重新定义法治:
18世纪案例研究

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW American Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2023-04-21 DOI:10.1093/ajcl/avad006
Christian R. Burset
{"title":"重新定义法治:\u202818世纪案例研究","authors":"Christian R. Burset","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avad006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Scholars who write about the relationship between law and empire tend to adopt one of two frameworks. The first describes imperial rule and the rule of law as fundamentally incompatible. The second praises empires—especially the British Empire—for exporting the rule of law to lands that lacked it. These competing approaches have very different political valences, but they agree in suggesting that colonial rule made no substantial contribution to today’s rule of law tradition. At best, the metropole exported a premade rule of law abroad; at worst, colonialism corrupted preexisting commitments to legality. But in neither case did imperial rule alter rule of law ideals.\n This Article argues, in contrast, that colonialism helped to reshape how anglophones defined the rule of law. It begins by reconstructing two conceptions of legality in the eighteenth-century British Empire. At the start of that century, most Britons subscribed to what this Article calls the traditional conception of the rule of law. This conception aimed at a thick set of political, social, and economic ends, which proponents sought to advance through specific English institutions, such as juries. A second, thinner conception of legality—what this Article calls the modern rule of law—emerged in the second half of the eighteenth century. Like many rule of law theories today, the modern conception focused on abstract ideals, such as legal certainty, rather than particular institutions. Proponents of the modern rule of law aimed to provide a cosmopolitan standard that would transcend national and cultural boundaries.\n Although these two conceptions were often compatible, their differences became apparent in the 1770s, as politicians debated whether to extend English law to conquered colonies. Britain’s ultimate decision to embrace colonial legal pluralism encouraged commentators to embrace the newer, thinner conception, which was easier to reconcile with the growing diversity of the empire’s many legal systems. This debate over the colonial rule of law continues to shape our efforts to theorize the rule of law. Understanding the rule of law’s history also offers new insights into the potential utility of different versions of that concept today. Finally, this Article shows how invoking the rule of law in everyday political debates can ultimately redefine the concept itself.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Redefining the Rule of Law: \\u2028An Eighteenth-Century Case Study\",\"authors\":\"Christian R. Burset\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajcl/avad006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Scholars who write about the relationship between law and empire tend to adopt one of two frameworks. The first describes imperial rule and the rule of law as fundamentally incompatible. The second praises empires—especially the British Empire—for exporting the rule of law to lands that lacked it. These competing approaches have very different political valences, but they agree in suggesting that colonial rule made no substantial contribution to today’s rule of law tradition. At best, the metropole exported a premade rule of law abroad; at worst, colonialism corrupted preexisting commitments to legality. But in neither case did imperial rule alter rule of law ideals.\\n This Article argues, in contrast, that colonialism helped to reshape how anglophones defined the rule of law. It begins by reconstructing two conceptions of legality in the eighteenth-century British Empire. At the start of that century, most Britons subscribed to what this Article calls the traditional conception of the rule of law. This conception aimed at a thick set of political, social, and economic ends, which proponents sought to advance through specific English institutions, such as juries. A second, thinner conception of legality—what this Article calls the modern rule of law—emerged in the second half of the eighteenth century. Like many rule of law theories today, the modern conception focused on abstract ideals, such as legal certainty, rather than particular institutions. Proponents of the modern rule of law aimed to provide a cosmopolitan standard that would transcend national and cultural boundaries.\\n Although these two conceptions were often compatible, their differences became apparent in the 1770s, as politicians debated whether to extend English law to conquered colonies. Britain’s ultimate decision to embrace colonial legal pluralism encouraged commentators to embrace the newer, thinner conception, which was easier to reconcile with the growing diversity of the empire’s many legal systems. This debate over the colonial rule of law continues to shape our efforts to theorize the rule of law. Understanding the rule of law’s history also offers new insights into the potential utility of different versions of that concept today. Finally, this Article shows how invoking the rule of law in everyday political debates can ultimately redefine the concept itself.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad006\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

