论文部分内容阅读
效法西方国家立宪是后发现代国家的通例却往往效果不彰,如何诊断这一现代病就变得非常关键。凯尔森的基础规范概念为此提供了重要工具。文章由此出发,先是批判性重述这一理论,认为凯尔森内容中立的基础规范无法胜任从实然向应然转换的功能;进而探讨基础规范证立所经历的三阶段,这实际上构成了立宪转型的内在逻辑结构;之后考察49年《共同纲领》的立宪实践。最后再次回到立宪转型之功能,当代思想中有两个与之相对应的典型范式:契约合意与商讨合意。在检讨了康德所代表的契约合意论之后,文章最终指出,通过商讨合意来实现立宪转型是更为优选的理论范式。
To follow the example of the constitutional rule of the western countries, it is often ineffective to find the common law of the country and how to diagnose this modern disease becomes very crucial. Kelsen’s foundational concepts provide an important tool for this. Starting from this, the article begins with a critical restatement of this theory, believing that the fundamental norms of Kelsen’s content neutrality are not competent to transform from reality to reality. Then, the three phases of the basic normative justification are explored, The constitutional transformation of the internal logic of the constitution; after 49 years of “common program” of the constitutional practice. Finally, once again returned to the constitutional transformation of the function of contemporary thought there are two corresponding to the typical paradigm: contract agreement and negotiation agreeable. After reviewing the contractual agreement theory represented by Kant, the article finally points out that it is a more preferable theoretical paradigm to realize the constitutional transition through negotiation and agreement.