从立法主权到人民主权
|
摘要
边沁主权学说的发展经历了不同的阶段，具有不同的理论形态，他在早期坚持一种立法主权理论，在后期提出了一种人民主权理论。这两者之间存在什么关系？从立法主权到人民主权是一种理论延续，还是一种理论断裂？如果是一种理论延续，那么，是什么理论要素使得这种延续成为可能，这种延续性背后体现了什么样的权力观？这些问题对于理解边沁的主权学说非常重要。
边沁主权学说的发展始于对布莱克斯通的主权理论的批判，他批判了布莱克斯通的绝对主权观念，认为主权可以受到明确的协定的限制；主权具有事实和权利两方面，主权的存在是有条件的；在此基础上，他提出了自己的立法主权学说，这种主权学说认为主权的主要权能在于立法，主权的基础在于人们的服从习惯和服从性情，主权主要是一种祈使权。在后期，边沁提出了一种人民主权学说，即认为主权属于人民，主权是一种选举和罢免立法者的权力。这种人民主权学说实际上具有一种关系性的结构，其中人民是政治主权者，立法者是法律主权者，主权在实质上存在于二者的关系中，边沁的人民主权学说是一种关系性的主权学说。这种人民主权学说能够容纳立法主权，因为立法者拥有的法律主权就是一种立法主权。从而，立法主权和人民主权之间存在延续性。这种延续性的背后是一种二维权力概念，即认为权力概念内部具有事实和权利两个维度，或者说内含事实性和规范性两个纬度。这就是说，只有满足了特定条件，权力才能从事实变为权利，才能具有正当性。在边沁的主权学说中，使权力其具有正当性的条件就是功利原则、主权受到限制、代表制民主。
除最后的结语外，本文将分为以下6章：
本文在第1章“导论”中将提出研究的问题和所采用的研究方法；在第2章“批判布莱克斯通的主权理论：边沁主权学说的源起”中，本文将分析边沁对布莱克斯通的批判，这部分将集中于对边沁《政府片论》的解读，从他对布莱克斯通的社会契约论和主权概念的批判中，分析边沁自己在和主权相关的问题上所持有的观点；
第3章讨论了这种立法主权的概念结构，并将分析立法主权的基础。进而讨论是否存在一种服从立法主权的普遍性的义务。此外，这章也将讨论边沁立法主权的性质，在本文看来，这种立法主权属于他所说的那种“祈使权”；
第4章分析了边沁人民主权观念的内涵，并指出这种人民主权观念具有一种关系性的结构，也就是认为它包括了政治主权和法律主权两个构成要素。主权在形式上属于政治主权者人民和法律主权者立法者所有，但是，主权在实质上存在于两者关系中。此外，本文认为这种关系性人民主权包括三个建构原则：“普遍利益”、“意志同一”和“政治自由”；
第5章讨论了人民主权的运作方式。本文认为人民主权有三种存在形式，即作为人民主权政治形式的构成权，作为人民主权法律形式的运作权，以及作为人民主权社会形式的公共舆论法庭。本文研究了实现人民主权的两个条件，代表制民主和公共性，它们构成了人民主权的制度基础和内在保障；在此基础上，人民主权通过政治主权和法律主权的互动而实现。
第6章讨论了人民主权学说的理论定位，并从权力的角度分析了主权概念本身。在边沁的主权理论中，权力是一种二维概念，具有事实性和规范性（权利）两个维度，立法主权和人民主权都是这种权力概念的外在体现形式，它们分别体现了权力概念的“事实”和“权利”两个维度。本文认为立法主权和人民主权本质上是同一种权力概念的不同体现形式，它们在本质上是相同的，边沁的立法主权和人民主权之间具有内在的延续性。
The development of Jeremy Bentham's doctrine of sovereignty canbe divided into two different stages. In the earlier stage, he argues for adoctrine of legislative sovereignty, and in later stage, he argues a doctrineof popular sovereignty, Then what's the difference between these doctrines?Is it a theoretical development or a theoretical change? If it is adevelopment, what makes it possible? What kind of concept of power canwe found in this development? It is important to understand these issues inorder to comprehend Bentham's doctrine of sovereignty.
In the earlier stage, Jeremy Bentham makes a critique of SirBlackstone's absolute concept of sovereignty, and holds the point that thesovereignty can be limited by the express convention. Jeremy Benthamputs forward a doctrine of legislative sovereignty, which insists that themost important capability of power is to make law, the foundation ofsovereignty is the habit of obedience and the disposition of obedience, andthe legislative power is a kind of imperative power. In later stage, JeremyBentham puts forward a a doctrine of popular sovereignty, which insiststhat the sovereignty is in the people and the sovereignty is exercised through location and dislocation. His doctrine of popular sovereignty is ofa relational structure, in which the people are the political sovereign, andthe legislature are the legal sovereign, sovereignty is just in therelationship of the two bodies, Bentham's doctrine of sovereignty is of arelational nature. That means his legislative sovereignty fits into hispopular sovereignty, that is to say, Bentham develops his legislativesovereignty actually. We can found his viewpoint of power behind thisdevelopment, which insists that power is a concept of two dimensionsincluding force and legitimacy, and this is to say, power can not become aright until it fulfills some conditions. As for Bentham's doctrine ofsovereignty, the condition which make power legitimate are principle ofutility, sovereignty will be limited, and a government of representativedemocracy.
The dissertation consists six chapters in addition to the epilogue:
In chapter1"Introduction", I put forward the issue of this dissertationas so well as the research method; In chapter2"The critique ofBlackstone's theory of sovereignty: the origin of Jeremy Bentham'sdoctrine of sovereignty", it provides an analysis of Bentham's critique ofBlackstone in order to give a new reading of Jeremy Bentham's AFragment on Government, in witch Jeremy Bentham's view onsovereignty will be discussed.
The chapter3discusses the structure of the legislative sovereignty and its foundation, which makes it possible to study the question ofwhether there is a general obligation of obedience. Moreover, this chapteralso discuses the nature of the legislative sovereignty, in my view, thelegislative sovereignty is a power of imperation;
The chaper4examines the meaning of Jeremy Bentham's popularsovereignty, and points out that there is a relational structure in thisconception, which means that it consists two elements of politicalsovereignty and legal sovereignty. Formally, the sovereignty lies in thepeople as well as the legislature, but substantially in the relation of the two.Besides, this relational popular sovereignty consists of three constitutiveprinciples, which include the universal interest, the identity of will as wellas the political liberty;
The chapter5discuses the operation mode of the popular sovereignty.It is argued that the popular sovereignty can exist in three form as follows,it can exist as the political constitutive authority, it can exist as the legaloperative power, and as the social public opinion tribunal. It is also pointout that popular sovereignty needs two requirements, which include a kindof representative democracy and publicity, in wich the former is theinstitutional foundation and the later is a inner security. Accordingly, thepopular sovereignty can be practiced through the interaction of politicalsovereignty and legal sovereignty.
The chapter6discuses the location of his doctrine of the popular sovereignty in the history of thought, and analyzes the concept ofsovereignty in terms of power. In Bentham's theory of sovereignty, poweris a two-dimensional concept, which combines the factual dimension andthe rightful (or normative) dimension. It is pointed out that the legislativesovereignty and the popular sovereignty are two different forms of thesame concept of power, they are of the same nature in essence, that thereis a theoretical continuation between the legislative sovereignty and thepopular sovereignty.
