{"title":"当君主骚动时","authors":"Neil Walker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3302668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Richard Tuck’s recent study of Thomas Hobbes’ famous depiction of the ‘Sleeping Sovereign’ offers a reminder of the 17th century philosopher’s contribution to the political imaginary within which our modern conception of constitutional democracy would later emerge. Central to that imaginary is Hobbes’ distinction between sovereignty and government – anticipating the division between the constitutional ‘rules of the game’ established by the ‘people’ or popular sovereign, and the day-to-day conduct of government under these rules. In these terms, the ‘people’ remain ‘asleep’ except in the event of revolutionary renewal, or, more often, under strict conditions of constitutional amendment. \n \nThe Hobbesian metaphor, extended to cover the ‘stirring’ of new forms of sovereigntist consciousness and practice, continues to offer a powerful perspective on the strengths and the limitations of a sovereignty-centred approach to the contemporary global political condition. We can illustrate these new stirrings, and how they are related, through the four ‘R’s. The Reassembling of sovereignty refers to how increasingly elaborate and inclusive procedures going beyond the normal menu of amendment techniques are being used today to achieve constitutional settlement or galvanize constitutional change. The Raising of sovereignty refers to new claims or the resurrection of old claims by sub-state or trans-state populations who dispute the present pattern of sovereign authority. The Rationing of sovereignty refers to the process by which certain supra-state entities, such as the EU, seek to split the sovereignty atom amongst overlapping and interacting and so no longer omnicompetent states. Finally, the Reassertion of sovereignty involves the reaffirmation of existing sovereign claims, often in response to and reaction against the challenges associated with reassembling, raising and rationing; and often, too, articulated in populist terms, downplaying many of the protections of political pluralism and individual rights that mark the modern constitutional condition.","PeriodicalId":392681,"journal":{"name":"Sovereignty in Action","volume":"12 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Sovereigns Stir\",\"authors\":\"Neil Walker\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3302668\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Richard Tuck’s recent study of Thomas Hobbes’ famous depiction of the ‘Sleeping Sovereign’ offers a reminder of the 17th century philosopher’s contribution to the political imaginary within which our modern conception of constitutional democracy would later emerge. Central to that imaginary is Hobbes’ distinction between sovereignty and government – anticipating the division between the constitutional ‘rules of the game’ established by the ‘people’ or popular sovereign, and the day-to-day conduct of government under these rules. In these terms, the ‘people’ remain ‘asleep’ except in the event of revolutionary renewal, or, more often, under strict conditions of constitutional amendment. \\n \\nThe Hobbesian metaphor, extended to cover the ‘stirring’ of new forms of sovereigntist consciousness and practice, continues to offer a powerful perspective on the strengths and the limitations of a sovereignty-centred approach to the contemporary global political condition. We can illustrate these new stirrings, and how they are related, through the four ‘R’s. The Reassembling of sovereignty refers to how increasingly elaborate and inclusive procedures going beyond the normal menu of amendment techniques are being used today to achieve constitutional settlement or galvanize constitutional change. The Raising of sovereignty refers to new claims or the resurrection of old claims by sub-state or trans-state populations who dispute the present pattern of sovereign authority. The Rationing of sovereignty refers to the process by which certain supra-state entities, such as the EU, seek to split the sovereignty atom amongst overlapping and interacting and so no longer omnicompetent states. Finally, the Reassertion of sovereignty involves the reaffirmation of existing sovereign claims, often in response to and reaction against the challenges associated with reassembling, raising and rationing; and often, too, articulated in populist terms, downplaying many of the protections of political pluralism and individual rights that mark the modern constitutional condition.\",\"PeriodicalId\":392681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sovereignty in Action\",\"volume\":\"12 11\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sovereignty in Action\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3302668\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sovereignty in Action","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3302668","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
理查德·塔克(Richard Tuck)最近对托马斯·霍布斯(Thomas Hobbes)著名的“沉睡的君主”(Sleeping Sovereign)描述的研究,让我们想起了这位17世纪哲学家对政治想象的贡献,我们的现代宪政民主概念后来就是在这种想象中出现的。这种想象的核心是霍布斯对主权和政府的区分——预见到由“人民”或人民主权建立的宪法“游戏规则”与政府在这些规则下的日常行为之间的区分。在这种情况下,“人民”保持“沉睡”状态,除非发生革命更新,或者更常见的是,在严格的宪法修正案条件下。霍布斯的比喻,扩展到涵盖主权主义意识和实践的新形式的“骚动”,继续提供一个强有力的视角,以主权为中心的方法的优势和局限性,以当代全球政治状况。我们可以通过四个“R”来说明这些新的刺激,以及它们之间的关系。主权重组指的是当今如何使用越来越复杂和包容的程序来实现宪法解决或激发宪法变革,这些程序超出了正常的修改技术菜单。主权的提升是指次级国家或跨国家人口对现有主权权威模式提出的新的要求或旧要求的复活。主权配给(Rationing of sovereignty)指的是某些超国家实体,如欧盟(EU),试图在重叠和相互作用之间分割主权原子,从而不再是全能国家的过程。最后,重申主权涉及重申现有的主权要求,通常是为了回应和应对与重组、饲养和配给有关的挑战;而且,它也经常以民粹主义的措辞表达,淡化了许多对政治多元化和个人权利的保护,而这些都是现代宪法条件的标志。
Richard Tuck’s recent study of Thomas Hobbes’ famous depiction of the ‘Sleeping Sovereign’ offers a reminder of the 17th century philosopher’s contribution to the political imaginary within which our modern conception of constitutional democracy would later emerge. Central to that imaginary is Hobbes’ distinction between sovereignty and government – anticipating the division between the constitutional ‘rules of the game’ established by the ‘people’ or popular sovereign, and the day-to-day conduct of government under these rules. In these terms, the ‘people’ remain ‘asleep’ except in the event of revolutionary renewal, or, more often, under strict conditions of constitutional amendment.
The Hobbesian metaphor, extended to cover the ‘stirring’ of new forms of sovereigntist consciousness and practice, continues to offer a powerful perspective on the strengths and the limitations of a sovereignty-centred approach to the contemporary global political condition. We can illustrate these new stirrings, and how they are related, through the four ‘R’s. The Reassembling of sovereignty refers to how increasingly elaborate and inclusive procedures going beyond the normal menu of amendment techniques are being used today to achieve constitutional settlement or galvanize constitutional change. The Raising of sovereignty refers to new claims or the resurrection of old claims by sub-state or trans-state populations who dispute the present pattern of sovereign authority. The Rationing of sovereignty refers to the process by which certain supra-state entities, such as the EU, seek to split the sovereignty atom amongst overlapping and interacting and so no longer omnicompetent states. Finally, the Reassertion of sovereignty involves the reaffirmation of existing sovereign claims, often in response to and reaction against the challenges associated with reassembling, raising and rationing; and often, too, articulated in populist terms, downplaying many of the protections of political pluralism and individual rights that mark the modern constitutional condition.