法治原則包含民主嗎？一個當代理論的反省

Does the Principle of the Rule of Law Include Democracy? Reflections on Contemporary Theories

顏厥安(Chueh-An Yen)

海耶克 ； 拉茲 ； 司法違憲審查 ； 史考特案 ； 包含式的法治觀 ； Hayek ； Raz ； judicial review ； Dred Scott v. Sandford ； inclusive conception of the rule of law

思與言：人文與社會科學期刊

60卷3期（2022 / 09 / 01）

90 - 164

繁體中文;英文

對於民主與法治之間的關係一直有不少爭論。許多理論家否認法治原則必然包含民主。我在本文檢討了這類理論的兩個版本，並嘗試對此議題提出新的思考。海耶克在他的《自由的憲章》一書中，推崇美國的憲法實踐歷史經驗對法治理念做出了重大貢獻。我則在奴隸制的歷史背景下，特別是運用了Dred Scott v. Sandford判決，重新審視了這段歷史，並批評海耶克對這一貢獻的解釋。我認為，雖然海耶克所讚揚的成就表面上似乎推進了法治原則，但美國內戰前的法學是建立在認為黑人是劣等種族的共識之上。以防止濫用權力為主要目標的法治理念，竟然可以與奴隸制相容的看法，實在太不合理。〈法律本身的優點〉是拉茲關於法治的最新理論作品。拉茲認為，法治是任何法律都該遵循的特有美德或理想，其目的是要避免專制政府。根據拉茲的界定，專制政府的特徵就是對支持權力使用的正當理由毫不關心。在此基礎上拉茲發展了他的新版法治理論。我對這一理論進行了詳細的探討，指出了一些不一致之處，並提出了三個附帶條件，即包容性、平等尊重和民主參與，我認為這三個條件是該理論必須包含的，即使拉茲本人可能會否認這點。我把這個概念觀稱為包容性和辯論性的法治概念觀，這種法治觀也要求實現民主。

There are a lot of debates about the relationship between democracy and the rule of law. Many prominent theorists denied that the principle of the rule of law necessarily implies democracy. In this article I review two versions of these theorizing and try to develop a new answer to this debate. Using American constitutional jurisprudence from its founding era up to about 1930s as example, Hayek explains this historical experience in his book "Constitution of Liberty" as a major contribution to the idea of the rule of law. Nevertheless, against the historical background of slavery and primarily using the landmark decision Dred Scott v. Sandford, I reexamine this history and criticize Hayek's interpretation of that contribution. I point out that, although the achievements Hayek praised seem to be advancing the principle of the rule of law a great deal, the antebellum jurisprudence was established upon the common understandings deeming the black people as inferior race. It is quite unconvincing that the idea of the rule of law which takes the prevention of abusing power as its primary goal could be compatible with the institution of slavery. "The Law's Own Virtue" is Joseph Raz's most recent theorizing about the rule of law. The rule of law, Raz says, is a specific virtue or ideal that the law should conform to, though there is no agreement about what it is. Everyone agrees that the aim of the rule of law is to avoid arbitrary government. According to Raz, arbitrary government is the use of power that is indifferent to the proper reasons for which power should be used. With this conception Raz develops his new version of the theory of the rule of law. I explore this theory in detail, point out some inconsistency, and formulate three provisos, i.e., inclusiveness, equal respect, and democratic participation, which, I argue, must be entailed by this theory despite Raz may not accept that. I call this conception the inclusive and argumentative conception of the rule of law which also demands democracy to be actualized.

