF AN EGALITATIAN DEMOCRACY (NZ?)
人人平等,因此唯一合法的权威是平等民主的权威(新西兰?
SOCIAL CONTRACT = AGREEMENT TO COME TOGETHER AND FORM A COLLECTIVITY – THE WILL OF THE DEMOCRATIC COLLECTIVE IS THE DEFINITION OF FREEDOM
社会契约 = 同意走到一起并形成一个集体——民主集体的意志是自由的定义
INDIVIDUAL WILLS MUST CONFORM TO GENERAL WILL AIMED AT COMMON GOOD (COLLECTIVISM, FORCED TO BE FREE)
个人意志必须符合以共同利益为目标的普遍意志(集体主义,被迫自由)
And in today’s world?
在当今世界?
Did Hobbes have a point?
霍布斯说得有道理吗?
UKRAINE, GAZA, Syria, Yemen, Libya, SUDAN, ….
乌克兰、加沙、叙利亚、也门、利比亚、苏丹......
Did Locke have a point?
洛克说得有道理吗?
Nazi Germany, Pol Pot regime, Stalin, Mugabe, South African apartheid regime, Mobutu…..
纳粹德国、波尔布特政权、斯大林、穆加贝、南非种族隔离政权、蒙博托.....
Did Rousseau ‘over trust’ the ‘General Will’?
卢梭是否“过度信任”了“普遍意志”?
Forced to be free
被迫获得自由
Trust v Confidence
信任与信心
John Gray
约翰·格雷
“ONE MODERN THINKER UNDERSTOOD THAT A STRONG STATE WAS THE PRECONDITION OF ANY CIVILISED SOCIAL ORDER. WITH HIS LONG LIFE SPANNING THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR, THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679) WAS CONVINCED THAT ONLY GOVERNMENT COULD PROVIDE SECURITY AGAINST SECTARIAN STRIFE. ANYONE WHO WANTED THE AMENITIES OF “COMMODIOUS LIVING” HAD TO SUBMIT TO A SOVEREIGN POWER, AUTHORISED TO DO WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY TO KEEP THE PEACE. OTHERWISE, AS HOBBES PUT IT IN A CELEBRATED PASSAGE IN HIS MASTERWORK LEVIATHAN (1651), THERE WOULD BE “NO ARTS, NO LETTERS, NO SOCIETY, AND, WHICH IS WORST OF ALL, CONTINUAL FEAR AND DANGER OF VIOLENT DEATH, AND THE LIFE OF MAN SOLITARY, POOR, NASTY, BRUTISH, AND SHORT”.
“一位现代思想家明白,一个强大的国家是任何文明社会秩序的先决条件。托马斯·霍布斯(THOMAS HOBBES,1588-1679)的一生跨越了英国内战,他坚信只有政府才能提供安全保障,抵御宗派冲突。任何想要享受“奢侈生活”的人都必须服从一个主权国家,这个权力被授权做任何必要的事情来维持和平。否则,正如霍布斯在他的杰作 《利维坦 》(1651)中的一段著名话中所说的那样,将会“没有艺术,没有文字,没有社会,而且,最糟糕的是,持续的恐惧和对暴力死亡的危险,以及人类孤独、贫穷、肮脏、野蛮和 短暂的生活”。
HOBBES HAS BEEN CRITICISED BY LIBERALS FOR NEGLECTING THE NECESSITY OF PROTECTION FROM THE STATE – A NEED THAT WAS CLEAR IN THE 20TH CENTURY, WHEN THE WORST CRIMES WERE THE WORK OF TOTALITARIAN REGIMES. BUT ONE NEED NOT ACCEPT ALL OF HOBBES’S POLITICAL THEORY, WITH ITS FICTITIOUS STATE OF NATURE AND SOCIAL CONTRACT, TO SEE THAT HE CAPTURED SOME ENDURING REALITIES THAT LIBERALS HAVE CHOSEN TO FORGET. THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT – DEMOCRATIC OR DESPOTIC, MONARCHICAL OR REPUBLICAN – IS LESS IMPORTANT THAN ITS CAPACITY TO DELIVER PEACE. AT THE PRESENT TIME, IT IS NOT THE STATE BUT THE WEAKNESS OF THE STATE THAT IS THE GREATER DANGER TO FREEDOM.”
