紧急状态破坏法治吗?——二战以来美国紧急权力扩张及制约问题研究  

Does State of Emergency undermine Rule of Law?The Expansion and Restriction of Emergency Power in USA Since World War Ⅱ

作　　者：刘志欣[1] LIU Zhixin

机构地区：[1]上海工程技术大学风险治理与应急管理研究中心,200023

出　　处：《国外社会科学前沿》2021年第10期3-14,共12页JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCES

基　　金：上海教育发展基金会和上海市教育委员会“曙光计划”项目“美国紧急权力司法审查的经验及启示”(20SG54);“上海市马克思主义理论研究中青年拔尖人才”项目的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：紧急状态与法治的内在紧张关系是紧急状态法律研究的重要命题。自珍珠港事件以来,美国紧急权力持续扩张,并对法治产生一定破坏。在第二次世界大战、冷战、后"9·11"事件等不同时期,美国紧急权力运行展示了权力持续扩张并呈现棘轮效应,并在"9·11"事件之后达到高峰;制约权力时有懈怠,而且显示出共时性制约困境,这表明制约机构在紧急状态时存在信息与专业能力薄弱的问题;利益集团游说、金钱政治、大法官提名的策略性行为等政治因素影响也加剧了制度偏差。为了解决权力扩张及制约问题,紧急状态法律研究应当从自由与安全、共时与历时、暂时与永久等三对范畴进行整体性反思,并在制度结构上做出安排,力求保持紧急状态与法治的平衡,以避免紧急状态破坏法治。Tension between state of emergency and rule of law is an important issue in research on state of emergency law. Since attack on Pearl Harbor, emergency power has expanded constantly and to some extent undermine rule of law in United States. During different periods, such as World War Ⅱ, the Cold War, and the 9/11 attack, expansion of emergency power was rapid and had ratchet effect, while restriction of it was weak and faced a synchronic dilemma. It shows that the informational and professional ability of restriction organizations is insufficient in response to state of emergency. Moreover, political factors, such as lobbying by interest groups, money politics, and strategic actions during the Justices nomination process etc., have exacerbated system deviations. In order to solve these problems, legal research needs to take account of three pairs of categories, that is, freedom and security, synchronic and diachronic check, temporary and permanent state, and then makes some institutional considerations. So, the relationship between state of emergency and order will be balanced, and rule of law will remain or regain soon.

关 键 词：紧急状态 法治 紧急权力 权力制约 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]