John Locke—Theorist of Limiting and Supervising Political Power by Citizens

Q4 Arts and Humanities Dialogue and Universalism Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.5840/du202131220
Adriana Neacșu
{"title":"John Locke—Theorist of Limiting and Supervising Political Power by Citizens","authors":"Adriana Neacșu","doi":"10.5840/du202131220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aims to analyze John Locke’s ideas on the limited political mandate of the institutions of power, and the need for their supervision and sanctioning by citizens when they violate their duties. It emphasizes the topicality of these ideas, pointing out that they represent two fundamental principles in the functioning of the rule of law, defining the current democracies. Locke justified them starting from the hypothesis that society was founded by people through a deliberate pact, so that the common good could be promoted more effectively, and the legitimacy of political power is conditioned by the observance of this task. Therefore, if political power violates the social pact, it can be overthrown by citizens even by force. The author then raises the question if the use of force to change a political regime can still be justified today. Her answer is that this is an objective mechanism, which appears implacably in all unjust societies, and the only way to defuse it is for states to permanently respect the rights and freedoms of all citizens.","PeriodicalId":36732,"journal":{"name":"Dialogue and Universalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogue and Universalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/du202131220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper aims to analyze John Locke’s ideas on the limited political mandate of the institutions of power, and the need for their supervision and sanctioning by citizens when they violate their duties. It emphasizes the topicality of these ideas, pointing out that they represent two fundamental principles in the functioning of the rule of law, defining the current democracies. Locke justified them starting from the hypothesis that society was founded by people through a deliberate pact, so that the common good could be promoted more effectively, and the legitimacy of political power is conditioned by the observance of this task. Therefore, if political power violates the social pact, it can be overthrown by citizens even by force. The author then raises the question if the use of force to change a political regime can still be justified today. Her answer is that this is an objective mechanism, which appears implacably in all unjust societies, and the only way to defuse it is for states to permanently respect the rights and freedoms of all citizens.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
约翰·洛克——公民限制和监督政治权力的理论家
本文旨在分析约翰·洛克关于权力机构的有限政治授权的观点,以及当权力机构违反其职责时公民对其进行监督和制裁的必要性。它强调了这些思想的时代性,指出它们代表了法治运作的两个基本原则,定义了当前的民主国家。洛克从社会是由人们通过一个深思熟虑的契约建立起来的假设开始为他们辩护,这样共同利益就可以更有效地得到促进,政治权力的合法性是由遵守这一任务所决定的。因此,如果政治权力违反了社会契约,公民甚至可以用武力推翻它。作者随后提出了一个问题,即使用武力来改变政治制度在今天是否仍然是正当的。她的回答是,这是一种客观机制,在所有不公正的社会中都存在,消除这种机制的唯一途径是各国永远尊重所有公民的权利和自由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Dialogue and Universalism
Dialogue and Universalism Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Problems of the Unknowability and Total Unity in the Light of Philosophy of Semyon L. Frank Re-Thinking Cultural Hedonism Do We Really Need a New Enlightenment for the 21st Century? On the Question of Whether We Need a New Enlightenment for the 21st Century How Do We Shape a Reform of the 21st-Century Human World in an Enlightenment Spirit? On Projects by Robert E. Allinson and Michael H. Mitias
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1