边沁主权学说的发展始于对布莱克斯通的主权理论的批判，他批判了布莱克斯通的绝对主权观念，认为主权可以受到明确的协定的限制；主权具有事实和权利两方面，主权的存在是有条件的；在此基础上，他提出了自己的立法主权学说，这种主权学说认为主权的主要权能在于立法，主权的基础在于人们的服从习惯和服从性情，主权主要是一种祈使权。在后期，边沁提出了一种人民主权学说，即认为主权属于人民，主权是一种选举和罢免立法者的权力。这种人民主权学说实际上具有一种关系性的结构，其中人民是政治主权者，立法者是法律主权者，主权在实质上存在于二者的关系中，边沁的人民主权学说是一种关系性的主权学说。这种人民主权学说能够容纳立法主权，因为立法者拥有的法律主权就是一种立法主权。从而，立法主权和人民主权之间存在延续性。这种延续性的背后是一种二维权力概念，即认为权力概念内部具有事实和权利两个维度，或者说内含事实性和规范性两个纬度。这就是说，只有满足了特定条件，权力才能从事实变为权利，才能具有正当性。在边沁的主权学说中，使权力其具有正当性的条件就是功利原则、主权受到限制、代表制民主。
除最后的结语外，本文将分为以下6章：
本文在第1章“导论”中将提出研究的问题和所采用的研究方法；在第2章“批判布莱克斯通的主权理论：边沁主权学说的源起”中，本文将分析边沁对布莱克斯通的批判，这部分将集中于对边沁《政府片论》的解读，从他对布莱克斯通的社会契约论和主权概念的批判中，分析边沁自己在和主权相关的问题上所持有的观点；
第3章讨论了这种立法主权的概念结构，并将分析立法主权的基础。进而讨论是否存在一种服从立法主权的普遍性的义务。此外，这章也将讨论边沁立法主权的性质，在本文看来，这种立法主权属于他所说的那种“祈使权”；
第4章分析了边沁人民主权观念的内涵，并指出这种人民主权观念具有一种关系性的结构，也就是认为它包括了政治主权和法律主权两个构成要素。主权在形式上属于政治主权者人民和法律主权者立法者所有，但是，主权在实质上存在于两者关系中。此外，本文认为这种关系性人民主权包括三个建构原则：“普遍利益”、“意志同一”和“政治自由”；
第5章讨论了人民主权的运作方式。本文认为人民主权有三种存在形式，即作为人民主权政治形式的构成权，作为人民主权法律形式的运作权，以及作为人民主权社会形式的公共舆论法庭。本文研究了实现人民主权的两个条件，代表制民主和公共性，它们构成了人民主权的制度基础和内在保障；在此基础上，人民主权通过政治主权和法律主权的互动而实现。
第6章讨论了人民主权学说的理论定位，并从权力的角度分析了主权概念本身。在边沁的主权理论中，权力是一种二维概念，具有事实性和规范性（权利）两个维度，立法主权和人民主权都是这种权力概念的外在体现形式，它们分别体现了权力概念的“事实”和“权利”两个维度。本文认为立法主权和人民主权本质上是同一种权力概念的不同体现形式，它们在本质上是相同的，边沁的立法主权和人民主权之间具有内在的延续性。
The development of Jeremy Bentham's doctrine of sovereignty canbe divided into two different stages. In the earlier stage, he argues for adoctrine of legislative sovereignty, and in later stage, he argues a doctrineof popular sovereignty, Then what's the difference between these doctrines?Is it a theoretical development or a theoretical change? If it is adevelopment, what makes it possible? What kind of concept of power canwe found in this development? It is important to understand these issues inorder to comprehend Bentham's doctrine of sovereignty.
In the earlier stage, Jeremy Bentham makes a critique of SirBlackstone's absolute concept of sovereignty, and holds the point that thesovereignty can be limited by the express convention. Jeremy Benthamputs forward a doctrine of legislative sovereignty, which insists that themost important capability of power is to make law, the foundation ofsovereignty is the habit of obedience and the disposition of obedience, andthe legislative power is a kind of imperative power. In later stage, JeremyBentham puts forward a a doctrine of popular sovereignty, which insiststhat the sovereignty is in the people and the sovereignty is exercised through location and dislocation. His doctrine of popular sovereignty is ofa relational structure, in which the people are the political sovereign, andthe legislature are the legal sovereign, sovereignty is just in therelationship of the two bodies, Bentham's doctrine of sovereignty is of arelational nature. That means his legislative sovereignty fits into hispopular sovereignty, that is to say, Bentham develops his legislativesovereignty actually. We can found his viewpoint of power behind thisdevelopment, which insists that power is a concept of two dimensionsincluding force and legitimacy, and this is to say, power can not become aright until it fulfills some conditions. As for Bentham's doctrine ofsovereignty, the condition which make power legitimate are principle ofutility, sovereignty will be limited, and a government of representativedemocracy.
The dissertation consists six chapters in addition to the epilogue:
In chapter1"Introduction", I put forward the issue of this dissertationas so well as the research method; In chapter2"The critique ofBlackstone's theory of sovereignty: the origin of Jeremy Bentham'sdoctrine of sovereignty", it provides an analysis of Bentham's critique ofBlackstone in order to give a new reading of Jeremy Bentham's AFragment on Government, in witch Jeremy Bentham's view onsovereignty will be discussed.
The chapter3discusses the structure of the legislative sovereignty and its foundation, which makes it possible to study the question ofwhether there is a general obligation of obedience. Moreover, this chapteralso discuses the nature of the legislative sovereignty, in my view, thelegislative sovereignty is a power of imperation;
The chaper4examines the meaning of Jeremy Bentham's popularsovereignty, and points out that there is a relational structure in thisconception, which means that it consists two elements of politicalsovereignty and legal sovereignty. Formally, the sovereignty lies in thepeople as well as the legislature, but substantially in the relation of the two.Besides, this relational popular sovereignty consists of three constitutiveprinciples, which include the universal interest, the identity of will as wellas the political liberty;
The chapter5discuses the operation mode of the popular sovereignty.It is argued that the popular sovereignty can exist in three form as follows,it can exist as the political constitutive authority, it can exist as the legaloperative power, and as the social public opinion tribunal. It is also pointout that popular sovereignty needs two requirements, which include a kindof representative democracy and publicity, in wich the former is theinstitutional foundation and the later is a inner security. Accordingly, thepopular sovereignty can be practiced through the interaction of politicalsovereignty and legal sovereignty.
The chapter6discuses the location of his doctrine of the popular sovereignty in the history of thought, and analyzes the concept ofsovereignty in terms of power. In Bentham's theory of sovereignty, poweris a two-dimensional concept, which combines the factual dimension andthe rightful (or normative) dimension. It is pointed out that the legislativesovereignty and the popular sovereignty are two different forms of thesame concept of power, they are of the same nature in essence, that thereis a theoretical continuation between the legislative sovereignty and thepopular sovereignty.
引文
①参见陈序经：《现代主权论》，张世保译，清华大学出版社2010年版，第5页。
②[法]让·博丹：《主权论》，李卫海、钱俊文译，北京大学出版社2008年版。另外参见陈颐：《立法主权与近代国家的建构：以近代早期法国法律为中心》，法律出版社2008年版，另外参见Daniel Engster, DivineSovereignty: The Origins of Modern State Power, Northern Illinois University, Press, p.47.以及A. London Fell,Origins of Legislative Sovereignty and the Legislative State (vol.1-8).