1. 莊世同(2017)。論海耶克的自由主義法治觀：一個批判性的探索。臺大法學論叢，46(3)，665-702。
   連結：
2. Oyez. Roger B. Taney. Retrieved September 12, 2021, from Oyez, Website: https://www.oyez.org/justices/roger_b_taney
3. Allen, Austin(2010).Origins of the Dred Scott Case: Jacksonian Jurisprudence and the Supreme Court, 1837-1857.Athens, GA:University of Georgia Press.
4. Dworkin, Ronald(1986).Law’s Empire.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
5. Dworkin, Ronald(1977).Taking Rights Seriously.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
6. Dworkin, Ronald(1979).The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics.New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
7. Fehrenbacher, Don E.(1977).Roger B. Taney and the Sectional Crisis.The Journal of Southern History,43(4),555-566.
8. Finkelman, Paul (2020). John Marshall’s Proslavery Jurisprudence: Racism, Property, and the “Great＂ Chief Justice. Retrieved August 26, 2021, from The University of Chicago Law Review Online, Website: https://lawreviewblog.uchicago.edu/2020/08/31/marshall-slavery-pt2/
9. Finkelman, Paul(2018).Supreme Injustice.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
10. Finkelman, Paul(2011).Coming to Terms with Dred Scott: A Response to Daniel A. Farber.Pepperdine Law Review,39,49-74.
11. Graber, Mark A.(2005).Dred Scott as Centrist Decision.North Carolina Law Review,83(5),1229-1274.
12. Hall, Timothy L.(2001).Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary.New York, NY:Facts on File.
13. Hamilton, Alexander,Madison, James,Jay, John(2008).The Federalist Papers.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
14. Hayek, Friedrich A.(1982).Law, Legislation, and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy.London, UK:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
15. Hayek, Friedrich A.(2011).The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
16. Hayek, Friedrich A.(1982).Law, Legislation, and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy.London, UK:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
17. Hayek, Friedrich A.(1982).Law, Legislation, and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy.London, UK:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
18. Hayek, Friedrich A.,周德偉（譯）(1973).自由的憲章.臺北:臺灣銀行經濟研究室.
19. Hayek, Friedrich A.,楊玉生（譯）(2012).自由憲章.北京,中國:中國社會科學.
20. Higginbotham, Aloysius L.(1995).The Ten Precepts of American Slavery Jurisprudence: Chief Justice Roger Taney’s Defense and Justice Thurgood Marshall’s Condemnation of the Precept of Black Inferiority.Cardozo Law Review,17(6),1695-1710.
21. Jackson, Robert H. (1941). The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Power Politics. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
22. Kagan, Elena(2007).Kagan, Elena (2007, April 6-7). Welcome Letter to the 150th Anniversary of Dred Scott v. Sandford Conference. In Program of 150th Anniversary of Dred Scott v. Sandford: Race, Citizenship & Justice, Cambridge, MA, p. 7..
23. Marshall, Thurgood(1987).Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution.Harvard Law Review,101,1-5.
24. Rawls, John(2001).Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
25. Rawls, John(2019).The Law’s Own Virtue.Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,39(1),1-15.
26. Rawls, John(1999).A Theory of Justice.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
27. Raz, Joseph(1979).The Authority of Law.Oxford, UK:Clarendon Press.
28. Shiffrin, Seana V.,Kolodny, Niko(Commentaries),Brooks, Richard R. W.(Commentaries),Stilz, Anna(Commentaries),Ginsborg, Hannah(Edited Introduced)(2021).Democratic Law.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
29. Sunstein, Cass R.(1996).University of Chicago Law Occasional PaperUniversity of Chicago Law Occasional Paper,Chicago, IL:The University of Chicago.
30. Tamanaha, Brian Z.(2004).On the Rule of Law. History, Politics, Theory.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
31. The Biography.com (2019). Dred Scott Biography. Retrieved September 21, 2019, from The Biography.com, Website: https://www.biography.com/activist/dred-scott
32. United Nations (2012). Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the 67th Session of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://www.un.org/, Website: https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/blog/document/declaration-of-the-high-level-meeting-of-the-67th-session-of-the-general-assembly-on-the-rule-of-law-at-the-national-and-international-levels/
33. United States Courts. Overview-Rule of Law. Retrieved August 22, 2021, from United States Courts, Website: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/overview-rule-law
34. Urofsky, Melvin I.(Ed.)(2006).The Public Debate Over Controversial Supreme Court Decisions.Washington, D.C.:CQ Press.
35. 聯合國（2012.9.24）。《67/1 國內和國際的法治問題大會高級別會議宣言 》。2012 年 9 月 24 日大會決議，網址：https://www.un.org/zh/documents/treaty/A-RES-67-1。 點閱日期：2022 年 7月 5 日。
36. 謝世民（2018）。〈拉茲的新法治觀〉。思想坦克，網址：https://voicettank.org/2018-10-07-joseph-raz/。點閱日期：2022 年 7 月5 日。
37. 顏厥安(2014)。平等與自由的限制─由第三種自由概念討論法治的概念觀。2013 年世界華人法哲學大會文集，香港，中國: