Chapter 7 CHAPTER III NATURAL LAW IN THE CLASSIC AGE

In medieval Europe, the Catholic Church was the center of life.The church controls education and the sciences, with theology at the head of all the sciences.All knowledge springs from the Christian faith, that is, the faith as interpreted by the Roman Church.It is only through the intervention of the Church and its dignitaries that it is possible to approach the ultimate truth. In the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church's dominance of spiritual life took a blow from the Protestant side.Protestantism reinterprets the teachings of the Bible. For example, it reinterprets the teaching that "all souls are of equal value before God" as the right of every person to communicate with God directly without the intermediary of priests. .It therefore wishes to give to the individual a greater autonomy than was afforded to him in previous centuries to form his own knowledge of God's will and guiding principles for life.

In the 16th century, many countries in Europe launched an attack on the hierarchy, pointing directly at the spiritual order of Catholicism and the secular order of feudalism.In the economic sphere, its main goal was to oppose the feudal economic system and the serfdom and guild system that coexisted with it.In the political field, it showed a new direction against the feudal aristocracy and its privileges.Countries that succeed in destroying hierarchies end up strengthening the role of secular, individualistic, and liberal forces in political, economic, and intellectual life. In the field of law, a new philosophy of natural law dominated the centuries before modern society.We call this philosophy of natural law the natural law of the classical era. In the 17th and 18th centuries, this classical natural law philosophy prevailed in various forms in Europe.It was a legal by-product of the forces that transformed Europe brought about by the Protestant Revolution.However, classical natural law did not break completely with medieval and scholastic legal theory, as some have asserted.In fact, the theories of Aristotle and scholasticism are inextricably linked with those of classical natural law scholars, the former having a great influence on the latter, and even more so on the philosophy of natural law in the seventeenth century.On the other hand, although the representatives of classical natural law hold different views on classical natural law, classical natural law still has some obvious and unique characteristics, which make people have to distinguish it from medieval and scholastic natural law. .First, it completes and reinforces the separation of jurisprudence and theology; in fact, Thomas has long since divided the legal world into divinely revealed law and natural law, which can be discerned by human reason. laid the groundwork; secondly, the medieval scholastics tended resolutely to limit the scope of natural law to a few first principles and basic requirements, while classical natural lawyers tended to treat those who were supposed to be directly derived from human reason. A detailed explanation of the specific and detailed rule system derived from it.The legal thinkers of this new era believe that the power of reason is universally applicable to all people, all countries and all times, and a complete and satisfactory legal system can be constructed on the basis of rational analysis of human society Thirdly, in the slow development process experienced by post-medieval natural law, it gradually shifted its focus from the rational law based on the social nature of man to emphasize such a discourse, in which the dominant It is man's "natural rights," personal aspirations, and happiness that matter.This view of post-medieval natural law has been widely supported in the United States because of its strong individualistic tendencies and appeals.Finally, through gradual development, classical natural law philosophy also completed a transformation from the teleological knowledge approach of human nature to the causal and empirical knowledge approach in its research approach.Both Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas based their theories of natural law on a picture of man who strives to perfect himself and, as a rational and social Man himself has the potential for full development.Unless disturbed by pathological and "unnatural" obstacles, this development will bring about the full maturity of man's true "nature."According to this theory, therefore, "nature" is considered more or less the greatest potentiality of man.With the efforts of Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Montesquieu and other representatives of classical natural law, another conception of human beings was formed, which is based on the investigation of human characteristics. and the study of causal laws that determine or influence human behavior.Therefore, the rise of modern natural science and psychology has also had an impact on the history of the development of natural law theory.

At the dawn of the modern age, classical natural law was challenged by another theory; in some respects, one of the same political, social, and economic forces that contributed to the formation of rationalistic individualist natural law philosophy. product.It is the theory of raison d'etat (the reason of the state), and was most influentially formulated in the writings of the Italian political philosopher Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527 AD).Machiavelli extolled the unlimited power of the state and argued that ethical principles in public life should be fully subordinated to the political needs of governing the state.Building on the emotional, weak, and vicious picture he paints of people, he exhorts rulers to ruthlessly and cynically use their subjects as tools to build a strong unified state.This end, he argues, justifies the use of means by rulers that are utterly repugnant to pure morality.

In order to understand the historical significance of the "state reason theory," we must remember that the individual liberation movement that occurred in Europe after the Middle Ages was closely related to the rise of sovereign and independent nation-states.These countries all sought to free themselves from the domination of the great medieval empires that still existed in most of Europe at the time.This national liberation movement was part of a campaign against feudalism and the Catholic Church's "ultramontane" claim.The emerging nation-states were mostly ruled by despots who asserted freedom of political action in order to establish and strengthen their state's power and prestige.In this regard, the principle of state sovereignty provided those princes with weapons against the claim to a universally holy empire and against possible interference by other states; He was the first to elaborate on the principle of national sovereignty.But on the other hand, the rationale of the state, which seeks to subdue individual citizens to the needs of the state, also provides princes with a weapon to suppress their subjects.All political thinkers in Europe during this period tried in some way to reconcile the claims of the principles of natural law (the claim that there is a law superior to and independent of political power) with the claims of the principle of state reason (these claim to try to protect the rights of the state and its coordinators).In a general sense we can say that, first in Western Europe and later in the United States, natural law philosophy prevailed, while in Central Europe the doctrine of State reason prevailed, although it failed to completely defeat the claims of the natural law schools.Differences in views can often be explained by reference to the different ways in which seventeenth- and eighteenth-century political-legal thinkers attempted to blend and reconcile the conflicting principles of state reason and natural law.

The development of classical natural law philosophy may be divided into three periods.These three periods are roughly synchronized with the social, economic and intellectual development stages of this period.The first stage is the process of liberation from medieval theology and feudalism after the Renaissance and the Reformation, marked by the rise of Protestantism in religion, the rise of enlightened despotism in politics, and the emergence of mercantilism in economy.This process of development lasted longer in Germany than in the rest of Western Europe.The theories of Grotius, Hobbes, Spinoza, Pufendorf and Wolf are among the masterpieces of this period.The theories of these scholars have one thing in common, that is, they all believe that the ultimate guarantee for the implementation of natural law should be found mainly in the wisdom and self-discipline of the rulers.The second stage began about 1649 with the Puritan Reformation in England.This stage is marked by liberal capitalism in the economy and liberalism in politics and philosophy; the views of Locke and Montesquieu are representative views of this period.They all try to use a separation of powers to protect the natural rights of individuals and to oppose unjustified government violations of these rights.The third period is marked by a firm belief in popular sovereignty and democracy.Natural law thus depends on the "general will" of the people and the decision of the majority.The most outstanding representative of this stage is the French political thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau.The third stage in the development of natural law has had a profound impact on the development of the French political system, while the natural law theory of the second stage has dominated in the United States.

The great Dutch jurist and thinker Hugo Grotius (1583-1645 A.D.) was not only one of, if not the only, but an influential naturalist Founder of legal philosophy.In separating legal science from theology and religion, Grotius laid the foundations for a modern, secular and rationalist view of natural law.He pointed out that in the nature of human beings there is a strong desire for society, that is, for social life-"not referring to any kind of life, but referring to those who belong to themselves according to their intellectual standards. Human beings live peaceful and organized lives." He rejected the ancient Greek skeptic Carneades' assumption that human beings are driven by their nature to pursue only self-interest; A social life ability that enables them to coexist peacefully in society.Anything that conforms to this social impulse and human nature as a rational social existence is correct and just; anything that disrupts social harmony and opposes it is wrong and unjust.Grotius defines natural law as "an imperative of just reason which dictates that any action which is consistent with a rational nature is a moral necessity; otherwise, it is a morally evil action." Even if we should recognize what we do not—for this is not an abomination—namely that God does not exist or that God is not concerned with human affairs," this natural law would be universal.Accordingly, Grotius grounds natural law on an eternal reason pervading the universe, although he admits that a theistic basis is also possible.

Grotius pointed out that there are two ways to prove whether something is in accordance with the law of nature. "Deductive proof consists in showing whether something is necessarily consistent with reason or society; inductive proof consists in asserting whether something conforms to that law of nature which is supposed to be followed by all nations or all civilized nations—even if this assertion does not There is no absolute certainty, but at least a great possibility.”Grotius added that one must not draw any conclusions contrary to human nature from the practice of savage and savage peoples.He agrees with Aristotle that in order to discover what is in accordance with natural law, we must focus on those things that are in good condition, not on those things that are corrupted.

Grotius considers the main principles of natural law to be as follows: not to desire what belongs to others; to return what belongs to others and to use our own to restore the property of others; to keep contracts and keep promises; And any loss caused to another; to punish the one who deserves it.He also believes that many more detailed and specific legal rules are just rules derived from these general rules. Grotius believes that the opposite of natural law is "volitional law".Voluntary rules cannot be deduced by definite reasoning from those immutable rules, since their only source is the will of man.He believed that, in the law of nations, there was the problem of combining these two forms of law, and therefore the main work of his life was devoted to the study of this combination.For him, the law of nations consisted of rules accepted as obligations by many or all nations.However, he tried to find out the deeper roots of the law of nations from the natural principles of social life--this social life originates from human social impulses--that is, the principles of natural law.

Grotius defines a state as "a complete association of free men united for the enjoyment of rights and their common interests".The state arose out of contract, but in general the people ceded their sovereignty to the ruler, who took it as if it were a private right and whose actions were generally not controlled by law.However, rulers are obliged to obey the principles of natural law and the law of nations.But in general, the people have no right to rise up against him even if he abuses his power.It is worth noting that in some cases of obvious usurpation or blatant abuse of power, Grotius tends to recognize the people's right to rebel against the ruler.

Samuel Pufendorf (Samuel Pufendorf, 1632-1694 AD) was a German law professor who established a more detailed system of natural law than Grotius.Pufendorf agrees with Thomas Hobbes that man is strongly motivated by self-love and selfishness, and that there is also a certain amount of malice and aggression in man's nature.But at the same time, like Grotius, he also believes that human nature also has a strong tendency to pursue communication with others and live a peaceful social life in society.According to Pufendorf, the above two tendencies exist simultaneously in the human soul, and are therefore rooted in human nature.Natural law is a reflection of this duality of human existence.Natural law recognizes the fact that nature has endowed man with self-love, but it also recognizes the fact that self-love is conditioned by man's social impulses.Corresponding to these two aspects of human nature, there are also two basic principles of natural law.The first principle tells people to do everything in their power to protect life and limb, to preserve themselves and their property.The second principle requires people not to disturb human society, or to paraphrase his words, people should not do anything to add disturbance to society.Pufendorf combined and integrated these two principles of natural law into a single fundamental law, explaining that "everyone should actively defend himself in order that human society may not be disturbed".

Pufendorf deduced an important legal requirement from the second principle of natural law, that "no one can exert pressure on another to enable him to properly complain in his suit of violations of his equal rights. "This rule of natural law articulates a principle of legal equality that Pufendorf often emphasizes.This rule of natural law was later decomposed into many specific rules.The point, he pointed out, was that each should obey the laws he established for others.The duty to maintain and cultivate the faculties of social life is equally binding on all, and no one can violate the dictates of the law of nature. According to Pufendorf, in order for society to survive and to ensure the enforcement of natural law and state law, two basic contracts must be concluded.The first contract is a contract between men to give up the state of natural freedom and enter into a permanent community for the protection of their mutual safety.According to this contract, one must also make a statute stipulating the form of government to be adopted.After enacting this statute, people also need to conclude a second contract, and this is the contract concluded between citizens and the government.According to this contract, the ruler swears to meet the needs of public safety, and the citizens promise to obey the ruler and to subject their will to the power of the ruler in all matters related to national security.Sovereign powers are limited by the principles of natural law.According to Pufendorf, natural law is the real law for the sovereign, not just a moral compass.But the duty of the ruler to obey the law of nature is only an incomplete duty, for there is no court in which the people can bring suits against the king.Only God is "the avenger of the law of nature" (the avenger of the law of nature), so under normal circumstances, citizens have no right to rebel against the monarch who violates the law of nature.It is only in exceptional circumstances that the prince becomes a real enemy of the state and puts the state in real danger, does the individual or the people have the right to defy the prince for the safety of himself and the state. Christian Calvinist jurist Jean Jacques Burlamaqui (1694-1748 AD) was a follower of Pufendorf, and his book Les Principles du droit natural ( 1747) and Les Principles of Political Law (Les Principes du droit politique) (1751) had a major influence on natural jurists of their time, especially in America.He pointed out that rationality is the only method that people can base on and use to achieve happiness.He thinks that law is only a sure way to happiness prescribed by reason.Berlemanque defines natural law as "a law which God has ordained for all men and which man can discover and understand only by reason and by careful consideration of his situation and nature."Like Pufendorf, he also made the principle of social viability the basis of natural law. We should also mention another jurist who made invaluable contributions to the interpretation and systematization of natural law, the German jurist Charleston Wolf (1679-1754 AD).We might regard him as the legal theorist of the enlightened absolutism of the Prussian king Frederick the Great.A follower of Leibniz's philosophical theories, Wolf taught that the highest duty of man is to strive for perfection.For him, this moral duty of self-improvement combined with striving for the improvement of others is the basis of justice and natural law.The law of nature requires men to do those things which are conducive to the perfection of themselves and their condition.From this first principle Wolfe rigorously deduced a vast system of positive law designed to realize the basic purposes of natural law.In linking his theory to the political philosophy of his time, Wolf argued that man's self-improvement is impossible in a state of complete freedom: this view can also be said to be one of his main points.In order for people to live together in harmony, they must be governed by a paternalistic, benevolent monarch whose job it is to promote peace, security, and self-sufficiency to ensure a good life for his subjects. As noted above, the struggle of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers was to maintain some form of balance or reconciliation between the requirements of natural law and the needs of state reason (raisond'etat).We find that in the philosophies of both the English thinker Thomas Hobbes and the Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza, they tended more favorably between the conflicting claims of natural law and the claims of governmental power in favor of the latter. Thomas Hobbes (Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679 AD) explored the problem from an anthropological and psychological premise completely different from Grotius's.Grotius believed that man is essentially a social social animal, while Hobbes believed that man was essentially selfish, malicious, brutal and aggressive.In a state of nature—that is, a theoretical construct that Hobbes used to illustrate the absence of organized government—everyone is a wolf to everyone else (homo homini lupus), and in an atmosphere of hatred, fear, and mutual distrust, Each is always in a state of war (bellum omnium contra omnes) with the other.In this state of war, according to Hobbes, everyone is equally powerful.For, even the weakest can kill the strongest.In this state of nature, according to Hobbes, there are no moral or legal questions of right and wrong.Everyone has the right to claim anything, and interest is the only legal measure.In addition, in this state, each individual has a "natural right" to protect his life and limb from the violation of others. Hobbes, however, points out that men also have certain passions which make them prefer the natural state of war to peace.These emotions are mainly: first, a strong fear of death; second, the desire to obtain the necessities of convenient life; third, the hope of obtaining these goods by organized labor.Since the above-mentioned emotions cannot be satisfied in the state of nature, reason proposes some simple and feasible peace terms for people, which Hobbes called "laws of nature". According to Hobbes, it is the most important and fundamental law of nature that peace should be sought wherever it can be found.From this law, one can deduce some more specific regulations: everyone must give up his right to do what he wants according to his nature; everyone must keep and perform his contract; help and facilitate each other as much as possible in any situation; no one should humiliate, insult or despise another; there must be a fair arbitrator in disputes; and above all, do not do to others what you would have done .The above-mentioned laws were declared by Hobbes to be eternal and immutable laws. As long as the state of nature and the war of man against man continue, the above-mentioned laws of nature cannot be enforced with certainty.Hobbes argued that, in order to secure peace and enforce the law of nature, it was necessary for men to enter into a covenant among themselves, by which each agreed to transfer all his power and strength to one man or one Parliament, on the condition that everyone does the same.The Sovereign Power thus conceived—what Hobbes called the Leviathan or the Mortal God—should use the power and force gathered from the citizens to To promote peace, security and convenience for all. Hobbes believed that in order for the sovereign to fully perform its duties, the sovereign should be supreme and not subject to law.This view is a corollary of his pessimistic view of man as a selfish, uncooperative, aggressive animal, since only complete and absolutely powerful power can prevail over so unruly a crowd. maintain peace and order. The main instrument by which the sovereign, as Hobbes conceives, imposes his will on the people, is "civil laws" (as distinguished from "natural law" which has only a non-special legal meaning).Domestic law "for each subject, is those rules issued to him by the state through oral, written or other means sufficient to express his will, to distinguish right from wrong." We can see from this definition that the content of right and wrong is only It can be determined by the provisions of domestic law; apart from the order of the sovereign power, there can be no right and wrong, justice and injustice. "No law can be unjust".As the people have surrendered their power to the Sovereign, they themselves are in effect the makers of all laws, since no one can aggrieve himself. According to Hobbes, although laws cannot be unjust, they can be evil.Domestic laws are evil if they depart from what he defines as "natural law" principles.The government of the sovereign is established to seek peace, and the supreme duty of the ruler is therefore to promote the security and welfare of the people.To be true to the people's trust, the ruler must protect them from their enemies, allow them to become rich, and secure a "harmless liberty."Certainly there will be "many circumstances in which neither is commanded nor prohibited; and in these cases each may either do, or refrain from doing, as he pleases."Every man should be given a certain amount of property, men should be allowed to buy and sell and contract with each other, and they should be allowed to choose their trade.Citizens should not be inflicted with punishments they could not foresee, and every individual should be able to enjoy without fear the rights that the law gives them. Even if the government enacts evil or despotic laws, this does not give the people the right not to obey them; the only sanction for government evil is to subject the ruler to "the pain of eternal death" rather than a happy afterlife.However, there is one situation in which subjects can be relieved of their duty of allegiance to the ruler, namely, when the sovereign has been unable to maintain social peace and protect the safety of citizens. What Hobbes advocated in his political and legal theory was what might be called "enlightened absolutism" (enlightened absolutism), which prevailed in many European countries in the eighteenth century.The sociological basis of his philosophy is that the state is composed of equal individuals who own private property, live by their own hard work, regulate their mutual relations by contract, and Strong governments protect their lives and property.At that time, the rights to life, liberty, and property were not yet considered "inalienable rights" and rights free from government interference, they were only products of state gifts.Despite the above facts, people can still find some obvious elements of individualism and liberalism in Hobbes' theory of natural law and philosophy of government responsibility.This is a liberalism that entrusts the enforcement of the law to an "enlightened" despot.The prince should be the faithful defender of natural law, and he should ensure the life, property, and happiness of his subjects.The sovereign's supreme concern should be the welfare of his subjects (rather than his own self-aggrandizement).However, in the performance of his duties, his powers are not bound by any law.Therefore, from the practical point of view, Hobbes' natural law is nothing more than a moral guide for the sovereign, while the real law is constituted by the sovereign's order.Accordingly, it is not unreasonable to say that Hobbes is the pioneer of modern positivist jurisprudence and analytical jurisprudence. People often compare Hobbes' theory of law and government with that of the great philosopher Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677 AD).Despite some differences in the theories of the two philosophers, there are also some striking similarities.Like Hobbes, Spinoza also believed that in the state of nature, man is dominated by desire and the will to power more than by reason.According to Spinoza, in the state of nature the extent of the individual's rights depends on his strength. "Every individual has the highest right which he can do; in other words, the right of the individual reaches the limit of his strength, and this is the limit of his right. Each individual should then do his best to protect himself, It is nature's highest law and right to think only of himself and of others.... Whatever a man does according to the laws of his nature, he has the highest right to do so, because he acts according to the laws of nature, And it can’t be done otherwise.” Spinoza declared that as long as man lives under the dominion of nature, there is no such thing as evil, justice, or injustice.However, this situation will inevitably lead to strife and disorder, because people all want to increase their own strength and satisfy their own emotions, so there will inevitably be strife and conflict between people.In the state of nature, hatred, jealousy, and war can be said to be omnipresent.But man tries to overcome this miserable state.They discovered that if they were united they would be more powerful, even individually, since it would no longer be necessary for each individual to always be afraid of his neighbor, and it would no longer be necessary for each individual to always be Guard against enemies.In this way, the rational force within man will drive him to abandon the state of nature and arrange his life in a peaceful and rational way.They will form nations and establish governments.As such, the primary