不再壟斷政治性的現代國家－論Carl Schmitt如何轉化Weber的政治性和國家概念

Modern State without Monopoly of the Political: How Carl Schmitt Transforms Max Weber's Concept of the Political and of State

楊尚儒(Shang-ju Yang)

《臺灣民主季刊》 18卷2期 (2021/06) Pp. 1-36

摘要

本文試圖指出Carl Schmitt對於國家和政治性的概念建構受到了Weber的影響。從Weber對於政治組織的定義可以發現，「政治性」是和暴力的行使這一特徵是連結在一起的。而國家，作為政治組織的一種類型，則被定義為是「壟斷正當物理性暴力」的政治組織。Schmitt則使用了Weber的概念，進一步把政治定義為對敵友的區分，亦即決定被施加暴力的目標群體，而國家則是必須壟斷政治性的政治統一體。此外，本文亦指出，Schmitt藉著將國家和政治性兩個概念脫鉤，以試圖釐清在國家不再能壟斷暴力之後，國際法和世界秩序的轉變。

關鍵字

Carl Schmitt ； Max Weber ； 國家 ； 政治性 ； 暴力的壟斷

並列摘要

This article attempts to contextualise how Max Weber influenced Carl Schmitt's concept of the state and the political. By looking into Weber's definition of the political association, the article firstly addresses an intimate relationship between his concept of the political and the feature of exercising violence. Under this definition, the state, as one kind of the political associations he defined, could be seen as an association that achieves ＂the monopoly of legitimate physical violence.＂ This Weberian definition of the state seems to influence how Schmitt defines the concept of the political. The article then analyses how Schmitt transformed such a Weberian definition into his concept of the political, i.e. to distinguish friends from enemies by which to decide what group is the aim of violence, and his concept of the state, i.e. a political entity that monopolises any decision from the political. The article concludes Schmitt's Weberian legacy by pointing out that Schmitt, how-ever, tried to decouple the concept of the political from the state in order to account political developments. That is, how the international law and the world order trans-form when the states can no longer hold the monopoly of exercising violence.

並列關鍵字

Carl Schmitt ； Max Weber ； state ； the political ； monopoly of violence

參考文獻

張旺山（2007）。〈韋伯的「國家」概念〉，蔡英文、張福建（主編），《現代性的政治反思》，頁 157-94。臺北市：中央硏究院中山人文社會科學硏究所。(Wahng-shan Chang [2007]. “Max Weber’s Concept of State.” In Ying-wen Tsai and Fu-kien Chang [eds.], Political Reflection of Modernity [pp. 157-94]. Taipei: Research Center for Humanities and Social Science, Academia Sinica.)

張旺山（2010）。〈論「近代國家」概念〉，林從一（主編），《哲學分析與視域交融》，頁217-48。臺北市：國立臺灣大學出版中心。(Wahng-shan Chang [2010]. “On the Concept of ‘Modern State’.” In Chung-i Lin [ed.], Phiosophical Analysis and Fusion of Horizons [pp. 217-48]. Taipei: Research Center for Humanities and Social Science, Academia Sinica.)

楊尚儒（2017）。〈Schmitt 的思想是否可構成對普世帝國的批判？兼論「天下體系」作為一種普世帝國思想〉，《人文及社會科學集刊》，第 29 卷，第 1 期，頁 1-37。(Shang-ju Yang [2017]. “Schmitt’s Thought Offers a Criticism against the Universal Empire? On the ‘Tianxia’ System as a Concept of the Universal Empire.” Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy, Vol. 29, No. 1:1-37.)

楊尚儒（2019）。〈從國際關係到內政的理論—論 Carl Schmitt「政治性」概念的變動和 Dolf Sternberger 的評論〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》，第 68 期，頁 1-55。(Shang-ju Yang [2019]. “Across International and Domestic Political Spheres: Carl Schmitt’s Evolving Concept of ‘the Political’ and Dolf Sternberger’s Critique.” SOCIETAS: A Journal for Philosophical Study of Public Affairs, No. 68:1-55.)

江宜樺（2004）。〈台灣命運的兩種政治觀〉，《中國時報》，7 月 14 日，版 A15。(Yi-huah Jiang [2004]. “Two Political Ideas about Destiny of Taiwan.” China Times, July 14:A15.)