论文部分内容阅读
作为一种间接性政治安排的代表制,产生于中世纪并有着深刻的社会根源。理解中世纪政治代表的起源,必须抛弃人民、主权和自由权等术语的现代涵义,进入封建政治的情境世界,去分析那些导致其起源并一直延续至今的重要因素,才有可能获得一幅准确的制度演化图景。本文将对“法人团体与人格拟制”、“地方主义与罗马法传统”和“地方代表与现代国家的兴起”等影响中世纪政治代表起源的相关因素为切入点,通过还原封建政治的具体历史情境,理解和把握中世纪政治代表的基本类型及其特征。本文认为,无论何种形式的宪政阐释,中世纪的政治代表与现代意义的代表观念与制度都相距甚远。从观念形态上,中世纪的政治代表具有明显的人格拟制和象征性特质,代表与代理人或代替他人行动的观念联系在一起是17世纪之后的事;从制度形态上,在17世纪之前的政治代表与民主制度也很难联系起来,中世纪的政治代表与其说是一种地方民主自治意识的兴起,毋宁说是国王为了达到控制地方分裂、增强国家财政汲取力以适应国家建设的权宜之计。
As a representative system of indirect political arrangements, it was born in the Middle Ages and has profound social roots. To understand the origin of political representatives in the Middle Ages, we must abandon the modern connotation of the terms such as people, sovereignty and liberty and enter the contextual world of feudal politics to analyze the important factors that led to their origins and have continued to this day so that it is possible to obtain an accurate System evolution picture. This article will start with the relevant factors that influence the origin of the political representatives in the Middle Ages, such as the “fictional corporate body and personality”, the “tradition of localism and Roman law” and the “rise of local representatives and modern countries” Restore the specific historical situation of feudal politics, understand and grasp the basic types and characteristics of political representatives in the Middle Ages. This paper argues that no matter what form of constitutional interpretation, the political representatives in the Middle Ages are far from the concepts and systems of modern significance. From the ideological point of view, the medieval political representatives have obvious personality and symbolic traits, and represent the concept of acting with or acting for others is something after the 17th century; from the system form, before the 17th century It is also very difficult to relate the political representatives to the democratic system. The political representatives in the Middle Ages are not so much the rise of a sense of the local democratic self-government as the expedient of the king in order to control the split of the localities and enhance the state’s fiscal ability to absorb the national construction. .