热度 3||
(自由圣火首发稿)
文章摘要: 法治是指国家按照既定的法律原则、规则、标准和程序,对全体社会成员,按公平平等原则,同等适用、规范、处理和审理一切社会、政治、经济、法律、文化、宗 教等事务和交易的实体和程序规则的总称。任何人包括国王或总统及国家本身均不得超越法律并受到法律的同等制约、约束与保护,任何人在法律面前一律平等,任 何人违法一律受到独立司法审判的同等追究,法律高于并约束任何个人、团体、国王、总统、议员、立法者和国家本身。法治旨在制止任意决定权的滥用,以保护个 体权利不受非法侵害。在流氓专制暴政下决不可能有任何法治生存的馀地,而中共政权则是个如假包换的流氓专制暴政!
作者 : 郭国汀,
发表时间:7/13/2009
温家宝在答记者问中共当局将如何处理胡佳案时称:“我国是个法治国家,中国政府将依法处理胡佳案”。随后胡佳即因六篇博客文章,被中共暴政枉法重判三年 半!近日外交部发言人秦刚同样在新闻发布会上称:“中国是个法治国家,中国政府会依法处理刘晓波案”,预计刘晓波将因20馀篇博文及《零八宪章》被流氓暴 政以文字狱枉法重判。
日前,民运理论家徐水良先生在驳斥刘路有关“石首暴徒”的谬论时却称:“法制是法治赖以指导行动的抽象的制度层面,法治是法制赖以贯彻的具体的行动(治 理)层面。两者互为依存,不可分割”;“任何法律体系,都会有法治和法制两个方面。不可能单独存在没有法治的法制;”“任何现实社会都不可能只有法治,没 有人治;或者只有人治,没有法治”;“说中国没有法治,实际上只是说,中国是法治服从人治的专制社会,而不是人治服从法治的文明社会”。“中国…怎么是没 有“法治”[1]
按徐先生之论,任何国家在任何时侯都有法治,中共国也有法治。不过,徐先生并未说明什么是“法治”?他称“法制赖以贯彻的具体的行动(治理)层面” 即是法治,但该行动(治理)到底为何物?令人不知其所云。事实上,徐先生的法治观,倒很象法律外行的逻辑推论,与法治的实际含义相去甚远。至于徐先生指责 他人论及法治都是“低水准的学者”,我实在看不出徐先生的高明之处,尽管徐先生可能是民运人士中理论水准较高的一位。
那么到底什么是法治?中共专制暴政下是否有法治?法治与法制之间的关系到底如何?
一、法治的定义
任何争论首先必须界定争论主题,明确其定义,否则难免各自说东辩西,公婆互相有理,形同鸡对鸭讲,以致离题万里。
首先从词源上看,法治据称转译自日文,而英文原文至少有如下用语:“The rule of law” [法律的统治(简称法治)] ,“supremacy of law”[法律至上],“legal state” [法律国家];美国法学界多用“ government under law”[法律的管制],“government of laws and not of men”[法律的而非人的管制],“due
process of law”[正当程序法],取代“法律的统治(法治)称谓。据此,大体上可知[法治]一词有其特定的含义,主要指法律的统治,法律至上,法律的管制。强调和 突出的是法律的至高无上。
其次,从众多法学家给法治下的各种定义,我们可以进一步了解法治的具体含义。
“法治(法律的统治),亦称做法律至上,这一法律格言是指,判决必须按照已知的原则或法律做出,其适用不受任意裁决权(自由决定权)的干预。该格言旨在防范统治者的专制。而‘专制’一词源于拉丁语,表明某一裁决是按照裁决者的任意,而非根据法治做出”[2]。
“法律统治(法治)术语在英国法中的原始含义是指个体不得超越法律,意指政府行为应当符合某种事先确定的标准。如今,就政府的行为而言,法治概念通常由司法审查明确。它指政府的决定,必须透明并符合由一个独立的机构(法院)事先确定的标准”。[3]
“法律的统治或法律至上(即法治),是议会至上的第二层次的含义;美国学者则乐于用“法律的管制”、法律的管制而非人的管制”或“正当程序法”取代“法律的统治”。法治一词是戴西首创,但可以追溯到中世纪之“法律应当统治”。[4]
“法治乃涉及通过事先确立的和众所周知的法律,调整国家与个人之间关系的规则。国家与个人一样,受法律管制,必须受法律制约并服从法律。国家服从法律的义务,是法治生存的核心。若无此种义务,国家针对个人的权力便不能被有效限制”。[5]
