当社会的秩序遭到破坏,当国家的主权受到威胁,在此等紧急状态下,行政机关的紧急权力应该依然受法律规范,还是应该具有超越法律的行政特权?以康德哲学为基础的规范主义僵化地把法律规范看作是绝对的、无例外的和至高无上的,这样不具灵活性的进路在应对紧急状态下国家所遇到的现实问题时往往缺乏建设性。另一方面,虽然施米特对规范主义的批评有一定的道理,但是他的观点焊接了规范与现实,存在着严重的绝对主义倾向。在此背景下,很多西方学者采用了一个“中庸”的哲学观点:他们在洛克的特权理论中找到了国家面对危机时的灵活性,同时又以洛克的法学理论保障了法治在平常状态下的优先性。洛克的理论既有规范主义的元素,同时又允许紧急状态下行政权力在违反法律的情况下扩张,看似两边讨好,其实却存在内部逻辑的不一致与规范上的不稳定。总的来说,这三方的观点均不能为紧急状态下的法治与行政特权提供一个令人满意的理论体系。 When the order of society is undermined and the sovereignty of the country is threatened, in these emergencies state should the emergency power of the administrative organ still be governed by the law or should it have administrative privileges that transcend the law? Normative doctrine based on Kant’s philosophy To rigidly regard the norms of law as absolute, unspecified and paramount, such an inflexible approach often lacks constructivism in dealing with the realities of the nation in emergencies. On the other hand, though Schmitter’s criticism of normative doctrine has some truth, his view has welded norms and realities with serious absolutist tendencies. Against this background, many Western scholars adopt a philosophical view of “moderateness”: they found the flexibility of the state in crisis in Locke’s privilege theory, and at the same time protected the rule of law in Locke’s legal theory. Status of the priority. Locke’s theory contains both the elements of normative elements and at the same time allows the executive power in an emergency to expand under the violation of the law. It seems that both sides are pleasing to the United States. In fact, there are internal logic inconsistencies and normative instabilities. All in all, none of these three perspectives can provide a satisfactory theoretical system for the rule of law and administrative privileges in emergencies.