duty of government is to preserve the peace and secure the lives of those who submit to its authority. Up to this point, Spinoza's theory and Hobbes' theory were largely consistent, but they diverged when they expressed their views on the scope of government and what constituted the best political system. .Hobbes believed that the government's role was only to maintain peace and security and to grant citizens "innocent liberties", which did not include the right to free speech or even free thought.However, Spinoza believed that liberty is the highest goal that government aims to achieve. "The object of government is not to transform men from rational animals into beasts or puppets, but to enable them to develop their bodies and minds in safety, and to enable them to exercise their reason without restraint; or fraud, nor be treated with envy and injustice." He believed that a good government would give citizens free speech without trying to control their opinions and thoughts.Governments rule according to the dictates of reason and do not oppress their citizens.The desire for "self-preservation" alone can lead governments astray if they have no higher purpose to guide them.The rights of the Sovereign, like the rights of individuals in the state of nature, cannot exceed the limits of their power.Such power will be "short-lived" if not backed by self-control, sound reason, and the consent of the people. "It is impossible for anyone to maintain a tyrant's rule for a long time."According to Spinoza, the scope of the sovereign's power is not determined by the higher legal rules that restrain this power, but by the strength of the majority or the self-interest that the government itself is fully aware of.In this sense, we can say that the sovereignty that Spinoza envisions is limited by natural law.By ignoring the dictates of reason, the government violates a natural law, the natural law of self-preservation.In other words, in Spinoza's theory, natural law exists simultaneously with the limitation of the power of the sovereign.These constraints may arise from the power of the masses, or from the government's rational perception of its own interests. Spinoza differed from Hobbes as to what constituted the best political system, and he believed that democracy, or a moderate aristocratic constitution, was preferable to monarchy.He began to discuss the nature of democracy in the last chapter of Tractatus Politicus, but unfortunately he was unable to complete the discussion due to his early death. The second stage of the development of classical natural law is marked by the attempt to establish effective measures to prevent the government from violating natural law.At this stage, the law is mainly considered as a tool to prevent dictatorship and tyranny.The emergence of despotic rulers in the countries of Europe clearly demonstrated the urgent need for some weapons to prevent the government from encroaching on individual liberty.Thus, the focus of classical natural law turned to those factors in the law that enable the legal system to protect the rights of individuals.The legal theory at this stage mainly emphasizes freedom, while the first stage pays more attention to safety than to freedom. This new tendency to focus on liberty is most evident in the political theory of John Locke (1632-1704 AD).Locke postulated that man's natural state is a state of complete freedom.A state in which men are able to determine their actions and dispose of their persons and property as they see fit; Locke further postulates that this state of nature is a state of equality, since any No one is subject to the will or authority of any other human being.This state of nature is governed by a law of nature which, in order to promote the peace and continuation of mankind, teaches that all men are equal and independent, and therefore that no one shall infringe the life, health, , liberty or property.As long as the state of nature exists, everyone has the right to enforce the law of nature, and can personally punish crimes against the law of nature. However, this situation is also fraught with drawbacks, inconveniences and dangers.首先，人们所享受的生命、自由和财产的自然权利并没有稳定的保障，而且还常常面临着蒙受他人侵犯的危险。第二，在惩罚违反自然法的行为时，每个人在其自己的案件中都是法官，从而在报复犯罪行为时易于超越理性规则。为了终止伴随自然状态而在的混乱与无序，人们缔结了一项契约，根据这项契约，人们彼此同意组成一个共同体并建立一个政治国家。霍布斯把社会契约看成是公民完全服从专制君主的条约，而洛克则与霍布斯不同，他指出，人们在建立政权时仍然保留着他们在前政治阶段的自然状态中所拥有的生命、自由和财产（洛克常常把这些东西都归入财产这一概念之中）的自然权利。洛克指出：“自然法是一种适用于所有的人（包括立法者和其他人）的永恒规则”。让渡给政治国家的只是实施自然法的权利。立基于这一观点，洛克再一次与霍布斯相对立，他反对君主专制的政府形式，并主张一种有限权力的政府。 “人们联合成为国家并置身于政府之下的……重大的和主要的目的，便是保护他们的财产。而这一方面，恰恰是自然状态所远远不能满足的”。从广义上讲，洛克使用的“保护财产”这一术语是和他所说的“公益”（common good）相一致的。他指出，“由人们构成的社会或由人们成立的立法机关的权力绝不能超越公益的范围”。没有本人的同意，最高权力不得从任何人那里夺走其财产的任何一部分。如果它专断地不适当地处理人民的生命和财产，那么它就违反了社会契约的基本条件和它得以掌握权力所依凭的委托关系。 洛克提出了这样一个问题，即应当由什么样的权威机构来确定政府是否超越了其权力的界限呢？换言之，国家的什么机构是自然法的终极保护者呢？对于这个问题，洛克本人似乎没有给出明确的结论。他只是在某种程度上含糊其词地认为，司法权有可能不得不成为裁决某一立法行为是否违反自然法的最终裁决者。然而另一方面，在讨论国家中的权力分立问题时，他却没有提到司法权，其重点主要在于立法权与行政权的分离。立法权——即只是源于人民的一种委托权——不能转至任何他人之手。立法机构必须通过颁布法律来实施这种立法权力，而这些“法律不能因特殊情势而改变，不论是对于穷人还是富人，不论是对于皇室宠儿还是乡下平民，都应当适用同一法律规则”。洛克认为，这些法律的目的“不是废除或限制自由，而是保护和扩大自由”。 洛克指出，立法者通过的法律，应当由政府的行政部门（the executive branch或译“执行部门”）予以实施和执行。他认为，在一组织良好的政治秩序中，立法和行政这两个权柄一定是由不同的机构所操握的。然而，他又指出，为了社会之利益，有些事务必须由行政机关自由处理。例如，在国内法没有给行政机关以指导的情形下，行政机关就可以在立法机关制定出相关法律以前，为了增进公共利益而运用其特权；而在非常时期，甚至法律本身也可能不得不给行政特权（executive prerogative）让路。 虽然政府的立法权与行政权的分立，在很大程度上能够防止政府的独裁与专断，但是这种分权本身却无法构成一种预防侵犯个人权利的完全且充分的保护措施。洛克意识到了这个事实。因此，他乐于承认自然法的另一个最终保护者：全体人民。人民可以罢免和更换那个无视委托关系的立法机关。当行政权或立法权试图变其统治为专制并试图奴役或毁灭其人民的时候，人民便可以诉诸他们的最后手段，即“上帝”。通过行使抵抗或革命的权利，人民便能够在反对压迫性的和否定了自然法的实在法的过程中维护自然法。 法国贵族男爵查理·路易·孟德斯鸠（Charles Louis de Montesquieu，公元1689～1755年）的学说，给洛克的法律哲学提供了必要的补充。洛克提出了一个明确且前后一贯的自然法理论，但是他却忽略了对那个能够有效地确保人们遵奉自然法的政治制度给出详尽阐释。孟德斯鸠赞同洛克关于人的自由是国家应予实现的最高目标的观点，但是他对自由的关注与其说是在他的自然法哲学中得到了表现，不如说是在他所试图设计的政治制度中得到了反映，而根据他所设计的政治制度，自由能够以最为可行的和最为有效的方法为人们所享有并得到保护。 我们可以用颇为简略的方式来讨论孟德斯鸠的自然法理论。他是从这样一种假设出发的，即法律乃是“由事物的性质产生出来的必然关系”。根据他的观点，“事物的性质”（the nature of things）部分地表现在人性恒定普遍的趋向和特性之中，部分地表现在人性变化不定的趋向和特性之中。在人的社会生活的普遍条件中，他提及了人对和平的欲望（因为没有和平，社会群体生活便不可能）；对诸如衣食住这样一些基本需求的满足；异性之间所产生的互相爱慕以及人对社会生活的内在要求。他还把另外一些构成法律之基础的“必然关系”称之为相对的和偶然的关系。这些关系取决于地理环境、特别是气候条件，取决于宗教因素，取决于某个特定国家的政治结构。经由探索和描述有关法律起源的各种各样的自然因素和文化因素，孟德斯鸠事实上成了此后形成的社会学法学的先驱。然而，他与古典自然法学的密切关系还是极为显见的，一是因为他认为法律一般来说是“人之理性”（尽管他意识到，在不同的情形下，人之理性有可能要求采取不同的法律解决方法），二是因为他承认一些正义关系先于实在法而存在。“如果说除了实在法所要求或禁止的东西以外，就无所谓正义不正义的话，那无异于是说，在人们画圆圈之前，一切半径距离都是不等的。” 孟德斯鸠的声誉主要是以他的权力分立政治理论为基础的。他指出，“每个有权力的人都趋于滥用权力，而且还趋于把权力用至极限，这是一条万古不易的经验。”为了防止滥用权力，就必须以权力制约权力。根据孟德斯鸠的观点，最可靠的政府形式是立法、行政、司法三权分立的政府，亦就是使上述三权相互独立、并分别委托给不同的人或群体的形式。再者，他还认为，应当用上述方式来分立三权，以达致权力间的相互制衡。他希望通过这种分权的方法，在总体上防止政府过分扩张和专断地行使其权力。 孟德斯鸠认为，他所设计的政府权力分立和相互制衡的方案早在英国不成文宪法中就已得到了实施和遵循。但是，在英国的政府制度中，行政权与司法权实际上要低于立法权，因为立法权被认为是至高无上的。正如汉伯里（Hanbury）教授所指出的，“用一句谐谑的话说，孟德斯鸠就象梅特林克（Maeterlinck）剧本中的小孩一样，在寻找蓝色幸福之鸟的过程中，想象着这只鸟已先存在邻近的树林里了，而他的思想也真的在那个'未来之国'中早就实现了。如果我们不用隐喻的说法，那就是说，被孟德斯鸠错误地安置在现代英国的那种制度，注定会在美国首次形成”。 洛克的自然法理论与孟德斯鸠权力分立原则的结合，构成了美国政府制度的哲学基础。美国宪法把政府分为相互独立的三个部分，并伴之以复杂的制衡制度以防止其中任何一部分明显地高于其它部分；显而易见，这种启示源出于孟德斯鸠的思想。除了其他的一些具体规定以外，诸如授予行政首脑以否决权、赋予立法机关以弹劾和审判高级官员的权力，并委托立法部门享有拨款的特权等规定，也都可以追溯到孟德斯鸠的大作之中。然而另一方面，洛克式的自然权利理论以及洛克有关人民有权反抗政府压迫的正当权利的理论，则构成了《独立宣言》的哲学基础。美国最高法院在其发展过程中的某些时期，对《权利法案》某些条款所做的解释，特别是对正当程序条款所做的解释，也受到了洛克理论的影响。 美国最高法院在审理“储蓄信贷公司诉托皮卡”（Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka）一案中所使用的语言就是此一方面的典型证明： 在任何自由的政府下，人民都拥有……一些不受国家控制的权利。如果一个政府不承认这些权利，认为其公民的生命、自由和财产无论什么时候都应受到最民主的掌权者的专制处置和无限控制，那么这样的政府归根结底就只是一个专制主义的政府。……对政府这种权力的限制，乃是所有自由政府的基本性质之所在（其中含义保留个人权利的意思），否则，社会契约就难以存在；当然，所有名符其实的政府都会尊重这些权利。 我们可以认为，洛克会完全同意这种说法的。而且，私有财产权——洛克认为这种权利在自然权利中占有很高的位置——也在19世纪和20世纪初得到了美国最高法院的极为有力的保护。 洛克与孟德斯鸠的思想在美国政府制度中的连结点，主要是司法审查原则（the doctrine of judicial review）。美国最高法院认为，为了确保自然权利的执行，立法权不仅必须同司法权分离，而且还必须同审查法律是否符合美国宪法所承认的高级法原则的权力相分离。因此，美国法院，尤其是最高法院充当了自然法的保护人。 美国自然法哲学的典型代表人物是美国最高法院助理法官、费城学院法学教授詹姆士·威尔逊（James Wilson，公元1742～1798年）。他坚信存在着一种源自上帝的自然法。“这种自然法是以诸项简单的、永恒的、不证自明的原则反映给人之良心的”。1790年和1791年这两个冬季，他在费城学院作了有关法律的讲演，他在其中一讲的开篇这样说道，“秩序、比例与合谐遍及宇宙。在我们周围、在我们心中、在我们之上，存在着一条规则，我们只能赞赏它，而不能、不应、也不得背离它”。威尔逊认为，人定法欲得到最终承认，就必须依凭这一永恒不变的自然法。他否弃了布莱克斯通（Blackstone）有关人定法包含着一种上等人对下等人的命令的假设，并认为人定法是建立在被要求服从该法律的人的同意基础之上的。通过这种方法，他把自然法原则同人民主权论（the theory of popular sovereignty）结合起来，并相信自然法的基础存在于人的性格、追求以及相互关系之中，从而它“基本上是适合于全人类的”。 威尔逊认为，国家是根据其成员的契约而建立的。他们为了共同利益而团结在一起，以便和平地享有自己的权利和公正地对待他人。他指出，每个人对其财产、人格、自由及安全都拥有自然权利。确使这些自然权利免遭政府的侵犯乃是法律的职能之所在。这样，在威尔逊的哲学中，法律和自由便在威尔逊的哲学中紧密地结合在一起了。“没有自由，法律就名实具亡，就是压迫的工具；没有法律，自由也同样名实具亡，就是无法无天”。为了维护法治（the rule of law），就必须把制衡控制制度引入政府制度之中，“而依据此一制度，即使坏人当政，人们也能迫使他为公益效力”。立法权不仅应当同行政权相分立，而且其本身也应当做一划分，亦即建立两个立法机关。威尔逊论辩说，如果其中一个机关背离或试图背离宪法原则，那么另一个机关就很可能把它拉回来。但是，如果两个立法机关全都违反了宪法之命令，那么政府的司法机关就应当对其进行纠正。司法机关有义务宣布一切不符合国家最高法律的法规无效。 詹姆士·威尔逊的哲学也许是美国古典法律哲学和政府哲学中最持之一贯的表述。美国宪法的大多数创制人也都赞同他的哲学。约翰·亚当斯（John Adams）、托马斯·潘恩（Thomas Paine）以及托马斯·杰斐逊（Thomas Jeffeson）都确信存在着不受人定法约束的、不可被其废除的自然权利。不但威尔逊，就是汉密尔顿（Hamilton）和杰斐逊也都持有这样一种观点，即法院的职责就是保护那些为美国宪法所承认和许可的人权，使其免遭立法机关的侵犯”。象大法官詹姆斯·肯特（James Kent，公元1763～1847年）和大法官约瑟夫·斯托雷（Joseph Story，公元1779～1845年）这样的人也坚信自然法的存在。我们可以有把握地说，就政治和社会的发展以及各种政治法律制度的形成而言，自然法（亦即那种被理解为确使自由和财产免遭政府侵犯的自然法）理念在美国所起的作用，要比在世界上任何其他国家都大。 