“法治的进一步要求乃是必须遵守法律。任何人,无论其地位身份如何,无论是公民个人,还是政府官员或是议员,均必须遵守法律。而任何违反法律的人,必须提交法院依法审判。用戴西的话说即:‘任何人不得超越法律’”。[6]
“首先,法治规定法律高于政府和个人。简言之,有一个高于一切的法律。其次,法治要求创设和维护那些保护和包含规范化次序更为一般原则的实际制定法。法治 的第三方面的内容乃是,所有公共的权力必须有其法律规则的最终渊源。质言之,国家和个体之间的关系必须受法律的制约”。[7]
“法治或法律至上是指一种政治观念,要求政治社区当局在授权结构范围内,按既定程序,已知的法律规则和标准,行使权力,对于那些受法律制约的人创设某种合理的期望”。[8]
Ivor Jennings勋爵指出:“法治仅是指存在法律和秩序,并意味着在一个政治社会中,基于某种法律体制,而非否认法律的无政府状态。质言之,法律关系取代了暴力关系”。[9]
“法治是指法律的管制而非人的管制的原则;即便国王也不能高于法律;有某种更高的法律,所有的法律和法规若要被视为合法必须进行调整;它是管制管理者的法律”。[10]
“法治国家是指承认作为立法者创制的法律规范,约束其作为行政部门本身的国家”。[11]
“法治的中心意思乃是法律统治或法律至上,所有的统治或权力必须源于正当颁布实施的法律或业已确定的法律”。[12]
“法治是管制管理者的法律”[13]。
“人民应当受法律的管理并服从法律”。[14]
“在法律内以及在法律面前的平等”。[15]
“在法律的眼睛里我们全部是平等的”。[16]
“国王不在任何人之下,但在上帝和法律之下”。[17]
“传统的英国和欧洲大陆版本的法治拒绝任何针对公共权力的绝对保护”[18]。
凯斯给法治的定义乃是:“立法必须限制在处理个体权利时的行政和司法权”。[19]
“法治的基础在于约束法官于法律之下,并使行政部门从属于法律”。[20]
“法官不仅是法律的仆人,而且是法律的监护人。这也是为何司法应当独立的理由”。[21]
“法治是指个人,群体和政府均应服从和顺服法律的管理,而不受任何个人或团体的任意行为的制约”。[22]
“法治要求司法裁决,必须由一个不受政府行政或立法部门影响或压力的独立法院做出”。[23]"
法治在“依据法律的正义”意义上更能保护权利和确保正义。[24]
“人民并非法律的仆人,但法律是人民的仆人,除非法律向人民提供恰当的服务,人民不会,也不应该,更不能服从该法律”。[25]
从上述与法治有关的定义,可见法治概念的内含极为丰富,包括叁方面的内容,一是有关个人团体国王的权利地位:(1)任何人不得超越法律,政府行为须符合既 定的法律;(2)在法律内及在法律面前人人平等;(3)国王不在任何人之下,但在上帝和法律之下,国王不能高于法律;(4)个人,团体和政府均应服从和顺 服法律的管理,而不受任何人的任意行为的制约;(5)国家与个人一样,必须受法律管制,制约并服从法律;(6)任何人,无论其地位身份如何,无论是公民个 人,还是政府官员或议员或总统,均必须遵守法律;;(7)法律高于政府和个人,国家和个体之间的关系须受法律制约;(8)任何违反法律的人,必须提交法院 依法审判。二是对权力法官政府和国家的约束:(1)立法者制定的法律,约束国家本身;(2)所有的统治或权力须源于正当颁布实施的法律或业已确定的法律; (3)判决必须按照已知的原则或法律做出,旨在限制任意裁决权;(4)法律的管制,是管制管理者的法律(5)拒绝绝对保护公共权力;(6)法律关系取代暴 力关系;(7)法律至上,但法律是人民的仆人;(8)约束法官于法律之下,并使行政部门从属于法律。三是按既定程序调整:(1)通过事先确立的和众所周知 的法律,调整国家与个人之间关系的规则:(2)当局在授权范围内,按既定程序,已知的法律规则行使权力。
据此,我的定义是:法治是指国家按照既定的法律原则、规则、标准和程序,对全体社会成员,按公平平等原则,同等适用、规范、处理和审理一切社会、政治、经 济、法律、文化、宗教等事务和交易的实体和程序规则的总称。任何人包括国王或总统及国家本身均不得超越法律并受到法律的同等制约、约束与保护,任何人在法 律面前一律平等,任何人违法一律受到独立司法审判的同等追究,法律高于并约束任何个人、团体、国王、总统、议员、立法者和国家本身。法治旨在制止任意决定 权的滥用,以保护个体权利不受非法侵害。
