弗朗茨·诺伊曼和恩斯特·弗伦克尔论自由民主宪政计划

IF 1.2 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
AJIL Unbound Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1017/aju.2023.45
David Dyzenhaus
{"title":"弗朗茨·诺伊曼和恩斯特·弗伦克尔论自由民主宪政计划","authors":"David Dyzenhaus","doi":"10.1017/aju.2023.45","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I want to explore a tension in Anna Saunders's rich argument because it confronts much scholarship critical of what we can think of as the liberal democratic constitutional project (LDCP), and which has its roots in debates in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries sparked by the Marxist critique of capitalism. The tension is between the following two claims that she makes in her article, “Constitution-Making as a Technique of International Law: Reconsidering the Post-war Inheritance.” First, LDCP focuses on the formal dimension of institutional design and thereby fails to pay attention to a significant dimension of a constitutional order: its material basis. In this case, the remedy might seem simple: “Pay attention!” The second claim, however, is that the formal structure of LDCP is formal in name only. It has its own material basis in the ideology of neoliberalism. If, then, one is concerned as Saunders is about a material basis that reproduces social inequality and economic exploitation, the remedy is to abandon LDCP. My exploration is through Saunders's attention to the divergent analyses of the Nazi state set out by Franz Neumann and Ernst Fraenkel in the 1930s as the launching pad for her investigation of the structure of thought that underpins LDCP and her suggestion that Fraenkel is responsible for the juridical turn in LDCP. I start with some biography, in part inspired by the way in which Saunders weaves the personal and the political into her narrative. It helps to show that the turn is not in itself problematic and, as I conclude, that material questions need to be posed and answered within the framework of a well-designed constitutional order.","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Franz Neumann and Ernst Fraenkel on the Liberal Democratic Constitutional Project\",\"authors\":\"David Dyzenhaus\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/aju.2023.45\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I want to explore a tension in Anna Saunders's rich argument because it confronts much scholarship critical of what we can think of as the liberal democratic constitutional project (LDCP), and which has its roots in debates in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries sparked by the Marxist critique of capitalism. The tension is between the following two claims that she makes in her article, “Constitution-Making as a Technique of International Law: Reconsidering the Post-war Inheritance.” First, LDCP focuses on the formal dimension of institutional design and thereby fails to pay attention to a significant dimension of a constitutional order: its material basis. In this case, the remedy might seem simple: “Pay attention!” The second claim, however, is that the formal structure of LDCP is formal in name only. It has its own material basis in the ideology of neoliberalism. If, then, one is concerned as Saunders is about a material basis that reproduces social inequality and economic exploitation, the remedy is to abandon LDCP. My exploration is through Saunders's attention to the divergent analyses of the Nazi state set out by Franz Neumann and Ernst Fraenkel in the 1930s as the launching pad for her investigation of the structure of thought that underpins LDCP and her suggestion that Fraenkel is responsible for the juridical turn in LDCP. I start with some biography, in part inspired by the way in which Saunders weaves the personal and the political into her narrative. It helps to show that the turn is not in itself problematic and, as I conclude, that material questions need to be posed and answered within the framework of a well-designed constitutional order.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJIL Unbound\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJIL Unbound\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.45\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJIL Unbound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2023.45","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我想探讨安娜·桑德斯丰富的论证中的一种紧张关系,因为它与许多对我们所认为的自由民主宪政计划(LDCP)持批评态度的学术观点相抵触,这种观点源于19世纪末和20世纪初马克思主义对资本主义的批判所引发的辩论。她在文章《作为国际法技术的制宪:重新考虑战后遗产》中提出了以下两种主张。首先,LDCP关注的是制度设计的形式维度,因而未能关注宪政秩序的一个重要维度:它的物质基础。在这种情况下,补救措施似乎很简单:“注意!”然而,第二种说法是,LDCP的形式结构只是名义上的形式。它在新自由主义意识形态中有自己的物质基础。因此,如果一个人像桑德斯那样关心再现社会不平等和经济剥削的物质基础,那么补救办法就是放弃LDCP。我的探索是通过桑德斯对弗朗茨·诺伊曼和恩斯特·弗伦克尔在20世纪30年代提出的纳粹国家的不同分析的关注,作为她对支撑LDCP的思想结构的调查的跳板,并建议弗伦克尔对LDCP的司法转向负责。我从一些传记开始,部分灵感来自桑德斯将个人和政治交织到她的叙述中的方式。它有助于表明,这种转变本身并没有问题,正如我的结论,实质性问题需要在设计良好的宪法秩序框架内提出和回答。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Franz Neumann and Ernst Fraenkel on the Liberal Democratic Constitutional Project
I want to explore a tension in Anna Saunders's rich argument because it confronts much scholarship critical of what we can think of as the liberal democratic constitutional project (LDCP), and which has its roots in debates in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries sparked by the Marxist critique of capitalism. The tension is between the following two claims that she makes in her article, “Constitution-Making as a Technique of International Law: Reconsidering the Post-war Inheritance.” First, LDCP focuses on the formal dimension of institutional design and thereby fails to pay attention to a significant dimension of a constitutional order: its material basis. In this case, the remedy might seem simple: “Pay attention!” The second claim, however, is that the formal structure of LDCP is formal in name only. It has its own material basis in the ideology of neoliberalism. If, then, one is concerned as Saunders is about a material basis that reproduces social inequality and economic exploitation, the remedy is to abandon LDCP. My exploration is through Saunders's attention to the divergent analyses of the Nazi state set out by Franz Neumann and Ernst Fraenkel in the 1930s as the launching pad for her investigation of the structure of thought that underpins LDCP and her suggestion that Fraenkel is responsible for the juridical turn in LDCP. I start with some biography, in part inspired by the way in which Saunders weaves the personal and the political into her narrative. It helps to show that the turn is not in itself problematic and, as I conclude, that material questions need to be posed and answered within the framework of a well-designed constitutional order.
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
AJIL Unbound
AJIL Unbound Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信