霍布斯一直受到自由主义者的批评,因为他忽视了保护免受国家侵害的必要性——这种需求在20世纪很明显,当时最严重的罪行是极权主义政权的工作。但是,人们不需要接受霍布斯的所有政治理论,以及其虚构的自然状态和社会契约,就能看出他捕捉到了一些自由主义者选择忘记的持久现实。政府的形式——民主的或专制的,君主制的还是共和的——不如其实现和平的能力重要。目前,对自由的更大危险不是国家,而是国家的软弱。“
Social Contract theory presumed the Sexual Contract
社会契约理论假定了性契约
Man as Citizen Contractor
作为公民承包商的人
Man as Employer
作为雇主的男人
Man as Husband
男人作为丈夫
Historically, the formal and legal Marital Contract was similar to Employment Contract, with woman the weaker party, and man as the head of the family, except that with an employment contract, up until relatively recently in history, a living wage was required. In the sexual contract, slavery was a much better analogy. Women were still beings whose rights were determined by status, without full “legal personality”
从历史上看,正式和合法的婚姻合同类似于雇佣合同,女性是弱势的一方,男性是一家之主,只是有雇佣合同,直到历史上相对较新的时期,才需要生活工资。在性契约中,奴隶制是一个更好的类比。妇女仍然是其权利由地位决定的生物,没有完全的“法律人格”
Contract as Promoting Autonomy
合同是促进自治的手段
A Legal Contract requires the contractors be acting voluntarily and to be qualify as ‘legal persons’.
法律合同要求承包商自愿行事,并具有“法人”资格。
For humans this entails being:
对于人类来说,这意味着:
Rational
合理的
Competent
主管
Adult
成人
Women historically didn’t qualify as ‘legal persons’.
从历史上看,妇女没有资格成为“法人”。
Maori historically didn’t qualify as ‘legal persons’.
毛利人在历史上没有资格成为“法人”。
Children didn’t qualify and still don’t.
孩子们没有资格,现在仍然没有。
(the concepts of status, state ‘paternalism’ and personality will
(地位、国家“家长式”和人格意志的概念
be considered in depth later)
稍后再深入考虑)
Contract as wielding of State Power
作为国家权力运用的合同
(Concepts around markets, Pareto optimality of distribution through the ‘invisible hand’ of individual decisions, market failures due to externalities, transaction costs, free riders pblms, etc, will come later)
(围绕市场的概念、通过个人决策的“看不见的手”进行的分配帕累托最优性、外部性导致的市场失灵、交易成本、搭便车的 pblm 等,将在后面介绍)
MODERN APPROACHES/CRITIQUES OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
社会契约论的现代方法/批判
JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE (1972)
约翰·罗尔斯,《正义论》(1972)
THE ORIGINAL POSITION AND VEIL OF IGNORANCE
无知的原始立场和面纱
PUBLIC REASON
公开理由
ROBERT NOZICK, ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA (1975)
罗伯特·诺齐克,《无政府状态、国家与乌托邦》(1975)
LIBERTARIAN NIGHT WATCHMAN STATE
自由意志主义守夜人国家
FEMINIST ARGUMENTS:
女权主义论点:
CAROL PATEMAN, THE SEXUAL CONTRACT (1988)
卡罗尔·帕特曼,《性契约》(1988)
SUSAN OKIN
苏珊·奥金
RACE-CONSCIOUS ARGUMENTS
具有种族意识的论点
KIMBERLE CRENSHAW
金伯尔·克伦肖