③参见王世杰、钱端升：《比较宪法》，商务印书馆1999年版；肖拥军：《人民主权论》，山东人民出版社2005年版；肖佳林：《国家主权论》，时世出版社2003年版。
①由于在功利主义的内涵上，各个思想家并不完全相同，虽然他们均使用了“最大多数人最大幸福”这一表述，但在“幸福”的内涵上，他们存在不同。因此，为了表示能够概况他们的共同点，我在此使用了“社会功利”一词。
②[英]迈克尔·莱斯诺夫：《社会契约论》，刘训练等译，江苏人民出版社2006年版，第97页。
③[美]列奥·施特劳斯、[美]约瑟夫·克罗波西主编：《政治哲学史》，李洪润等译，法律出版社2009年版，第553页。
④林奇富：《社会契约论与近代自由主义的转型》，光明日报出版社2010年版，第118页。
⑤林奇富：《社会契约论与近代自由主义的转型》，光明日报出版社2010年版。
①[美]小查尔斯·爱德华·梅里亚姆：《卢梭以来的主权学说史》，毕洪海译，法律出版社2006年版，第108页。作者指出，“在对布莱克斯通进行激烈且具有颠覆性的批评时，边沁抛弃了政治社会的契约论属性，而将整个结构建立在功利主义基础上。”
②边沁习惯于集中写一部书，然后不断修改，但写成后很少出版，即使那些生前出版的著作也多是由边沁的学生或朋友加以整理的，因此，边沁去世后留下了很多手稿。尽管约翰·鲍林在1843年编辑了11卷本的《边沁著作集》（The Works of Jeremy Bentham），但是，这个版本编辑的并不好。因此，伦敦大学大学学院边沁研究中心自上世纪60年代起开始重新整理编辑边沁的手稿，以《边沁全集》（The Collected Works ofJeremy Bentham）为名出版，迄今已出版了30多卷，预计全部整理完毕可达到70多卷。
①出自边沁手稿UC lxix.100.转引自[英]菲利普·斯科菲尔德：《邪恶利益与民主》，翟小波译，北京大学出版社2010年版，第301页。
②[英]边沁：《政府片论》，沈叔平译，商务印书馆1995年版。
③Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy: A Study of the Constitutional Code, OxfordClarendon Press,1983.
①[英]边沁：《立法理论》，李贵方译，人民公安大学出版社2004年版，第91-96页。
②边沁最初完《道德与立法原理》导论后，感到有必要写关于法律性质的著作，于是便有了《论一般法律》，然而这部著作写成后直至20世纪40年代才被发现整理出来。
③[英]菲利普·斯科菲尔德：《邪恶利益与民主》，翟小波译，北京大学出版社2010年版，第300页。
④[英]边沁：《论一般法律》，毛国权译，上海三联出版社2008年版，第23页。
①参见Daniel Engster, Divine Sovereignty: The Origins of Modern State Power, Northern Illinois University, Press,p50.作者讨论了近代思想史上两种秩序观。
②Jeremy Bentham, Principles of International Law, in Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol2,pp.534-560, J. Bowring, Edinburgh:William Tait,1838-43.
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.25.
①Jeremy Bentham, Rights, Representation and Reform: Nonsense upon Stilts and other Writings on the FrenchRevolution, Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin and Cyprian Blamires, Clarendon Press, Oxford,2002,p.408.
②Martin Loughlin, Foundations of Public Law, Oxford University Press,2010, p.184-185.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,p.228.
②Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.261.
①对于国家理性的讨论，参见许章润、翟志勇编：《国家理性与现代国家》，清华大学2012年版。
①对于这个问题的分析，可参见[美]珍妮弗·皮茨：《转向帝国：英法帝国自由主义的兴起》，金毅、许鸿艳译，江苏人民出版社2012年版。
①张文显：《法学研究中的问题意识》，未刊稿。
①杨念群等主编：《新史学：多学科对话的图景》，中国人民大学出版社2003年版。
②秦晖：《警惕“问题殖民”：西学东渐中的问题误置——以“大小政府”“交易成本”“中产阶级”“民族国家建构”等概念为例》，超星大学堂视频，http://video1.ssreader.com/playvideo.asp?id=20441。
①陈端洪：《宪治与主权》，法律出版社2007年版，第45-50页。
①Bentham Project由成立于1959年的Bentham Committe设立，是致力于重新整理编辑边沁的手稿，出版新的边沁文集，增进对边沁的研究的专门学术机构。它计划到2030年止出版65到70卷边沁的著作和通信集。
②Bentham Newsletter后为Utilitas取代，后者成为了研究功利主义和边沁的刊物，1997年Bentham Project又创刊了专门致力于边沁研究的Journal of Bentham Studies。
①Mill, Utilitarianism and On Liberty: Including Mill’s ‘Essay on Bentham’ and Selections from the Writings ofJeremy Bentham and John Austin, Blackwell Publishing,2003.密尔《论边沁》，载于边沁：《论一般法律》，毛国权译，上海三联出版社2008年版。
②[英]边沁：《政府片论》，沈叔平等译，商务印书馆1997年版。
①Hilda G..Lundin, Infuence of Jeremy Bentham on English Democratic Development, University. Iova Ctiy,1920.
②此文收入H. L. A. Hart, Essays on Bentham, Oxford University Press,1982.
③John H.Burns, Benthanm on Sovereignty: An Exploration, Northern Ireland Legel Quarterly, Vol.24, No.3,(1973),399-416.
④David Lieberman, Bentham’s Democracy, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.28, No.3(2008)
⑤Nancy Rosenblum, Bentham’s Theory of the Modern State, Harvard University Press,1978.
⑥L. J. Hume, Bentham and Bureaucracy, Cambridge University Press,1981.
⑦[法]哈列维：《哲学激进主义的兴起》，曹海军等译，吉林人民出版社2006年版。
⑧Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986.
⑨Keekok Lee, The Legal-Rational State, Avebury,1990.
⑩Oren Ben-Dor, Consitutional Limits and the Public Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham’ s Consutitutionalism,Hart Publishing,2000.
11James Steintrager, Bentham, Routledge,2004.
12Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy: A Study of the Constitutional Code, OxfordClarendon Press,1983.
①Frederick Rosen, Classical Utilitarianism: From Hume to Mill, Routledge,2003.以及Ross Harrison,‘Rosen’sSacrifice of Utility’、Gerald J. Postema,‘Bentham’ s Equality-Sensitive Utilitariansim’和P. J. Kelly,‘More onBentham on Utility and Rights’。
②David Lyons, In the Interest of the Governed: A Study in Bentham’s Philosophy of Utility and Law, OxfordUniversity Press,1973.
③车运景：《边沁的功利主义思想在其主权理论中的运用：读杰里米·边沁的<政府片论>》，载于《重庆科技学院学报》（社会科学版）2009年第11期。
④龚祥瑞：《法与改革：读边沁与密尔<政府论>》，载于《比较法研究》1995年第1期。
⑤林奇富：《契约论批判与批判的尺度：杰里米·边沁功利主义政治哲学探析》，载于《吉林大学社会科学学
①戴维·利伯曼：《边沁论民主》，李燕涛译，未刊稿。译自David Lieberman, Bentham’s Democracy, OxfordJournal of Legal Studies, Vol.28, No.3(2008)
①Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limtis and the Public Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham’s Consitutionalism,Oxford-Portland Oregon,2000, p.49.
①Pedro Shwatz,‘Jeremy Bentham’s Democratic Despotism’, in R. D. Collison Black(ed.) Ideas in Economics,Basingstoke: Macmillan Press,1986.
②James E. Crimmins, Bentham’s Philosophical Politics, The Harvard Review of Philosophy, Spring(1993).他提到的这些学者有L. Campos Boralevi, G. Postema, P. J. Kelly,A. Dube.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯：《政治哲学史讲义》，杨通进等译，中国社会科学出版社2011年版，第51-51页。
②张一兵：《问题式、症候阅读与意识形态：关于阿尔都塞的一种文本学解读》，中央编译出版社2003年版，第63-104页。
①参见[美]汉娜·阿伦特：《人的状况》，王寅丽译，上海人民出版社2009年版。
①L.Burkholder, Tarlton on Bentham's Fragment on Government, Political Studies, vol.21(4),1973, pp.523-526.
②C.D.Tarlton, The Overlooked Strategy of Bentham's Fragment on Government, Political Studies, vol.20(4),1972,pp.397-406.
③Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.511.
