十七世紀上半葉英格蘭承諾服從爭論與憲政論述轉變

Abstract

本論文主旨為透過檢視十七世紀前半葉英格蘭的憲政論述之相關史料與文本，主張承諾服從論述之研究應包含事實論、法理論以及神意論等三分析取向，並輔以Mrachamont Nedham與馬基維利的共和主義論述之異同研究。本研究將有助於呈現近現代英格蘭從君王主權到議會主權之憲政轉變——英格蘭共和國消解主權權力共享的君臨議會古憲法體制後，建立絕對且不可分享的近現代主權觀。再者，本論文主張承諾服從論述之時代意義在於以自然法與共和主義取代古憲法傳統，證成英格蘭共和政權統治的合法性與正當性。第三，承諾服從論述之跨時代貢獻為藉由效法過往王政時期政治效忠宣誓之方式來建立對於共和政府之政治效忠，替「君臨議會」憲政體制解構後的英格蘭政府建立起新的政治統治圖像，即議會絕對主義。

This thesis aims to shed some light on how English constitutional discourses were transformed from monarch sovereignty to parliamentary sovereignty by reviewing a special political discourse, namely the Engagement Controversy, within the formative years from 1649 to the beginning of 1654. It contends, first, the Engagement Controversy was much a part of the transformation of English constitutional discourses from monarch sovereignty to an absolute and undivided parliamentary sovereignty when the title of king-in-parliament of ancient constitution was dissolved. Second, the Engagement Controversy should be studied via de facto theory, de jure theory, and providentialism, as well as in terms of the differences between Marchamont Nedham and Niccolò Machiavelli on republicanism. Third, this thesis argues that the Engagement Controversy substituted the ancient constitution tradition with natural law and republicanism. The controversy justified the legality and legitimacy of the political authority of the Commonwealth of England, and also provided a new political ruling image of the Commonwealth of England was replaced with new political oaths instead of the previous kinship political allegiance.