让·雅克·卢梭（Jean Jacques Rousseau，公元1712～1778年）出生在瑞士日内瓦城。就他坚信存在着个人的“自然权利”而言，他的思想可以被划入古典自然法的传统。但是，也有人认为，他抛弃了古典自然法的传统，至少他的学说中有一部分是这样的，因为他并不是在保护不可剥夺的个人权利中，而是在一种主权性的集体“公意”（a sovereign and collective“general will”）的至高无上性中探寻社会生活的终极规范的。 要把握卢梭那种相当繁复的推论过程，绝非轻而易举之事。对他来说，政治的根本问题就是“要寻找出一种结合形式，亦即那种能以整体的共同力量来保护和捍卫每个结合者的人身和财富的结合形式，而且在这种结合体中，每个人在与所有其他的人相结合的时候仍服从他自己的意志，且仍象以往一样的自由”。为了实现这个目标，每个个人必须通过缔结社会契约，毫无保留地把他的全部自然权利让渡给整个社会。 有人认为，如果一国的公民把他们的全部自然权利都让渡给整个社会，那么他们就无异于丧失了自由。然而，卢梭却根本否认会导致这样的后果。他指出：“每个人既然是向全体奉献出自己，那么，他实际上并没有向任何人奉献出自己；而且，既然从任何一个结合者那里，人们都可以获得自己本身所让渡给他人的同样的权利，所以人们也就得到了自己所失去的一切东西的等价物，而且也得到了更大的力量来保全自己已有的东西。”用欧内斯特·巴克（Ernest Barker）爵士的话来讲，“因此，所有的人既是一群被动的国民，同时又是一群主动的主权者。”这个由公民组成的主权者群体，将保证个人以公民自由的形式和在私有财产确获保障的过程中重新获得因放弃自然权利而失去的东西。 在市民社会，个人不服从任何其他个人，而只服从“公意”（volonte generale），即社会意志。卢梭认为，主权就意味着执行公意。主权者完全是由构成国家的个人组成的，因此主权者绝不能有任何与他们的利益相反的利益，同时亦毋需给予其国民以任何保证。每个个人在服从公意的同时也就是服从他自己，因为个人的意志已消溶在公意之中。在人们根据社会契约建立国家的时候，公意乃是经由所有公民的一致同意来表达的。但是，在此之后，公意的所有表现形式却是经由多数决策的方式达致的。 公意是卢梭哲学的核心概念，但是这一术语的含义极为含混，而且还引起了大量的争论和分歧。卢梭宣称，公意“永远站在正义一边”，尽管指导公意的判断未必总是明智的。卢梭的意思是说受托执行公意的多数不可能犯错误、不可能侵犯少数人的权利吗？对于这个问题，我们必须从卢梭关于公意就是共同利益（the common good）的观点中寻找部分答案。至少在一个治理良好的国家中，公意可以起到增进所有人的福利的作用，虽然卢梭也承认，可能会存在一种治理不善的国家，在那里，特殊利益会扼杀或凌驾于共同利益之上。我们还可以用卢梭对人之本性以及通过道德和政治教育有可能完善人之本性所持的乐观评价，对他的上述结论作出部分解释。这种乐观主义使他相信，多数会倾向于用明智的和理性的方法做出判断，而那些反对多数观点的人则必须被认为是采取了错误之举。 卢梭与孟德斯鸠不同，他并未主张一种三权分立、独立、平等的政府制度。在他所提出的政治方案中，立法权高于其他两权，它属于全体人民，而不属于象议会那样的代表机构。“一旦某个民族同意被代表，那么它就不再是自由的了”。卢梭甚至主张，不经全体人民批准的法律，都是无效的。立基于上述观点，他得出了这样一个结论，即由于英国采取的是代议制政府制度，因此英国并不是一个自由的国家。“他们只是在选举议会议员期间，才是自由的；而在他们选完议员以后，他们就变成了奴隶，他们就什么也不是了”。 卢梭认为，法律必须具有一舣性，并在其命令所及的范围内，必须对全体人民平等适用。法律不能只适用于个别人或个别客体。就个别权力行为而言，社会建立了一个政府，亦即一个执行公意的委员会。人民与政府之间并不存在霍布斯所认为的那种服从性契约。用法律语言来说，政府只不过是一种代理机构，作为主权者的人民可以按照其意志废除、限制、或变更它。公共权力的保管人并不是人民的主人，只不过是人民的办事员罢了。政府的存在乃是主权者的恩赐，因此它本身并不具有任何主权的性质。 毋庸置疑，卢梭的理论极易导向一种专制民主制（an absolute democracy）。在这种民主制中，多数的意志不受任何限制。除了多数的智慧和自律以外，他没有提供任何预防主权者滥用无限权力的措施，也没有提供任何保护自然法的措施。卢梭自认为在一个治理良好的国家中，个人自由与集体权威之间不会发生冲突，但是，他的这种假设是否成立，却是极令人怀疑的。以公意无限至上为基础的社会制度，包含着一种导向专制主义的危险，亦即托克维尔（Tocqueville）所谓的“多数的专制”（tyranny of the majority）。 卢梭的思想对法国大革命的政治理论产生了强烈的影响。此外，卢梭的公意概念对19世纪和20世纪上半叶法兰西共和国的宪政制度也产生了影响。虽然卢梭关于人民自己行使立法职责的纯粹民主思想在法国的政治制度中并未占据支配地位，但是他有关主权者的公意须通过多数投票表决的要求，则被认为是议会民主制（a parliamentary democracy）的基本前提。这就意味着，应当把对人的自然权利的保护权委托给立法机关，而不应当委托给旨在制约多数统治的政府机构。 在英国，通过民选代表而表达的多数意志，也被认为具有无限的权威。然而在英国法制史上，曾经盛行过另一种理论。伟大的英国法官爱德华·科克爵士（Edward Coke，公元1552～1634年）认为，存在着一种任何议会都不得更改的永恒不变的自然法。作为王座法院的大法官，他详尽阐述了这样一种理论，即在许多情形中，普通法（common law）被认为是某些不可更改的自然理性原则的体现，因此，它将控制议会的行为，而且违反“公共利益及理性”的议会法律也必须被认为是无效的。 然而，后几个世纪的政治发展却与科克的理论背道而驰。当威廉·布莱克斯通（William Blackstone，公元1723－1780年）爵士撰写其名著《英国法论》（Commentaries on the Laws of England）时，议会至上原则（the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy）已然战胜了科克的司法至上论（theory of judicial supremacy）。象18世纪大多数法学家一样，布莱克斯通也认为存在着一个永恒的自然法，而且所有的人定法都是从其中获得权威和效力的。他甚至赞同这种观点，即“如果人定法违反（自然法），那么该人定法就不具任何效力”。但是，有人也不无正确地指出，布莱克斯通的这种说法只不过是“虚饰的废话”而已。布莱克斯通在其所著《英国法论》的另外一段文字中也明确承认，没有任何权力能够阻止议会颁布与自然法相违背的法律。他指出，“议会的权力是绝对的和不受控制的。”这种理论直到今天仍然在英国占有优势。该理论的含意极为明确：它把人之自然权利的行使委托给议会中多数的智慧，并期望理性和正义的命令作为道德约束会对立法机关的无限权力发生作用。 古典自然法学家对法律调整的某些要素和原则进行了详尽的阐释，而这些原则和要素则是一个成熟的法律制度的基本先决条件。这样，他们就为现代文明的法律秩序奠定了基础。古典自然法学派在法律与自由及平等价值之间发现了某种联系，而这种联系至少表明，对人施以的压制性的和专横的统治实与法律的概念不相融合。所有的自然法哲学家，其中包括霍布斯，可能都会同意卢梭有关，“强力并不创设权利”（force does not create right.）的观点。另外，古典自然法哲学家还渐渐发现，法律不仅是抑制无政府状态而且也是抵御专制主义的堡垒。即使象霍布斯和斯宾诺莎这样的法学家——他们把法律反无政府主义的特点放在突出的地位——也要求他们所期望的那种强政府能出于自愿而给予公民某些自由。而象洛克和盂德斯鸠那样的论者首先强调的则是法律反专制主义的特点，但是他们也承认政府有必要防止无政府主义的扩张。然而需要指出的是，这些法律哲学家处理法律问题的那种有条有理的方法，却常常是以非历史的简单程式和任意的假设为其特点的。例如，他们毫无根据地认为，理性能够设计出普遍有效的法律制度的全部细节。然而即使如此，古典自然法学家也不应受到过分的责备。他们通过无视历史并将注意力集中在努力发现一种理想的法律和正义制度的方面，也完成了一项重要使命，其意义大大超过了仅研究法制史的学者所做的工作。经过几代思想家的集体努力，古典自然法哲学家显然为建构现代西方文明的法律大厦奠定了基石。 虽然古典自然法学派的理论在20世纪得到了必要的修正，但是我们并不能由此而贬低该学派的伟大的历史成就。在他们那个时代的政治实践活动方面，自然法学家的努力为历史的进步提供了可贵的帮助。他们创造了一些实现个人摆脱中世纪束缚的工具。自然法对于废除农奴制和奴隶制起到了很大的作用；它在摧毁中世纪的行会和中世纪对商业和工业的束缚方面也极有助益；它对地产摆脱封建的重负起到了很大的促进作用；它创立了迁徙自由和选择职业的自由，并开创了宗教和思想自由的时代；它通过废除严刑拷打和使惩罚人道化的方式而克服了刑法和刑事诉讼中最为严重的缺点；它废除了巫术审判；它力求使每个人都得到法律的保护并主张法律面前人人平等；它还阐明了国际法的一般原则。当然，所有上述成就并不能完全归功于自然法学家的直接影响和作用，因为在16世纪开始的个人解放进程中，还有许多其他因素也在同时起作用，而且这一进程的活力与速度在西方诸国亦各不相同。但是，毋庸置疑，在自由主义的兴起及其所实现的法律改革过程中，古典自然法运动可谓是其间极富创造性的和推动性的力量之一。 自然法哲学的另一个实际结果就是它掀起了一场强有力的立法运动。自然法的倡导者认为，通过运用理性的力量，人们能够发现一个理想的法律制度。因此很自然，他们都力图系统地规划出自然法的各种规则和原则，并将它们全部纳入一部法典之中。这样，约在18世纪中叶，人们启动了一场立法运动。它的第一项成果就是《普鲁士腓特烈大帝法典》（Allgemeines Landrecht，1794年在腓特烈大帝的继承者统治时期颁布）。该法典中包含了克利斯帝安·沃尔夫（Wolff）所提出的仁慈的、家长式的法律哲学中的重要成分。这场立法运动的最高成就之一，则是1804年的《拿破仑法典》，它至今在法国有效。奥地利于1811年也颁布了一部法典。在通向法典化的道路上，此后的里程碑有1896年的《德国民法典》和1907年的《瑞士民法典》。所有上述法典，通过赋予其效力范围内所有的人以一定的自由、平等和安全，实现并实施了古典自然法学派所提出的某些基本要求。