①关于对社会契约论的讨论，可以参见[英]马克尔·莱斯诺夫等：《社会契约论》，刘训练等译，江苏人民出版社2006年版。
①Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Wayne Morrison(ed.), Vol.1, CavendishPublishing Limited, London Sydney,2001, p.31.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.14.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,pp.53-65.
②H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,pp.63-64.
①Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Wayne Morrison(ed.), Vol.1, CavendishPublishing Limited, London Sydney,2001, p.31.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.428.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.428.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.429.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.442.
①Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Wayne Morrison(ed.), Vol.1, CavendishPublishing Limited, London Sydney,2001, p.31.
②Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Wayne Morrison(ed.), Vol.1, CavendishPublishing Limited, London Sydney,2001, p.31.
③Jeremy Bentham, Theory of Legislation, R. Hildreth (trans.), second edition, London, Trüber&Co., PaternosterRow,1871.
①徐大同主编：《西方政治思想史：16-18世纪》（第三卷），天津人民出版社，第416页。
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.511.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.444.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.474.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.493.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.496.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.478.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.480.
②Christopher W.Morris, An Essay on the Modern State, Cambridge University Press,1998, p.174.
③[英]霍布斯：《利维坦》（Leviathan），中国政法大学出版社（影印本）2003年版。
④[法]让·博丹：《主权论》，李卫海、钱俊文译，北京大学出版社2008年版，第37页。
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.489.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,pp.220-243.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.489.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.478.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.478.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.479.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.481.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.484.
①Micheal Oakeshott, Lectures in the History of Political Thought, Terry Nardin and Luke O'Sullivan (ed.), ImprintAcademic,2006, pp.413-426.
②参见洛克：《政府论两篇》（Two Treatises of Government），中国政法大学出版社（影印本）2003年版，[法]卢梭：《社会契约论》，李平沤译，商务印书馆2012年版。
①Richard A. Posner, Blackstone and Bentham,Journal of Law and Economics,Vol.19, No.3, Coc.,1976,pp.569-606.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.431.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.481.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.485.
①Douglas G.Long, Bentham on Liberty: Jeremy Bentham's Idea of Liberty in Relation to HisUtilitarianism,University of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo,1977, p.92.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.394.
①Douglas G.Long, Bentham on Liberty: Jeremy Bentham's Idea of Liberty in Relation to HisUtilitarianism,University of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo,1977, p.95.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.420.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.462.
①L.J.Hume, Bentham and Bureaucracy, Cambridge University Press,1981, pp.56-57.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,
①Jeremy Bentham, A Commet on the Commetaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.429.
①[英]麦基文：《宪政古今》，翟小波译，贵州人民出版社2004年版。
①Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.228.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.42.
②H. L. A. Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Oxford University Press,1982,p.222.
①对于政治义务和法律义务的区别，可参见毛兴贵编：《政治义务：证成与反驳》，江苏人民出版社2007年版，第2页；以及Political Obligation, in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/.
②参见周濂：《现代政治的正当性基础》，生活·读书·新知三联出版社2008年版。
①参见毛兴贵编：《政治义务：证成与反驳》，江苏人民出版社2007年版，第5页。
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.489.
②Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.42.
③Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.238.
①Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. pp.241-243.
②Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.241.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,pp.234-235.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,p.238.
②Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.234.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.430.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.428.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.489.
③Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1989, p.162.
①L.J.Hume, Bentham and Bureaucracy, Cambridge University Press,1981, p.67.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.429.
③Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.225.
①Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.229.
②Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.227.
①Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.125.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.126.
①Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.134.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.126.
①有关对早期功利主义讨论，参见Geoffery Scarre, Utilitarianism, Routledge, London and New york,2002.
①Jeremy Bentham, Deontology together with A Table of the Springs of Action and the Article on Utilitarianism,Amnon Goldworth (ed.), The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham,Oxford Press,1983.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.439.
③Jeremy Bentham, An Intoduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, pp.11-12.边沁在《道德与立法原理导论》中的前5章中详细阐述了功利主义的内涵，对此，P.J.Kelly认为这5章中并没不代表边沁功利主义的全部，理解边沁的功利主义还需要结合他的民法著作，边沁在这些民法著作尤其是《民法典原理》中阐述了一种分配正义理论，参见P.J.Kelly,Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1990,p.40-41.此外，有关边沁的功利主义理论，还可参见Ross Harrison, Bentham, Routledge&Kegan Paul,1983;Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford UniversityPress,2006.
①David Lyons, In the Interest of the Government: A Study in Bentham's Philosophy of Utility and Law, ClarendonPress, Oxford,1991.此外，David Lyons还提出了其他两个观点，J. R. Dinwiddy把这三个观点概况为，“边沁认为各种利益可以自然地实现和谐（natrually harmonized）。David Lyons认为从长期来看，私人利益和公共利益可以相融合。2、边沁并不接受心理学利己主义，他主张的人们为趋乐避苦的动机所驱动的观点不具有利己主义的内涵。在一生中的大多数时间里，他都不认为自私在人们的行为动机中占有主导地位；边沁的功利原理不具有普遍性（universalistic），而是一种双重标准（dual standard）。也就是说，在公共或政治领域里，以共同体利益（community interest）为标准；而在私人问题上，自我利益（self interest）则起着主导作用。”参见J. R. Dinwiddy, Bentham on Private Ethics and the Principle of Utiliy, in Bhikhu Parekh(ed.), Jeremy Bentham: Critical Assessments(vol II), Routledge,1993.
①J. B. Stearns, Bentham on Public and Private Ethics,in Bhikhu Parekh (ed.), Jeremy Bentham: CriticalAssessments(vol II), Routledge,1993.
②关于当代功利主义的发展，可参见Michael.D.Bayles (ed.), Contemporary Utilitarianism, Gloucester,1968；以及晋运峰：《当代功利主义正义观》，吉林大学博士论文，2011年5月。
①参见Julius Stone, Human Law and Human Justice, Stanford University Press,1965.
①Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986.
②James E. Crimmins, Utilitarian Philosophy and Politics:Bentham's Later Years, Continuum,2011, p.94.
③P. J. Kelly, Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law, Clarendon Press Oxford,1990.
①周濂：《现代政治的正当性基础》，生活·读书·新知三联出版社2008年版，第61-62页。
②[美]A·约翰·西蒙斯：《道德原则与政治义务》，郭为桂、李艳丽译，江苏人民出版社2009年版，第30页。
③Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford Univsrtiy Press,1986, pp.23-110.朱振博士在其研究中分别总结了这三个命题的内涵，优先命题（the pre-emption thesis）是指“一个权威要求实施一个行动这一事实是实施它的一个理由，当评定去做什么的时候，这一理由不是要被增加到所有其他相关理由之中，而是应当取代它们之中的一些理由。”依赖命题（the dependence thesis）是指“所有的权威命令应当基于如下理由，这些理由已经单独地适用于权威命令的服从者（subject），并且这些理由与他们在命令所及的情形中的行动相关。”常规证成命题（the normal justification thesis）是指“确定一个人对另一个人拥有权威的常规方式要表明，如果所断言的服从者把所断言的权威命令接受为有权威性约束力并尽力遵守它们，而非尽力遵循直接适用他的那些理由，那么他也许是在更好地遵循适用于他的理由（除了所断言的权威命令）。”参见朱振：《实践理由、权威与来源命题：拉兹法律哲学的研究》，吉林大学博士论文，2007年12月，第114-117页。
④朱振：《实践理由、权威与来源命题：拉兹法律哲学的研究》，吉林大学博士论文，2007年12月，第122页。
①西蒙斯认为具有一种政治义务不等于去做政治义务所要求的内容，“说一个人有政治义务（或政治责任），并不等于说他应该履行这个义务，也不等于说义务是行动的最终理由。”对此，参见[美]A·约翰·西蒙斯：《道德原则与政治义务》，郭为桂、李艳丽译，江苏人民出版社2009年版，第9页。
①关于这些不同的政治义务理论，参见毛兴贵编：《政治义务：证成与反驳》，江苏人民出版社2007年版。
②[美]A·约翰·西蒙斯：《道德原则与政治义务》，郭为桂、李艳丽译，江苏人民出版社2009年版，第43页。
①需要注意的是，它不同于“人应该服从特定某条法律”这个陈述，它旨在说明人应该服从法律整体。
②周濂：《现代政治的正当性基础》，生活·读书·新知三联出版社2008年版，第35页。
①参见Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limtis and the Public Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham’s Consitutionalism,Oxford-Portland Oregon,2000, p.127.
