论文部分内容阅读
在“9·11事件”后美国宪法学界关于紧急权使用的讨论中,主要形成了扩展性模式、法外模式、成文法模式、普通法模式和批判性模式五种观点。扩展性模式主张在紧急状态下由总统扩展性地使用其行政权,并在一些关键的问题上作出政治决断。法外模式主张不给予紧急权使用任何法律地位,并以此来保障法治的普遍性和纯洁性。成文法模式建议通过紧急宪法的方式对紧急权的使用作出明确的规定。普通法模式力图通过司法裁决的方式来对紧急权的使用进行限制。批判性模式则试图通过更为深刻的法理分析来透视紧急权使用背后的含义。整体来看,这场争论在不同层级上形成了不同的阵营和联盟。同时,这一争论并没有形成一个最终的答案,而只是在不同的阵营之间形成了某种平衡。
In the discussion of the use of emergency right after the September 11 Incident in the United States, there are mainly five kinds of views: scalability, extra-legal, written law, common law and critical mode. The expansive model advocates that the president should use its executive power in an emergency under the conditions of expansion and make political decisions on some crucial issues. The extrajudicial model argues for not giving any legal status to the right to use emergency and in doing so guarantees the universality and purity of the rule of law. The statutory model suggests that the use of the right to emergency be clearly defined by an emergency constitutional approach. The common law model seeks to limit the use of emergency powers by way of judicial decisions. The critical model attempts to see through the more profound jurisprudence the implications behind the use of emergency rights. On the whole, this debate has formed different camps and alliances on different levels. At the same time, this debate has not resulted in a definitive answer, but has merely created a balance between the different camps.