撰写法律与帝国关系的学者倾向于采用两种框架之一。第一种观点认为皇权统治和法治根本不相容。第二种是赞扬帝国——尤其是大英帝国——向缺乏法治的国家输出法治。这些相互竞争的方法具有非常不同的政治价值,但它们一致认为殖民统治对今天的法治传统没有实质性贡献。在最好的情况下,这个大都市向国外输出了一种预制的法治;最坏的情况是,殖民主义腐蚀了先前存在的对合法性的承诺。但在这两种情况下,帝国统治都没有改变法治理想。与此相反,本文认为殖民主义帮助重塑了以英语为母语的人对法治的定义。本文首先对18世纪大英帝国的两种合法性概念进行了重构。在20世纪初,大多数英国人认同本文所称的传统法治观念。这一概念旨在达到一系列政治、社会和经济目的,支持者试图通过特定的英国制度(如陪审团)来推进这些目的。第二种较为薄弱的合法性概念——本文所称的现代法治——出现于18世纪下半叶。像今天的许多法治理论一样,现代概念关注的是抽象的理想,比如法律确定性,而不是具体的制度。现代法治的支持者旨在提供一种超越国家和文化界限的世界性标准。尽管这两个概念通常是相容的,但在18世纪70年代,当政治家们争论是否将英国法律扩展到被征服的殖民地时,它们的差异变得明显起来。英国最终决定接受殖民法律的多元主义,这促使评论家们接受更新、更精简的概念,这更容易与大英帝国日益多样化的法律体系相协调。这场关于殖民地法治的辩论继续影响着我们将法治理论化的努力。对法治历史的理解,也能让我们对法治概念的不同版本在今天的潜在效用有新的认识。最后,本文展示了在日常政治辩论中援引法治如何最终重新定义这个概念本身。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Redefining the Rule of Law: 
An Eighteenth-Century Case Study
Scholars who write about the relationship between law and empire tend to adopt one of two frameworks. The first describes imperial rule and the rule of law as fundamentally incompatible. The second praises empires—especially the British Empire—for exporting the rule of law to lands that lacked it. These competing approaches have very different political valences, but they agree in suggesting that colonial rule made no substantial contribution to today’s rule of law tradition. At best, the metropole exported a premade rule of law abroad; at worst, colonialism corrupted preexisting commitments to legality. But in neither case did imperial rule alter rule of law ideals. This Article argues, in contrast, that colonialism helped to reshape how anglophones defined the rule of law. It begins by reconstructing two conceptions of legality in the eighteenth-century British Empire. At the start of that century, most Britons subscribed to what this Article calls the traditional conception of the rule of law. This conception aimed at a thick set of political, social, and economic ends, which proponents sought to advance through specific English institutions, such as juries. A second, thinner conception of legality—what this Article calls the modern rule of law—emerged in the second half of the eighteenth century. Like many rule of law theories today, the modern conception focused on abstract ideals, such as legal certainty, rather than particular institutions. Proponents of the modern rule of law aimed to provide a cosmopolitan standard that would transcend national and cultural boundaries. Although these two conceptions were often compatible, their differences became apparent in the 1770s, as politicians debated whether to extend English law to conquered colonies. Britain’s ultimate decision to embrace colonial legal pluralism encouraged commentators to embrace the newer, thinner conception, which was easier to reconcile with the growing diversity of the empire’s many legal systems. This debate over the colonial rule of law continues to shape our efforts to theorize the rule of law. Understanding the rule of law’s history also offers new insights into the potential utility of different versions of that concept today. Finally, this Article shows how invoking the rule of law in everyday political debates can ultimately redefine the concept itself.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Comparative Law is a scholarly quarterly journal devoted to comparative law, comparing the laws of one or more nations with those of another or discussing one jurisdiction"s law in order for the reader to understand how it might differ from that of the United States or another country. It publishes features articles contributed by major scholars and comments by law student writers. The American Society of Comparative Law, Inc. (ASCL), formerly the American Association for the Comparative Study of Law, Inc., is an organization of institutional and individual members devoted to study, research, and write on foreign and comparative law as well as private international law.
期刊最新文献
Sovereignty, Territoriality, and Private International Law in Classical Muslim International Law Beyond Transplant: A Network Innovation Model of Transnational Regulatory Change The Irony of British Human Rights Exceptionalism, 1948–1998 Are Political “Attacks” on the Judiciary Ever Justifiable? The Relationship Between Unfair Criticism and Public Accountability Is Neutrality Possible? A Critique of the CJEU on Headscarves in the Workplace from a Comparative Perspective
×
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