本文旨在探討霍布斯的主權國家理論及其疑難,如何經盧梭的人民主權學說影響了鮑桑葵和柯靈烏對於國家意志和政治行動的理解。以授權代表說為本,霍布斯主張國家人格須藉主權代表的意志與行動才可再現。但盧梭宣稱,主權意志無法經代表再現,故除了全體人民組成的議會外,沒有任何政府機關或統治者可僭稱為主權者。由此,主權是否可在不經代表再現的情形下實際進行治理活動、具體發揮統治作用,便是霍布斯和盧梭兩人存留下來的一項理論疑難。以此疑難出發,本文將指出,鮑桑葵和柯靈烏即分從「意志構造論」和「具現行動論」的角度就主權國家的臨現進行論說,隨而揭示了主權國家理論從意志論範式向結構論和行動論轉變的發展。
This article aims to discuss how Hobbes's theory of the sovereign state and its puzzles have, through Rousseau's doctrine of popular sovereignty, influenced Bosanquet's and Collingwood's conceptions of the will of the state and political action. On the basis of his 'authorisation-representation' thesis, Hobbes claims that the person of the state has to be represented by the sovereign representative to will and act. However, Rousseau counters that the sovereign's will cannot be represented, except by the assembly of the whole people, hence no government or ruler can arrogate the name of the sovereign. In virtue of this difference between Hobbes and Rousseau, the issue of whether sovereignty can be present in the course of ruling and governing without representatives or not is a puzzle which thus remains for scholars and thinkers. Taking the puzzle as the starting point, this article argues that Bosanquet and Collingwood have proposed a theory of the organisation of the will of the state and a theory of the actualisation of the state in action respectively to disclose the presence of the sovereign state, and the thesis of the will as a paradigm of theorising the sovereign state has thus been developed and transformed.