二、流氓专制暴政下根本没有法治生存的馀地
根据该定义,中共专制暴政下显然不可能有法治。徐先生论断中国存在法治之说弄错了对象,因为徐先生误将法治视为含义不明的“行动(治理)层面”的东西,这 似乎不是法学界讨论争辩的法治内含。尽管徐先生之论,纯从逻辑上看,似乎有理。但是,法治并非出自讲究逻辑推理演译法的大陆法系,而是源于判例归纳法的英 美法系;因此,法治并非逻辑的产物,而是西方政治学和司法经验的创制物。确切地说,法治甚至不是西方文化的产物,而仅是英国历史和其司法审判实践的独特创 制物。因此徐水良中共国有法治之论断恐怕很难成立。
“法治”一词是1892年,由英国法学家戴西首次提出,尽管法治的部分观念早在两千三百年前的古希腊雅典的伯拉图和亚里士多德便已提出,伯拉图在其《论法律》中指出:“人的统治或在政治社会中的人类至上应受到谴责,因为人性使得人拥有管理一切的专制独裁权力时,完全不能控制人类避免变成自高自大傲慢无礼和不公不义”。[1]他确认法治乃“人类内心某种不朽的理性或理解之治”。[2]这里伯拉图明显否定人治,而赞赏法律至上。亚里士多德认同法治,他写道:“法律应当统治”,那些“当权者应当成为法律的仆人” 。[3] 由此可见亚氏连用语也非常接近现代法治之“法律的统治”和法律至上。但是,真正将法治发展成为切实可行的制度并付诸行政和司法实践的是英国。从严格意义上说, 现代法治并非西方文化的产物,而是英国历史与司法实践独特的创制物,而且法治观念与法治实践也非一回事。但是非完全意义上的法治观念,也非纯属西方独 有,12世纪时便有伊斯兰法学家主张:“任何官员包括哈里发(caliph即教主和统治者)均不得超越法律”[26]。有学者论证:法治源于西方政治学和 西方文明,东方历史上虽然有法制,却没有法治精神。事实上法治起源于《旧约》,是由基督教推向世俗社会的。[27]
中国历史上刑事法律相当发达完备,从秦律到大唐律至大清律,法条详尽细致,但由于历朝历代皇权统治者始终重农轻商,重集体轻个人,导致中国法制史 中几乎没有任何值得一提的商法、民法,甚至没有公、私法的概念,至于程序法也几乎等于零。事实上,在民国以前,中国甚至从来没有法院,也没有律师。行政权 与司法权是由县太爷合二为一,而县官审理案件,主要靠刑讯逼供间或运用智慧,而从未依据诉讼程序规则,因此中国历史上从未有过法治观念也就不足为奇。“刑 不上大夫”是我国古代耳熟能详的法律原则,“朕就是法律”则是古代皇帝一以贯之的法律原则,皇帝的自由决定权任意决定臣民的生死富贵,皇权至上,法律仅是 约束制约臣民的工具,皇帝与国民的关系是主子与奴仆的关系,那有半点法治精神?至于毛泽东的“最高指示”本质上与帝王的圣旨并无二致,只不过远比历朝历代 皇帝更为拙劣、蛮横和残暴罢了。因此,可以断言1911年以前,中国历史上从未有过任何实质意义上的法治,至于是否有过零星的法治观念南郭孤陋寡闻迄今未 闻;
1911年至1949年期间确有不完全意义上的法治,从国民政府法院审判共党总书记陈独秀案可以印证当时的中国司法独立货真价实。共党的武装判乱,构成“ 非法暴力颠复合法政府罪”至为明显,然而作为犯罪集团首犯的陈独秀,不但得到公开公正的审判,而且获得强有力的律师抗辩,当局既未阻止妨碍或威胁辩护律 师,也未制止封杀陈案的新闻报导,最终陈独秀居然仅判四年徒刑。足以证实民国法官的独立审判权货真价实。
1949年迄今,法治在台湾继续发杨光大,日益完善,台湾的司法公正有目共睹,前总统陈水扁因涉嫌贪污受贿而受到独立公正的司法追究即是明证。而中国大陆 则自中共依赖非法暴力加欺骗手段盗国窃政之日始,法治从未有过,民国原有之法治则早已荡然无存。如今中共宪法虽然明定要建设法治国家,中共党魁及党用文人 也口口声声称中国是个法治国家,但皆属自欺欺人的梦呓。特别是自胡锦涛专权以来,中共暴政日益流氓化,而流氓最典型的特征之一正是根本不讲法律、道理、原 则、规则,唯耍流氓耳!因此,在流氓专制暴政下决不可能有任何法治生存的馀地,而中共政权则是个如假包换的流氓专制暴政!
三、法治与法制之间的关系
法治与法制两者一字之差,实质相差万里;前者指法律的统治的简称亦叫做法律至上,与“依法治理”含义并不相同,乃自由人权宪政民主社会的一项前提条件;后 者是法律制度的简称,即便专制极权暴政也可能有法制;与法治对应的词乃是人治而非法制。法治除了法律至上之义外,含有法律(包括修改或废除法律的规则)是 恒定的、众所周知的(至少是可知的)、及普遍适用的三大要素,因此法律面前人人平等、法律至上、任何人不得超越法律为其题中之义。法制只不过是依法处理争 议纠纷有法可依之意,充其量仅有依法治理之意,主要指法律工具主义;至于法律是否恒定,是否国民能知道或是否普遍适用则无关紧要;法制也不含有法律面前人 人平等,国王与平民同等适用法律,或法律至上的含义。因此,特权阶级与普通国民分别享受不同的法律待遇、朝令夕改、厚此薄彼、依秘密潜规则处理各种事务, 在法制社会乃家常便餐,政府或当权集团任意破坏法律司空见贯;凡此种种在法治社会则完全不可能。因为法治社会那怕总统犯罪也同样受到同等法律追究,而法制 社会绝不存在国王与平民同罪之概念。中共专制暴政充其量有法制而绝无法治。法治概念有别于法制(用法律统治),用李书光教授的话来说:“两者的区别在于:在法治下,法律是超群的、卓越的,并可以起到制约权力滥用的作用;而在法制下,法律仅能作为政府的一种合法方式镇压的工具”。[i] 因此,胡、温及秦刚辈信口胡说中国是“法治国家”,纯属法盲的瞎扯,或是公然强 暴国民意志的谎言。而徐水良君的法治与法制论则恐怕搞错了对象。
2009年7月12日第175个反中共极权专制暴政争自由人权民主绝食争权抗暴民权运动日
_____________________________________
[1]徐水良,“驳刘路的两个谬论兼批夸大法治、贬低法制等谬论”,博讯2009年6月29日:“法制和法治讲的是法律体系的不同方面,法制讲制度层面, 法治讲行动(治理)层面。法制是法治赖以指导行动的抽象的制度层面,法治是法制赖以贯彻的具体的行动层面。两者互为依存,不可分割。法制,是法治得以进行 的前提和基础;而法治,必须中心法制、服从法制。法治不能离开法制,否则,法治就不成其为法治。法制也不能离开法治,否则,法制就只是一纸空文。任何法律 体系,都会有法治和法制两个方面。不可能单独存在没有法治的法制,因为没有法治、没有实际执行法制,法制就停留在空想,不成为法制。没有法制的法治,没有 法制为指导为依据,法治也就根本不存在。实际上,任何现实社会都不可能只有法治,没有人治;或者只有人治,没有法治。问题只是谁服从谁的问题。人治服从法 治,还是法治服从人治,区分了现代文明社会和野蛮专制社会。因此,说中国没有法治,实际上只是说,中国是法治服从人治的专制社会,而不是人治服从法治的文 明社会。中国的法律体系每天都在运转,政府、公安、检察、法院,每天都在根据它们自己的需要或人治的需要,引用法律条文,进行治理,怎么是没有“法治”? 不过这种法治服从于人治,人治可以否定法治而已。实际上,无论是法治和人治,还是法治和法制,都是不可能完全分割开来的,都只能互相依赖而存在的”。
[2] The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, is a
general legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying
known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion in their
application. This maxim is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary
governance. The word "arbitrary" (from the Latin "arbiter")
signifies a judgment made at the discretion of the arbiter, rather than
according to the rule of law.
[3] The original meaning of the Rule of Law phrase in
English law was that no individual should be "above" the law-meaning
that governmental actions should be accountable to some set of predetermined
standards. Today, with respect to actions initiated by government, the ROL idea
is usually manifested by judicial review. It means that government decisions
must be transparent and accountable to predetermined standards applied by an
independent body, probably a court.
[4] It may be traced back to the medieval notion that law
ought to rule。(Beinart, B. The Rule of Law,
Acta Juridica(1962)p 99。)“the
rule or supremacy of the law was the second main feature, in addition to the
sovereignty of parliament, American writers, usually do not use the expression
and prefer phrases such as "government under law", or
"government of laws and not of men", or "due process of
law".
