| 摘要: |
| 由于施米特并未准确地将其1933年《法学思维》中的“决断”限缩为1922年《政治的神学》中的“狭义决断”，并无限放大了司法裁判之中的非理性因素，最终导致了其决断论以“广义决断”侵蚀了其具体秩序论，从而导致施米特否定了自己的具体秩序论。经由对施米特“狭义决断”生成史的考察，可通过区分制宪决断、其他纯粹决断与宪制决断的方法来化解困境。政治与法律的关系是宪制决断的背景，通过对施米特与卢曼思想的比较，借鉴卢曼的组织决策理论，可将宪制决断区分为法律系统中的司法决断、政治系统中的行政决断与立法决断三种类型。在我国宪法语境下，制宪宣示可明确我国宪法中的宣示内容、宪法修改与制宪权的关系，以及明确维护国家安全决断的定位，从而被兼容地应用于我国宪法语境之中。 |
| 关键词: 制宪决断 制宪宣示 纯粹决断 宪制决断 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:2022年度国家社会科学基金重点课题“系统论视野下的数字法治基本问题研究”（项目编号： 22AZD149） |
|
| The Categorization of Decision—Investigation between Politics and Law |
|
Weng Zhuangzhuang
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| Schmitt did not accurately limit the “decision” in his “On Three Models of Jurisprudence Thinking” in 1933 to the “narrow decision” in “Political Theology” in 1922, and he magnified the irrational factors in the judicial judgment indefinitely, which eventually led to his decision theory eroding his specific order theory with “broad decision” and led Schmidt to negate his own specific order theory. By examining the history of Schmitt's “narrow decision”, the dilemma can be resolved by distinguishing among constituent decisions, other pure decisions, and constitutional decisions. The relationship between politics and law is the background of the constitutional decision. By comparing Schmitt's and Luhmann's ideas and drawing on Luhmann's theory of organizational decision-making, the constitutional decision can be divided into judicial decisions in the legal system, administrative decisions in the political system, and legislative decisions in the political system. In the context of Chinese constitution, the constituent declaration making can clarify the content of the declaration in Chinese constitution, the relationship between constitutional amendment and constituent power, and the position of safeguarding national security decisions. It can be applied in the context of Chinese constitution in a compatible manner. |
| Key words: Constituent Decision, Constituent Declaration, Pure Decision, Constitutional Decision |
