贡斯当的宪政思想读解

作为法国近代政治思想史上的重要代表人物,贡斯当以其对自由的深刻阐述和通过宪政保障人民权利的思想而闻名于世。通过对法国大革命及西方国家历史与现实的反思,贡斯当看到了卢梭民主思想的缺陷。他指出,任何政治权力都必须受到限制,否则就会肆意扩张。要切实保障个人自由,就必须建立“五权分立与制衡”的宪政体制,划定政治权力与个人自由的边界。     

远离神话:三权分立的缺陷与困境

三权分立与权力制约 三权分立理论的产生与体制的建立，都以制约权力为终极目标。它的内在逻辑是，只要实现权力的分立、制约与平衡，就可以达到“以权力制约权力”的目的。这一思路的合理性与可行性，一直处于人们的怀疑和批评之中。人们的质疑主要集中在两个方面：第一，三权分立是否必然带来权力制约；第二，三权分立是否是权力制约的唯一途径。     

政务公开:以权利制约权力

本文从权力制约的原则出发,以公民权利与国家权力的关系为基础,首先探讨以公民权利制约国家权力的理论基础,并研究通过公民监督制约国家权力的必要性,最后建议以政务公开的方式大力发展公民监督制度,制约国家权力,防止权力异化,确保公民权利的实现.     

孟德斯鸠与列宁权力制衡理论之比较

孟德斯鸠和列宁都主张对权力进行制衡,以避免权力过度集中带来的危害,但他们的权力制衡理论有很多不同之处。本文从权力制衡的目的、制约机制、权力制衡的主体等三个方面对两人的权力制衡理论作了初步的比较。     

权力制约的权力配置维度:从思想的成长到原则的设计

权力配置作为党的十九届四中全会在阐发完善权力制约机制时正式使用的一个概念,主要是指权力的结构安排。从权力配置的思想脉络来看,大致分为非马克思主义和马克思主义两大流派。非马克思主义权力配置思想大都包含对权力进行分解并彼此形成一定制约关系的理论逻辑。其最终以分权制衡思想模型而相对固定下来并被部分西方国家付诸实践,但其既存在固有的阶级局限性,又存在无法确保权力运行高效化的弊病。与权力配置的分权制衡模型不同,马克思主义权力配置思想更青睐"权力属于人民"原则,主张实现代议民主与人民主权的辩证统一,从而为新时代中国的权力制约实践拓宽了理论视野。就权力配置的原则设定而言,虽然马克思主义权力配置思想和非马克思主义权力配置思想存在理论分殊,不同国家的权力配置实践也无法简单移植,但是权力受限、权力法定和权力效能则是在以权力的科学配置来推进权力的有效制约时应当遵循的三个原则。     

法国大革命与费希特政治哲学的嬗变

费希特一生都在与法国大革命及其政治后果打交道,终生都在坚持大革命的理想,孜孜不倦地致力于弘扬理性王国。法国大革命高涨时期的费希特,以思想的自由、先验自我的理性原则为大革命的合理性进行辩护。法国督政府时期的费希特,以法权理论为共和制的合法性作论证,在德国古典哲学中最彻底地体现了大革命的民主原则。拿破仑对外侵略时期的费希特,为理性国家作论证,主张自由的定在与国家中的自由观念。     

对孟德斯鸠分权理论几个问题的辨析

从文本的意义上说,人们对孟德斯鸠分权学说的认识仍存有一些根本性的分歧。对这些分歧进行学理的正本清源的梳理与辨析,犹为必要:(1)孟德斯鸠分权学说的真实本意是通过权力的分立与制衡使公民的政治自由免受国家权力的侵害而得到法律的庇护。权力滥用的被制止只是分权制度达致的结果,而非其诉求的意旨。(2)孟德斯鸠对人的本性和道德能力的悲观与否定,构成分权学说的理论逻辑前提。(3)分权学说是为封建贵族的利益张目,不是为新兴资产阶级呐喊,即分权的本意是等级分权。当资产阶级夺取政权后,分权的实质就演变为国家机关内部的职能分工,文本问题就切换为应用问题。(4)分权政制其实是一种混合政体,它不是权力的绝对分立,分立中的权力其实是一种交叉混合的权力。(5)分权制度对公民自由的保护不一定要以降低行政效率为代价,它还有增强政府工作能力的“积极性”作用。(6)分权学说是否具有普适价值是一个十分复杂的问题。任何一种设计良好的政治制度,在性质上并无好坏之分,只有适合不适合之别。分权体制在中国确实存在一个适合与否的问题。但是,分权体制所折射出的一些基本原则应该具有普适的意义和价值。     

党内权力制约对策研究

当前在党内权力运行方面的最大弊端,就是实际存在的各级党委过于集中的权力长期得不到对等权力的监督和制约.其原因在于决策权、执行权、监督权三权配置不合理、不均衡,所导致的决策机关虚化,执行机关权力扩张,监督机关权力萎缩,党员权利得不到有效保障.对于党内权力制约的研究从三个方面进行探讨:一是以权力制约权力.调整党内权力架构和配置,推行党委决策、执行和监督"权力三分".二是以党员权利制约党内权力.三是以道德制约党内权力.以德行政,发挥道德在权力运行中的积极能动作用.对于有效制约权力的目的而言,这三种制约机制是相辅相成、共同作用的.     