②[美]A·约翰·西蒙斯：《道德原则与政治义务》，郭为桂、李艳丽译，江苏人民出版社2009年版，第217-220
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.462.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.451.
①Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.263.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.217.
①John H.Burns, Benthanm on Sovereignty: An Exploration, Northern Ireland Legel Quarterly, Vol.24, No.3,(1973),399-416.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.221.
①Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.264.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.213.
③Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.106.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.42.
②哈特认为这是两个体现了触及权的例子，此外，哈特对触及权进行更为详细的分析，参见H.L.A.Hart, Essayson Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982, p.197.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,p.201.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.107.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.103.
②Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.104.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.105.
②Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.106.
③Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.105.
①参见Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns andH.L.A.Hart (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.439.
②Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.101.
①Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.41-54.
②Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.25.
③Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.96.
①Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.41-54.
①Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.98.
②Jeremy Bentham, Rights,Representation,and Reform:Nonsense upon Stilts and other Writings on the FrenchRevolution, Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin and Cyprian Blamires (ed.), Clrendon Press, Oxford,pp.227-263.
①Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol II, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.422.
②Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.275.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.13.
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.77-78.
③Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.87-89.
④他对布莱克斯通的批判中实际上也体现了对人的素质的重视，然而，边沁是在否定的意义上谈及这些素质
①虽然边沁并没有谈论法治，但是在其著作中可以发现他倾向于法治政府。参见Gerald J.Postema,The Soul ofJustice:Bentham on Publicity, Law, and the Rule of Law,载于《边沁法哲学国际研讨会论文集》，中国·郑州大学，2012年5月。
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.4.
③Jeremy Bentham,The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.96.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.244.
①就边沁强调人民主权在国家制度层面的实现而言，有学者认为这是一种主流的理论，参见Mark J. Kaswan,Happiness and Domocratic Theory: Jeremy Bentham and William Thompson, Western Political ScienceAssociation2010Annual Meeting Paper，[2012-8-30]。http://papers.ssrn.com。
②A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Macmillan,1915, p27. Reprinted by the
Liberty Classic in1982.
①[日]篠田英朗：《重新审视主权：从古典理论到全球时代》，戚渊译，商务印书馆2005年版，第59页。也有学者把政治主权和法律主权的区分追溯至博丹与霍布斯的著作中，认为这种区分体现的是“权威与权力之间的区分”，认为“法律主权是以最终的、终极的权威存在于国家的法律内这一信念为基础。这就是所谓的‘规范（de jure）主权’，它是从法律权威的角度来界定的至高无上的权力。换句话来说，它以拥有要求某人服从（由法律来规定）的权利为基础。与之相对是，政治主权绝不是以主张法律权威为基础的，而纯粹关注于实际的权力分配。这就是所谓的‘事实（de facto）主权。由此，政治主权指的是一个至高无上的政治权力的存在，它因垄断了强制力而拥有要求他人服从的能力。’”[英]安德鲁·海伍德编：《政治理论教程》（第三版），李智译，中国人民大学出版社2009年版，第104-106页；也可参考D. D. Raphael,《政治哲学中的论题》，朱兼章、余明贤等译，台湾幼狮文化事业事业公司，1976年五月版，第51-72页。
①参见邱家军：《代表谁：选民与代表》，复旦大学出版社2010年版，第18-19页。然而，在我国人民确是一个与阶级相关的与敌人相对的含义，在不同的宪法文本中，人民的含义也不同。另参考何青州、付子堂：《中国宪政史上的“人民”观》，载于《河南财经政法大学学报》，2012年第1期。
①[美]乔万尼萨托利：《民主新论》，冯克利、阎克文译，上海人民出版社2009年版，第34页。
②Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.96.
③Deputy和Representative两个词都可以翻译为代表，但deputy也可以翻译为代理人，representative也可以翻译为代议士，为区别起见，本文在此用代议士指representative，但由于边沁著作中使用的都是deputy，为便于理解，除有特别说明之外，本文将deputy译为代表。
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,pp.1-21.
①Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limits and the Publc Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham's Constitutionalism, HartPublish, Oxford Portland, Oregon,2000, p.53.
①Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limits and the Publc Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham's Constitutionalism, HartPublish, Oxford Portland, Oregon,2000, p.55.
②Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limits and the Publc Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham's Constitutionalism, HartPublish, Oxford Portland, Oregon,2000, p.55.
①Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limits and the Publc Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham's Constitutionalism, HartPublish, Oxford Portland, Oregon,2000, p.56.
②Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limits and the Publc Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham's Constitutionalism, HartPublish, Oxford Portland, Oregon,2000, p.62.
①关于权力的正当性的讨论，可参见David Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, Macmilan,1991.
②我将在下文中分析意志同一和个人自治这两个原则，本章第三节将讨论意志同一原则，下一章将讨论个人自治原则。
①对于关系在哲学本体论层面上的意义，罗嘉昌教授提出了一种关系实在论，这种观点认为“简单地说，关系实在论，是主张关系即实在，实在即关系，关系先于关系者，关系者和关系可随透视方式而相互转化的一种哲学观点和理论。它期望通过‘关系’和‘实在’的相互诠释达到对存有的关系实在论理解，从而破除形而上学的绝对实体观。”罗嘉昌：《从物质实体论到关系实体论》，中国人民大学出版社2012年版，第
3页；此外，他也认为“在关系实在论看来，事物（作为关系者）及其本质是由特定关系来定义的，关系的改变，在一定条件下对应于对象及其本质属性的改变。”同上，第13页。
②Martin Loughlin, The Idea of Public Law, Oxford University Press,2003, p.65.
①乌尔曼：《中世纪政治思想史》，夏洞奇译，译林出版社2011年版。
①Martin Loughlin, The Idea of Public Law, Oxford University Press,2003, p.70.
②本文在下一章中对此进行了分析。
①对于关系性主权具有的不同含义，参见本文第六章“边沁主权学说的理论本体”中的相关分析。
①普遍利益（universal interest）在某种意义上也等同于公共利益（public interest），有关边沁的普遍利益和公共利益的讨论，可以参见Stephen G.Englmann, Imagining Interest, Utilitas, Vol.13, No.3, November.,2011,pp.289-332;Gerald J.Postema, Interests, Universal and Particular: Bentham's Utilitarian Theory of Value, Utilitas,Vol.18, No.2, June,2006, pp.109-133.J.A.W.Gunn,Jeremy Bentham and the Public Interest, Canadian Journal ofPolitical Science, Vol.1, No.4, Dec.,1968,pp.398-413.以及Michael James,Public Interest and Majority Rule inBentham's Democratic Theory, Political Theory, Vol.9. No.1, Feb.,1981,pp.49-64.
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.45.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.233.
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.235.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, pp.238-242.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,
①参见[德]卡尔·施密特：《政治的浪漫派》，冯克利、刘峰译，上海人民出版社2004年版，第236页。
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.136.
③对于自治含义的分析，参见Thomas May, Autonomy, Authority and Moral Responsibility, Kluwer AcademicPublishers,1998.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.59.
②Jeremy Bentham, Rights, Representation, and Reform: Nonsense upon Stilts and other Writings on the FrenchRevolution, Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin and Cyprian Blamires (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,
①Jeremy Bentham, Bentham’s Political Thought, B. Parekh (ed.), Croom Helm London,1973, pp.175-177.
①关于对伯林《两种自由概念》的分析，参见李石：《积极自由的悖论》，商务印书馆2011年版，第45-58页。
①Jeremy Bentham, Rights, Representation, and Reform: Nonsense upon Stilts and other Writings on the FrenchRevolution, Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin and Cyprian Blamires (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,p.408.
①有关日常状态与非常状态的讨论，可以参见高全喜：《现代政治五论》，法律出版社2008年版；以及《从日常政治到非常政治：论现时代的政法及其他》，中国法制出版社2009年版。
②参见Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Foundations, The Berkely Press of Harved University Press,1993.以及布鲁斯·阿克曼：《我们人民：宪法的变革》，孙文恺译，法律出版社2009年版。
①维尔曾在《宪政与分权》中提出了一个纯粹的分权概念，这可以看做分权概念的理想类型。他认为，“分权的‘纯粹学说’也许可以这样表述：为了政治自由的建立和维护，关键是要将政府划分为立法、行政和司法三部门或三部分。三个部门中的每个部门都有相应的、可确定的政府职能，即立法、行政和司法职能。政府的每个部门都一定要限于行使自己的职能，不允许侵蚀其他部门的职能。进而，组成这三个政府机构的人员一定要保持分离和不同，不允许每个人同时是一个以上部门的成员。这样一来，每个部门将对其他部门都是一个制约，没有任何一群人将能控制国家的全部机器”虽然每个思想家的分权理论与这个理想概念并不尽然相同，但这个概念还是指出了分权学说的要义——职能分立，相互制约。”[英]M.J.C.维尔：《宪政与分权》，苏力译，三联出版社1997年版。
①Philip Schofield讨论了权力分立和权力平衡的含义，可参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: ThePolitcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.233.
②边沁在《政府片论》中曾明确论及了孟德斯鸠的学说，他在鲍林版的《宪法典》中曾明确指出他所讨论的正是孟德斯鸠的分权理论。参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.),Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.123.孟德斯鸠的《论法的精神》在当时产生了较大影响，对于孟德斯鸠的分权学说，可参见[英]M.J.C.维尔：《宪政与分权》，苏力译，三联出版社1997年版，以及[法]孟德斯鸠：《论法的精神》，商务印书馆2004年版。
①参见Jeremy Bentham,The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.123.
②参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.234.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.8.
②参见Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), ClarendonPress, Oxford,1986, p.6.
①需要指出的是，边沁的理论中权威（authority）和权力（power）的含义类似，参见Jeremy Bentham,The Worksof Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.96.但从他在某些地方（如《谬论之书》）中的用法看，权威比权力含义更广，因为他认为权威可以来源于权力。
②此图来自西尾孝司：《ベンサム『憲法典』における「世論法廷」論と「最高立法議会」論》（《边沁<宪法典>中的公共舆论法庭和最高立法会议》），The Review of law and politics,24(1),1-91,1988。
①从广义上来看，法律也可以包含在政治的范畴内，本文从立法权和构成权区别的基础上认为主权存在政治和法律两种不同的形式。
②对于多元主权理论或政治多元论，可以参考拉斯基的著作，以及萧公权：《政治多元论：当代政治理论研究》，周林刚译，中国法制出版社2012年版。
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code,Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.29.
①立法刑事法庭是对现任或前任立法者成员、现任或前任首相、现任或前任司法部长等人追究法律责任的非常设法庭，这个法庭由相关立法者成员或其他官员中的三至五个人组成。Jeremy Bentham, ConstitutionalCode, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.115.
②参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.96.
③[德]卡尔·施密特：《宪法学说》，刘峰译，上海人民出版社2005年版，第84页。关于制宪权的研究，可以参见芦部信喜：《制宪权》，王贵松译，中国政法大学出版社2012年版，以及Antonio Negri, Insurgencies,Constituent Power and the Modern State, Manrizia Boscagli (trans.), University of Minnesota Press,1999.
①制宪权更强调一种非常的状态下运用，“最初，宪法制定权在西耶士和施密特的理论中都是超宪定法的存在。与之相比，边沁的构成权（ConstitutiveAuthority）理论将宪法制定权置于国家的法律制度之中。因此，边沁的构成权（ConstitutiveAuthority）理论可能不像西耶士或是施密特的理论那样拥有绝对的意义，但是他的理论不是指例外状态，而是在平常状态下将人民的意志不断反映到统治体系中。”参见小山廣和、浜田豊：《ベンサム『憲法典』におけるConstitutive Authorityの概念:ベンサムの人民主権論の理解のために》，载于Memoirs of Takayama Junior College,10,7-31,1987.制宪权更多的在欧陆语境中使用，参见陈端洪：《制宪权与根本法》，中国法制出版社2010年版;以及Martin Loughlin, The Paradox ofConstitutionalism: Constituent Power and Constitutional Form, Oxford University Press,2007.
②参见蔡宗珍：《宪法与国家》（一），元照出版公司2004年版，第48-54页。
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code,Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.41-42.
②Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.41-54.
③Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.41-54.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.6.
②边沁认为首相下面设有选举部长、立法部长、陆军部长、海军部长、预防服务部长（Preventive ServiceMinister）、国内交通部长、济贫部长、教育部长、统治部长（Domain Minister）、卫生部长、外交部长、财政部长、贸易部长等。参见Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns(ed.),Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.171-172.对于各部部长的职责，Rosen进行了较为详细的概述，参见Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy: A Study of the Constitutional Code, ClarendonPress Oxford,1983, pp.136-149.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.33.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,p.220.
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.35.
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.36.
②Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol II, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.388.
③参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.260.
①参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.262.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Intoduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.12.
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.36.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.56.
①参见David Liberman, Bentham's Demoracy, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,(2008)28(3):605-626.
①参见[法]佛朗索瓦·基佐：《欧洲代议制政府的历史起源》，张清津、袁淑娟译，复旦大学出版社2008年版，第239页，以及Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, The Concept of Representation, University of California Press,Berkeley, Los Angeles, London,1967.
②参见[德]卡尔·施密特：《宪法学说》，刘峰译，上海人民出版社2005年版，第242-255页。
③参见[美]罗伯特·A·达尔：《论民主》，李风华译，中国人民大学出版社2012年版，第52-71页。
①关于从“每个人是自己利益的最佳判断者”这观点出发对边沁的代表制进行的分析，参见Hanna FenichelPitkin, The Concept of Representation, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London,p.204-205.
②参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.97.
①参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.98.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1989, p.167.
②丛日云：《乌尔曼的名著及其误区》，载《读书》，2012年第8期，第32页。
①[法]卢梭：《社会契约论》，李平沤译，商务印书馆2012年版，第106页。
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.43.
②Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.44.
①Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol II, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.421.
②参见[德]卡尔·施密特：《宪法学说》，刘峰译，上海人民出版社2005年版，第251-255页。
①[德]卡尔·施密特：《政治的浪漫派》，冯克利、刘峰译，上海人民出版社2004年版，第170-171页。
①Jeremy Bentham,Political Tactics, Michael James Cyprian Blamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin (ed.), ClarendonPress, Oxford,1999, p.29.
②参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006.
③[德]哈贝马斯：《公共领域的结构转型》，曹卫东等译，学林出版社1999年版，第125页。
④[法]佛朗索瓦·基佐：《欧洲代议制政府的历史起源》，张清津、袁淑娟译，复旦大学出版社2008年版，
①Jeremy Bentham: Political Tactics, Michael James Cyprian Blamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin (ed.),Clarendon Press, Oxford,1999, p.35.
②Jeremy Bentham: Political Tactics, Michael James Cyprian Blamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin (ed.),Clarendon Press, Oxford,1999, p.37.
①参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.271.
②Jeremy Bentham: Political Tactics, Michael James Cyprian Blamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin (ed.),Clarendon Press, Oxford,1999, p.40.
①关于边沁的圆形监狱，可以参见Janet Stemple, Benham's Prison: A Study of the Panoption Penitentiary,Clarendon Press, Oxford,1993.
②[法]米歇尔·福柯：《规训与惩罚》，生活·读书·新知三联书店，刘北成、杨远婴译，2003年第2版。
③James E. Crimmins, Utilitarian Philosophy and Politics:Bentham's Later Years, Continuum,2011, p.99.
①参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,pp.250-271.
②[美]阿米古·特曼、丹尼斯·汤普森：《民主与分歧》，东方出版社2007年版，第111页。康德在《永久和平论》中把公共性原则界定为“一切与其他人的法权相关的行动，其准则与公共性不相容者，皆是不正当的。”这条规则可以检验相关政策的正当性，从而，它也是一条检验标准。参见[德]康德：《康德著作全集第8卷：1781年之后的论文》，李秋零主编，中国人民大学出版社2010年版，第387页。
①Jeremy Bentham: Political Tactics, Michael James Cyprian Blamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin (ed.),Clarendon Press, Oxford,1999, pp.24-29.
①参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.115.
①参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.106.
①参见[德]卡尔·施密特：《宪法学说》，刘峰译，上海人民出版社2005年版，第260-270页。
①[德]卡尔·施密特：《宪法学说》，刘峰译，上海人民出版社2005年版，第261页。
①施密特指出，自由主义理论存在一个主张，即认为通过意见之间的竞争可以产生真理。参见[德]卡尔·施密特：《政治的浪漫派》，冯克利、刘峰译，上海人民出版社2004年版，第187页。
①Donald S.Lutz, Principles of Constitutional Design, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.74.
②Donald S.Lutz, Principles of Constitutional Design, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.71.
①Donald S.Lutz, Principles of Constitutional Design, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.84.
②Donald S.Lutz, Principles of Constitutional Design, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.76.
①Donald S.Lutz, Principles of Constitutional Design, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.89.
①对此，可参见John Birkhead, Making Laws More Effective: Jeremy Bentham and Jean-Jacques Rousseau onGood Citizenship, United States Air Force Academy Journal of Legal Studies,1994.
①W.J.Rees, The Theory of Sovereignty Restated, Mind, New Series, Vol.59, No.236(Oct.,1950), pp.520-521.
②A.V.Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England, Universal Law Publishing Co Ltd,2003.
①Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.96.
②Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol II, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.388.
③Ruth Zimmerling, Influence and Power:Variations on a Messy Theme, Springer,2005.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.11.
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.30.
③Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.30.
④Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.263.
⑤Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.206.
⑥Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.207.
⑦Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.148.
①关于权力概念的更为详尽的分析，参见郭永秋：《权力概念的解析》，台湾“中研院”《人文及社会科学集刊》，第十八卷第二期（95/6），pp.215-267.
②[意]诺伯特·波比奥：《民主与独裁：国家权力的性质和限度》，梁晓君译，吉林人民出版社2011年版，第29页。
①[美]沃格林：《宗教与现代性的兴起》，霍伟岸译，华东师范大学出版社2009年版，第294-295页。
②王利：《国家与正义：利维坦释义》，上海人民出版社2008年版，第54页。
③参见丁一凡编：《权力二十讲》，天津人民出版社2008年版。以及Ruth Zimmerling, Influence and Power:Variations on a Messy Theme, Springer,2005.
①[法]米歇尔·福柯：《必须保卫社会》，钱翰译，上海人民出版社2010年版。
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.451.
①关于方法论个人主义，参见[英]史蒂文·卢克斯：《个人主义》，阎克文译，江苏人民出版社2001年版。
①参见罗伯特·曼戈贝·拉昂格尔：《知识与政治》，支振锋译，中国政法大学出版社2009年版，第40-91页。
[1]张文显．二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，1996．
[2]张文显．马克思主义法理学：理论、方法和前沿[M]．北京：高等教育出版社，2003．
[3]顾肃．自由主义基本理念[M]．北京：中央编译出版社，2005．
[4]高全喜．现代政治五论[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008．
[5]高全喜．从日常政治到非常政治[M]．北京：中国法制出版社，2009．
[6]强世功．立法者的法理学[M]．北京：生活读书新知三联书店，2007．
[7]陈端洪．宪治与主权[M]．北京：法律出版社，2007．
[8]陈端洪．制宪权与根本法[M]．北京：中国法制出版社，2010．
[9]张千帆．西方宪政体系[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2004．
[10]张千帆．宪法学导论：原理与应用（修订版）[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008．
[11]张千帆．比较行政法：体系、制度与过程[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008．
[12]应奇．从自由主义到后自由主义[M]．北京：生活读书新知三联书店，2003．
[13]赵明．康德《永久和平论》的法哲学基础[M]．上海：华东师范大学出版社，2006．
[14]杜宴林．法律的人文主义解释[M]．北京：人民法院出版社，2009．
[15]黄文艺．中国法律发展的法哲学反思[M]．北京：法律出版社，2010．
[16]谈火生．公共审议与政治合法性[M]．北京：法律出版社，2007．
[17]翟小波．论我国宪法的实施制度[M]．北京：中国法制出版社，2009．
[18]翟小波．人民的宪法[M]．北京：法律出版社，2009．
[19]林国基．神义论语境中的社会契约论传统[M]．上海：上海三联出版社，2005．
[20]周濂．现代政治的正当性基础[M]．北京：生活读书新知三联出版社，2008．
[21]钱大军．法律义务研究论纲[M]．北京：科学出版社，2009．
[22]张立伟．权利的功利化及其限制[M]．北京：科学出版社，2009．
[23]谌洪果．哈特的法律实证主义：一种思想关系的视角[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2008．
[24]王利．国家与正义：利维坦释义[M]．上海：上海人民出版社，2008．
[25]龚群．当代西方道义论与功利主义研究[M]．北京：中国人民大学出版社，2002．
[26]陈真．当代西方规范伦理学[M]．南京：南京师范大学出版社，2006．
[27]徐向东．道德哲学与实践理性[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2007．
[28]牛京辉．英国功用主义伦理思想研究[M]．北京：人民出版社，2002．
[29]韩冬雪、曹海军．功利主义研究[M]．北京：吉林人民出版社，2004．
[30]霍伟岸．洛克权利理论研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011．
[31]许章润．现代中国的国家理性[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011．
[32]许章润主编．国家理性：历史法学（第四卷）[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011．
