如何證成新政權統治之正當性：馬區蒙特‧尼德姆與承諾服從爭論

政治服從學說從過往的天命說或血統論，到近代的人民同意論，不論內容如何變遷，都涉及統治者與受治者雙方如何面對權力移轉之處境。尼德姆（Marchamont Nedham）在英格蘭政治體制丕變，從王政到共和之際，其主要著作《為英格蘭共和國辯護》奠定共和國統治論述之基礎。本文分析尼德姆如何透過政治神學證成共和國統治的事實論（de facto theory）與法理論（de jure theory）之雙重基礎。本文主張尼德姆對此時期論述的重要貢獻，在於因應局勢變遷，透過神意論（providencialism），將議會政府的統治論述從事實論轉向法理論。尼德姆引入神意論替共和國尋找新的統治基礎－根據自然法的自保原則及政治神學上的論證、統治體制之優劣比較等，指出人民應當服從並效忠由神賦予權柄的英格蘭共和國。

關鍵字

尼德姆；承諾服從爭論；事實論；法理論；神意論

並列摘要

This article examines the context of Marchamont Nedham's works concerning the Engagement Controversy and attempts to demonstrate the transformation of the ideal of political legality and legitimacy during the Interregnum. In 1649, the Commonwealth of England proclaimed herself a commonwealth and free state by the supreme authority of the nation, i.e., the representatives of the people in Parliament. Nevertheless, contemporaries questioned by what right the new ruler, the House of Commons, could transfer the supreme authority from the hands of the King and the Houses into its hands. Nedham's main contribution to the controversy was that he provided a new theory of political order and ruling combining the laws of nature, political reality, religious faith, and reviewing different constitutions. This article shows that he added de jure theory to the controversy instead of de facto theory alone. Contrary to monarchy, which was based on the English political tradition, the newly established republican government constructed a new theory to support its legality and legitimacy of rule based on laws of war, republicanism, and providentialism. His political thought defines a new argument of the legitimacy of governing through the theory of consent and the republicanism.

並列關鍵字

Marchamont Nedham ； Engagement Controversy ； de facto theory ； de jure theory ； providentialism

參考文獻

Andeweg, Rudy B. and Jacques J. A. Thomassen. 2005 “Modes of Political Representation: Toward a New Typology,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30(4): 507-528.

Briggs, Herbert W. 1939. “De Facto and De Jure Recognition: The Arantzazu Mendi,” The American Journal of International Law 33(4): 689-699.

Hoekstra, Kinch. 2004. “The De Facto Turn in Hobbes's Political Philosophy,” in Tom Sorell and Luc Foisneau eds., Leviathan after 350 Years. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 33-73.

Holmes, Clive. 2010. “The Trial and Execution of Charles I,” The Historical Journal 53(2): 289-316.

Kelsey, Sean. 2004. “Politics and Procedure in the Trial of Charles I,” Law and History Review 22(1): 1-25.

國際替代計量

如何證成新政權統治之正當性：馬區蒙特‧尼德姆與承諾服從爭論

全文下載

主題瀏覽