政治文明语境中的权力监督与权力制约

对社会公共权力实行有效的监督与制约,是社会主义政治文明建设和发展的重要内容之一;权力监督与权力制约,是两个既相联系,又相区别的概念;没有不存在监督的制约,也没有不存在制约的监督,监督本身就是一种制约,制约离不开监督;监督强调的是职责与过程,制约强调的是功能与结果;有效的权力监督与权力制约机制,包括动力机制、督促机制、发现机制、追责机制、惩处机制、劝戒机制、纠正机制。     

民主政治:实现权力制约的根本途径

正尽管对权力的制约有不少模式和途径,但是,追根溯源,权力制约的根基,还在于民主政治。民主政治包含了权力制约的基本理念和制度。公共权力所有者与行使者分离的内在矛盾,决定了权力所有者应该对权力行使者进行制约。只有通过民主政治建设,才能从根本上实现对权力的制约。一、民主政治包含了权力制约的基本理念民主政治并不是像西方所说的那样,它的实质应是"多数人统治"的政治或"人民主权"的政治,其精神就是主权在民,就是由人民来决定国家事务或公共事务。当人民能够真正决定国家事务或公共事务的时候,既表明民主政治     

强镇扩权背景下县镇权力配置、运行的偏差与优化--对于浙江省N市强镇扩权案例的实证分析

强镇扩权的核心内容是通过放权赋予试点镇与县级政府相同的经济社会管理权限，但从其权力下放过程来看，县镇之间的权力配置和运作与现实需要、制度文本之间均存在着偏差。引发权力下放中县镇权力配置、运行偏差的原因不仅有放权的法律限度、更有其利益动机及其所契入的地方治理权力架构等。优化强镇扩权背景下县镇两级权力配置及其运行，是一项系统工程，应以完善的分权制度安排为主要手段，以必要的监督约束机制为补充，改善包括分权逻辑、放权原则、考核体制机制在内的整体性制度设计。     

Judicial policy‐making in the Netherlands: The case‐by‐case method

The Dutch judiciary is modelled on the French one and places a premium on the separation of powers. One manifestation of this adherence to the strict separation of powers is the prohibition against judicial review. Judges in the ordinary courts, however, have since early in this century given broad interpretations to statutes becoming significant policy‐makers in Dutch politics because of the system of coalition governments. Laws are drafted in vague terms, leaving interpretation to the courts, and issues on which there is no possibility of political compromise find resolution only in the judicial forum.     

Pierre-Louis Rœderer and the Debate on Forms of Government in Revolutionary France

The French Revolution raised the problem of how to construct a modern republic under conditions of acute political conflict. The debate over the forms of government was at its most intense before the outbreak of the Terror in 1793, when there seemed to be no alternative to instituting a republic, but there was serious disagreement over what this entailed. The problem was considered in terms of the political thought of Hobbes, Locke, Bayle, Voltaire, Helvetius, Montesquieu, Rousseau and Sieyès. The urgent political and constitutional need to reconcile accountable with effective government was central to the use made of both inherited and new ideas about the republican form of government. This parallels Madison's concern to reconcile accountable with effective government during the constitutional debates of the American Revolution.     

马克思主义权力观下建构防止利益冲突制度

腐败发生的重要根源在于公职人员的利益冲突,利益冲突的重要根源在于公职人员权力观的错位。树立“权为民所赋,权为民所用”的马克思主义权力观,从制度层面上规范和监督公共权力的运行过程,通过合理的制度安排使公共权力与私人利益相分离,从而阻断公职人员以权谋私的通道,最终达到预防腐败的目的。     

Decentralising France: How the socialists discovered pluralism

Reversing European trends toward the consolidation of local government and the imposition of stronger central controls, the French Socialist government undertook a major legislative programme to restructure French local government. This experience is examined in the light of early Socialist commitment to municipal Socialism and their return to power in the Fifth Republic using their local power base. Local reform posed three dilemmas for the Socialists: how to avoid turning local government over to the extreme left or autogestion forces in the party; how to meet the economic demands of locally elected officials without losing fiscal and financial control; and how to enhance decision‐making powers of elected officials at all three levels (municipal, département and region) while also achieving managerial reforms. Their pluralist response was a pragmatic blend of political, economic and budgetary concessions. Participation was enhanced by vigorous efforts to revive voluntary associations; contractual arrangements were devised to put economic programmes for unemployed youth, the elderly and industrial assistance more squarely in local hands; and new managerial methods were coupled to limits on prefectoral powers and budgetary initiatives. The reforms offer important new opportunities for the growth of local government while confirming Socialist dedication to republican ideals.     