[5] The rule of law refers to the regulation of the
relationship between the state and individuals by pre-established and knowable
laws. The state, no less than the individuals it governs, must be subject to
and obey the law. The state’s obligation to obey the law is central to the very
existence of the rule of law. Without this obligation, there would be no
enforceable limit on the state’s power over individuals...." (Hitzig)
[6] A further consequence of the Rule of Law is that the
law must be observed. Every person, whatever his position or status, must do
so, whether he be a private citizen or a member of government or of parliament,
and those who transgress the law must be brought to book according to law as
adjudicated upon by the courts. "No man is above the law" states
Dicey
[7] First, that the rule of law provides that the law is
supreme over the acts of both government and private persons. There is, in
short, one law for all. Second, ... the rule of law requires the creation and
maintenance of an actual order of positive laws which preserves and embodies
the more general principle of normative order". ... A third aspect of the
rule of law is ... that "the exercise of all public power must find its
ultimate source in a legal rule. Put another way, the relationship between the
state and the individual must be regulated by law." (Re References re
Secession of Quebec)
[8] (Kenneth
Henley ,The Impersonal Rule of Law, 5 Can. J. L. & Jurisprudence (1992)
pages, 299) The rule or supremacy of law is a
political ideal requiring that the authority of the political community be
exercised only within the confines of ordained structures, established
procedures, and known legal rules and standards, creating reasonable
expectations on the part of those subject to the law.
[9] as Sir Ivor Jennings has pointed out, the Rule of Law
simply means the existence of law and order and denotes that a political
society rests on some system of law and not on anarchy which disregards law,[9]
in other words that legal relations have been substituted for relations of
force.[9]
[10] The Rule of Law, is that principle of a government of
laws and not of men; that not even a king is above the law; that there is a
higher law against which laws and ordinances must be measured if they are to be
treated as legitimate. It is a law which governs the governors.
[11] the state in which the Rule of Law prevails simply as
the state that acknowledges the legal norms created by itself as legislator as
binding upon itself as executive.
[12] the Rule of Law its central meaning that the law
rules or is supreme in every society, that all rules or powers must derive from
duly enacted or established law.
[13] The Rule of Law is a law to govern the governors.
[14] That people should be ruled by the law and obey it
(Rossiter)
[15] Equality in the law as well as before the law
(References re French Language)
[16] All are equal in the eyes of the law (References re
French Language)
[17] the king "is under no man, but under God and the
law" (Bracton).
[18] the traditional English and continental versions of
the Rule of Law deny any absolute protection against public power
[19] (In Ridges, Constitutional Law of England 26 (Keith
ed., London, 1937)).As Keith puts it, in defining the Rule of Law,
"legislation must favor the limitation of execu- tive and judicial power
to deal arbitrarily with individual rights."
[20] essential to the Rule of Law as "bind" the
judge to the law, subordinate the executive to the law
[21] Not only is the judge the servant of the law, he is
also its guardian. This explains the need for judicial independence
[22] That individuals, persons and government shall submit
to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or
a group of individuals.
[23] The rule of law requires that (judicial) decisions be
made by a court which is independent of any influence or pressure by the
executive and legislative branches of government" (R v Campbell)
[24] the Rule of Law in the sense of justice according to
law is much more likely to protect rights and to ensure justice.
[25] people are not the servants of law, but law is the
servant of people, and that unless law serves its proper function, the people
will not, ought not, and cannot be expected to obey "the law."
[26] The supremacy of law is not an exclusively western
notion. For example, it was developed by Islamic jurists before the twelfth
century, so that no official could claim to be above the law, not even the
caliph.
[27] The idea of the rule of law (regulations) and not the
man was proclaimed in the Western European legal and political theory a long
time before the idea of democracy came into picture. In fact, the idea of the
rule of law was taken over from Old Testament, and the thought became
incorporated into the Western civilization through Christianity.
[1] Plato Laws IV 713c, The Laws of Plato. trans. Thomas L. Pangle Whicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) at 99. And see Plato Laws IX, 875a-876a. In Plato's Laws personal rule or the supremacy of human beings in the political community is condemned because "human nature is not at all capable of regulating the human things, when it possesses autocratic authority over everything, without becoming swollen with insolence and injustice
[2] Plato Laws IV 714a at 100. Plato identifies the rule of law with the rule of reason or understanding--"whatever within us partakes of immortality.""...in public life and in private life-in the arrangement of our households and our cities should obey whatever within us partakes of immortality, giving the name *law' to the distribution ordained by intelligence." Plato Laws IV 714a at 100.
[3] Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the rule of law, writing that
"law should govern", and those in power should be "servants of
the laws."
[i] The ancient concept of rule of law is to be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."
天道至大 | ![]() |
易道天成 |