至高权力:政治学中的“被遗忘”范畴?

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Political Philosophy Pub Date : 2021-12-09 DOI:10.30570/2078-5089-2021-103-4-163-182
Pavel Igorevich Kostogryzov
{"title":"至高权力:政治学中的“被遗忘”范畴?","authors":"Pavel Igorevich Kostogryzov","doi":"10.30570/2078-5089-2021-103-4-163-182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the analysis of the concept of supreme power, which, according to the author, is undeservedly neglec ted by the modern Political Science. Despite the high importance of this concept, its definition is lacking in dictionaries, as well as most textbooks and reviews. Legal Science and State Studies have known this concept at least since the 16th century. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, due to the works of such scientists as Boris Chicherin, Alexander Alekseev, Nikolay Korkunov, Georg Jellinek, Lev Tikhomirov, Petr Kazansky the academic consensus was formed that supreme power can be defined as legally unlimited, complete and unconditional power in the state. At the beginning of the 21st century, the interest in this category has revived, which resulted, in particular, in the previous concepts becoming relevant again. After having critically analyzed the existing ideas of the Russian researchers on this topic, the author comes to the conclusion that elaboration of the relevant theory of the supreme power that lives up to the modern level of knowledge, requires interdisciplinary approach and combined effort from lawyers, political scientists, historians, and sociologists. Having convincingly demonstrated that today this task is still far from being complete, he focuses on a number of key problems for the development of such a theory and outlines possible directions for finding their solution. According to his conclusion, the category “supreme power” has a significant heuristic potential, and its “return” to political, as well as constitutional and legal, science would enrich their methodological tools. In particular, its application to the analysis of political systems makes it possible to discern behind the facade of the constitutional separation of powers not only who governs (i.e., exercises this or that authority granted by the constitution), but also who rules i.e., has the right to make final decisions on key issues of political life.","PeriodicalId":47624,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Supreme Power: “Forgotten” Category in Political Science?\",\"authors\":\"Pavel Igorevich Kostogryzov\",\"doi\":\"10.30570/2078-5089-2021-103-4-163-182\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article is devoted to the analysis of the concept of supreme power, which, according to the author, is undeservedly neglec ted by the modern Political Science. Despite the high importance of this concept, its definition is lacking in dictionaries, as well as most textbooks and reviews. Legal Science and State Studies have known this concept at least since the 16th century. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, due to the works of such scientists as Boris Chicherin, Alexander Alekseev, Nikolay Korkunov, Georg Jellinek, Lev Tikhomirov, Petr Kazansky the academic consensus was formed that supreme power can be defined as legally unlimited, complete and unconditional power in the state. At the beginning of the 21st century, the interest in this category has revived, which resulted, in particular, in the previous concepts becoming relevant again. After having critically analyzed the existing ideas of the Russian researchers on this topic, the author comes to the conclusion that elaboration of the relevant theory of the supreme power that lives up to the modern level of knowledge, requires interdisciplinary approach and combined effort from lawyers, political scientists, historians, and sociologists. Having convincingly demonstrated that today this task is still far from being complete, he focuses on a number of key problems for the development of such a theory and outlines possible directions for finding their solution. According to his conclusion, the category “supreme power” has a significant heuristic potential, and its “return” to political, as well as constitutional and legal, science would enrich their methodological tools. In particular, its application to the analysis of political systems makes it possible to discern behind the facade of the constitutional separation of powers not only who governs (i.e., exercises this or that authority granted by the constitution), but also who rules i.e., has the right to make final decisions on key issues of political life.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47624,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Political Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Political Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2021-103-4-163-182\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30570/2078-5089-2021-103-4-163-182","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文对现代政治科学所忽视的最高权力概念进行了分析。尽管这个概念非常重要,但字典、大多数教科书和评论中都缺乏对它的定义。法学和国家研究至少从16世纪开始就知道这个概念。在19世纪和20世纪初,由于Boris Chicherin、Alexander Alekseev、Nikolay Korkunov、Georg Jellinek、Lev Tikhomirov、peter Kazansky等科学家的工作,形成了一个学术共识,即最高权力可以定义为法律上不受限制的、完全的和无条件的国家权力。在21世纪初,对这一类别的兴趣已经恢复,这导致,特别是在以前的概念再次变得相关。在批判性地分析了俄罗斯学者在这一问题上的现有观点后,作者得出结论,认为对符合现代知识水平的最高权力相关理论的阐述需要律师、政治学家、历史学家和社会学家的跨学科研究和共同努力。在令人信服地证明了今天这一任务仍远未完成之后,他集中讨论了发展这一理论的一些关键问题,并概述了找到解决这些问题的可能方向。根据他的结论,“最高权力”这一范畴具有重要的启发式潜力,其“回归”政治以及宪法和法律科学将丰富他们的方法论工具。特别是,将其应用于政治制度的分析,不仅可以看出宪法三权分立的表象背后是谁统治(即行使宪法赋予的这种或那种权力),而且可以看出谁统治(即有权对政治生活的关键问题作出最终决定)。
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
Supreme Power: “Forgotten” Category in Political Science?
The article is devoted to the analysis of the concept of supreme power, which, according to the author, is undeservedly neglec ted by the modern Political Science. Despite the high importance of this concept, its definition is lacking in dictionaries, as well as most textbooks and reviews. Legal Science and State Studies have known this concept at least since the 16th century. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, due to the works of such scientists as Boris Chicherin, Alexander Alekseev, Nikolay Korkunov, Georg Jellinek, Lev Tikhomirov, Petr Kazansky the academic consensus was formed that supreme power can be defined as legally unlimited, complete and unconditional power in the state. At the beginning of the 21st century, the interest in this category has revived, which resulted, in particular, in the previous concepts becoming relevant again. After having critically analyzed the existing ideas of the Russian researchers on this topic, the author comes to the conclusion that elaboration of the relevant theory of the supreme power that lives up to the modern level of knowledge, requires interdisciplinary approach and combined effort from lawyers, political scientists, historians, and sociologists. Having convincingly demonstrated that today this task is still far from being complete, he focuses on a number of key problems for the development of such a theory and outlines possible directions for finding their solution. According to his conclusion, the category “supreme power” has a significant heuristic potential, and its “return” to political, as well as constitutional and legal, science would enrich their methodological tools. In particular, its application to the analysis of political systems makes it possible to discern behind the facade of the constitutional separation of powers not only who governs (i.e., exercises this or that authority granted by the constitution), but also who rules i.e., has the right to make final decisions on key issues of political life.
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
4.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Political Philosophy is an international journal devoted to the study of theoretical issues arising out of moral, legal and political life. It welcomes, and hopes to foster, work cutting across a variety of disciplinary concerns, among them philosophy, sociology, history, economics and political science. The journal encourages new approaches, including (but not limited to): feminism; environmentalism; critical theory, post-modernism and analytical Marxism; social and public choice theory; law and economics, critical legal studies and critical race studies; and game theoretic, socio-biological and anthropological approaches to politics. It also welcomes work in the history of political thought which builds to a larger philosophical point and work in the philosophy of the social sciences and applied ethics with broader political implications. Featuring a distinguished editorial board from major centres of thought from around the globe, the journal draws equally upon the work of non-philosophers and philosophers and provides a forum of debate between disparate factions who usually keep to their own separate journals.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating International Agreements: The Voluntarist Reply and Its Limits Issue Information The Journal of Political Philosophy Index, Volume 31 (2023) The challenge of policing minorities in a liberal society Noncompliance and the Demands of Public Reason
×
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