The Appointments Dilemma

In a separation of powers political system, effective bureaucratic control may be undermined by the fact that the power to appoint bureaucrats is controlled by a different set of principals from those that may control them through statutory or budgetary means. In particular, executives have proposal power over bureaucratic appointments and removals while legislators have proposal power over laws. In this article, I explore the consequences of this division of authority for bureaucratic outcomes. I argue that this pattern of authority often produces outcomes inferior to those generated when appointment, removal, and legislative powers are centralized as is the case in many parliamentary systems. The model reveals that restricting executive removal power can mitigate these problems. Finally, I discuss the relevance of this appointments dilemma for bargaining over bureaucratic structures with a focus on removal powers, independent commissions, and civil service rules .     

The modern revolutions of Iran: Civil society and state in the modernization process

This paper concerns two major transformations in the modern history of Iran: the Constitutional Revolution of 1905–1909 and the Islamic Revolution of 1977–1979. It focuses on the interplay of clergy, bazaris and state in making the two modern revolutions if Iran. The paper addresses a core question: why the clergy did not take political power in the Constitutional Revolution when Iran was a traditional society, yet succeed in doing so in a modern Iran (1977–1979)? It concerns largely questions of continuity and change of social institutions during a period of rapid authoritative modernization that significantly influenced the constellation of power between civil society and state} As a result of rapid modernization, traditional civil society, which was based on strong ties between the Shi'i clergy and the bazaris, drastically change and marginalized. Modern socio‐economic and administrative developments and the creation of new social groups, in turn, contributed to the formation of a modern civil society which periodically played a significant role in the political life of Iran. Socio‐economic changes brought about by Pahlavi Shahs’ (1924–1979) through rapid and authoritative modernization created new urban social groups who became important factors in making the Islamic Revolution of 1977–1979. In particular, the urban marginal groups, ‘the dispossessed’, engaged infrequent confrontations with authorities, and provided the radical clergy with a ‘social army’ for revolutionary mobilization and dominant influence.     

The free French secret services: Intelligence and the politics of republican legitimacy

The improvised nature of the French political and military entities established in London in 1940 makes the study of relations between the Free French military secret services and political leadership particularly delicate. After initially attempting to respect the traditional separation between military and political authority that had prevailed under the Third Republic, the role of the Free French secret services was progressively politicised by the exigencies of a clandestine war. Moreover, increasingly tense relations between certain leaders of the Resistance inside France and the leadership of the Gaullist secret services, along with preparations for the political reconstruction of France after the war, resulted in a war of successive decrees pertaining to the place of the intelligence services within the government hierarchy. The end result was that the secret services were placed under true direct civilian control. This marked a radical modification of the traditional system which had prevailed during the Third Republic. Free French leader Charles de Gaulle approved of this modification but never appeared to attach great importance to matters relating to the organisation and functioning of the intelligence services.     

五四时期知识分子加速革命化的原因探析

五四运动由知识分子率先发起,在中国近现代史上具有举足轻重的作用,一方面知识分子推动着五四运动不断向前发展,另一方面五四运动也不断加速了知识分子的革命化。五四时期知识分子加速革命化的原因到底是什么,本文归纳为以下四点:一是辛亥革命未能解决中国社会进步问题;二是帝国主义列强的行径激化了民族矛盾;三是新文化运动赋予文化人新思想新视野;四是十月革命给了知识分子新希望新方向。     

India going nuclear: A bomb against China?

As China and India were gradually repairing their relations since the late 1980s, India’s nuclear tests in May 1998 caused a major setback for the improvement of the bilateral relationship. By discussing the question whether New Delhi is developing the bomb against China or not, this article attempts to shed some light on the strategic fallouts of the Indian nuclear tests for Sino-Indian relations and South Asian security. It is argued that despite measurable improvements in Sino-Indian relations in recent years, the two nations still view each other as geo-strategic rivals. The major motivation for New Delhi’s bomb decision was that it had felt increasingly uncomfortable with the power asymmetry between India and China and it wanted to sit as equal as China at the table of world powers by declaring itself a nuclear weapons state. His teaching and research interests include East Asian international relations, Chinese foreign policy and national security.