[33]陈志英．西方现代性语境下的主权理论研究[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社，2007．
[34]肖佳灵．国家主权论[M]．北京：时事出版社，2003．
[35]霍存福：权力场[M].北京：法律出版社，2003．
[1][英]边沁．政府片论[M]．沈叔平．等译．北京：商务印书馆．1995．
[2][英]边沁．道德与立法原理导论[M]．时殷弘译．北京：商务印书馆．2000．
[3][英]边沁．立法理论[M]．李贵方．等译．北京：中国人民公安大学出版社．2004．
[4][德]恩格斯．家庭、私有制和国家的起源[M]．中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局译．北京：人民出版社．1999．
[5][英]洛克．政府论：下篇[M]．叶启芳．瞿菊农译．北京：商务印书馆．2008．
[6][法]卢梭．社会契约论[M]．何兆武译．北京：商务印书馆．2003．
[7][法]西耶士．论特权第三等级是什么？[M]．冯棠译．北京：商务印书馆．2004．
[8][法]孟德斯鸠．论法的精神[M]．张雁深译．北京：商务印书馆．2004．
[9][德]康德．法的形而上学原理：权利的科学[M]．沈叔平译．北京：商务印书馆．1991．
[10][英]霍布斯．利维坦[M]．黎思复．黎廷弼译．北京：商务印书馆．1985．
[11][美]麦迪逊．联邦党人文集[M]．陈逢如．等译．北京：商务印书馆．2004．
[12][英]密尔．代议制政府[M]．汪瑄译．北京：商务印书馆．1982．
[13][英]密尔．论自由[M]．许宝骙译．北京：商务印书馆．2006．
[14][英]密尔．功利主义[M]．徐大建译．上海：上海世纪出版集团．2008．
[15][英]穆勒．论边沁与柯勒律治[M]．白利兵译．上海：上海人民出版社．2009．
[16][法]莱昂·狄骥．公法的变迁-法律与国家[M]．郑戈．冷静译．长春：江海出版社．春风文艺出版社．1999．
[17][英]戴雪．英宪精义[M]．雷宾南译．北京：中国法制出版社．2001．
[18][英]约翰·奥斯丁．法理学的范围[M]．刘星译．北京：中国法制出版社．2003．
[19][英]约翰·奥斯丁．法学讲演录（1-4）[M]．支振峰．等译．北京：中国社会科学出版社．2008．
[20][英]约翰·奥斯丁．法理学的范围[M]．刘星译．北京：中国法制出版社．2002．
[21][英]菲利普·斯科菲尔德．邪恶利益与民主：边沁的功利主义政治宪法思想[M]．翟小波译．北京：法律出版社．2006．
[22][英]霍布豪斯．形而上学的国家论[M]．汪淑钧译．北京：商务印书馆．2002．
[23][英]迈克尔·欧克肖特．政治中的理性主义[M]．张汝伦译．上海：上海译文出版社．2004．
[24][英]波兰尼．大转型：我们时代的政治与经济起源[M]．冯钢．刘阳译．杭州：浙江人民出版社．2007．
[25][奥]凯尔森．法与国家的一般理论[M]．沈宗灵译．北京：中国大百科全书．1996．
[26][英]H．L．A．哈特．法律的概念[M]．许家馨．李冠宜译．北京：北京：法律出版社．2006．
[27][法]米歇尔·福柯．安全、领土与人口[M]．钱翰．陈晓径译．上海：上海人民出版社．2010．
[28][法]米歇尔·福柯．社会必须被保卫[M]．钱翰译．上海：上海人民出版社．2010．
[29][德]哈贝马斯．公共领域的结构转型[M]．曹卫东．等译．北京：学林出版社．1999．
[30][德]哈贝马斯．在事实与规范之间：关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M]．童世骏译．北京：生活·读书·新知三联出版社．2003．
[31][德]卢曼．权力[M]．瞿铁鹏译．上海：上海人民出版社．2005．
[32][德]奥特弗利德·郝费．政治的正义性：法和国家的批判哲学之基础[M]．庞学栓．李张林译．上海：上海世纪出版集团．2005．
[33][英]斯金纳．自由主义之前的自由[M]．李宏图译．上海：上海三联出版社．2004．
[34][英]斯金纳．近代政治思想的基础（上下）[M]．奚瑞森．亚方译．北京：商务印书馆．2002．
[35][巴]昂格尔．知识与政治[M]．支振峰译．北京：中国政法大学出版社．2009．
[35][美]阿米·古特曼、丹尼斯·汤普森．民主与分歧[M]．杨立峰．等译．北京：东方出版社．2007．
[37][英]戴维·赫尔德．民主的模式[M]．燕继荣．等译．北京：中央编辑出版社．2008．
[38][美]A·约翰·西蒙斯．道德原则与政治义务[M]．郭为桂．李燕丽译．南京：江苏人民出版社．2009．
[39][荷]克拉勃．近代国家观念[M]．王检译．长春：吉林出版集团有限责任公司．2009．
[40][美]小查尔斯·爱德华·梅里亚姆．卢梭以来的主权学说史[M]．毕洪海译．北京：法律出版社．2006．
[41][英]约翰·霍夫曼．主权[M]．陆彬译．长春：吉林人民出版社．2005．
[42][日]蓧田英朗．重新审视主权：从古典理论到全球时代[M]．戚渊译．北京：商务印书馆．2005．
[43][美]伊安·夏皮罗．政治的道德基础[M]．姚建华．宋国友译．上海：上海三联出版社．2006．
[44][美]威廉·邓宁．政治学说史[M]．谢义伟译．长春：吉林出版集团有限责任公司．2009．
[45][美]乔治·萨拜因．政治学说史（上）[M]．邓正来译．上海：上海人民出版社．2008．
[46][美]乔治·萨拜因．政治学说史（下）[M]．邓正来译．上海：上海人民出版社．2010．
[47][美]列奥·施特劳斯、[美]约瑟夫·克罗波西主编．政治哲学史
[M]．李洪润．等译．北京：法律出版社．2009．
[48][加]威尔·金里卡．当代政治哲学（上下）[M]．刘莘译．上海：上海三联出版社．2003．
[49][英]安德·鲁海伍德．政治理论教程（第三版）[M]．李智译．北京：中国人民大学出版社．2009．
[50][英]杰弗里·托马斯．政治哲学导论[M]．顾肃．刘雪梅译．北京：中国人民大学出版社．2006．
[51][英]乔纳森·沃尔夫．政治哲学导论[M]．王涛．等译．长春：吉林出版集团有限责任公司．2009．
[52][英]克里斯·桑希尔．德国政治哲学：法的形而上学[M]．陈江译．北京：人民出版社．2009．
[53][英]波特兰·罗素．权力论：新社会分析[M]．吴友三译．北京：商务印书馆．2009．
[1] Jeremy Bentham．The Works of Jeremy Bentham,11vols.[M]．J.Bowring, Edinburgh:William Tait,1838-43.
[2] Jeremy Bentham．A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragmenton Government[M]．eds. J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart, OxfordUniversity Press,2008.
[3] Jeremy Bentham．Constitutional Code (Volume1)[M]．ed. F. Rosenand J. H. Burns, The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham(OxfordPress,1983).
[4] Jeremy Bentham．Political Tactics, ed. Michael James CyprianBlamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin[M]．The Collected Works ofJeremy Bentham(Oxford Press,1999).
[5] Jeremy Bentham．Theory of Legislation[M]．C. K. Ogden (ed.),(Kegan Paul&Co, London,1931).
[6] Jeremy Bentham．Bentham’s Theory of Fictions[M]．C. K. Ogden(ed.),(Kegan Paul&Co, London,1932).
[7] Jeremy Bentham．Jeremy Bentham’s Economic Writings[M]．ed. W.Stark,3vols., London,1952-4.
[8] Jeremy Bentham．Bentham’s Political Thought[M]．ed. B. Parekh,London,1973.
[9] Jeremy Bentham．Of Laws in General[M]．H.L.A. Hart(ed.), London:Athlone Press,1970.
[10] Jeremy Bentham．Chrestomathia[M]． M.J. Smith and W.H. Burston(eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1983.
[11] Jeremy Bentham．Rights, Representation, and Reform-Nonsenseupon Stilts and Other Writings on the French Revolution[M]．PhilipSchofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin and Cyprian Blamires (ed.),Oxford: Clarendon Press,2002.
[12] Jeremy Bentham．First Principles preparatory to ConstitutionalCode[M]．Philip Schofield (ed.),(The Collected Works of JeremyBentham), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1989.
[13] Jeremy Bentham．Securities against Misrule and other ConstitutionalWritings for Tripoli and Greece[M]．Philip Schofield (ed.),(TheCollected Works of Jeremy Bentham), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1989.
[14] Jeremy Bentham． Official Aptitude Maximized; ExpenseMinimized[M]．Philip Schofield (ed.),(The Collected Works ofJeremy Bentham), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1993.
[15] Jeremy Bentham．Colonies, Commerce, and Constitutional Law: RidYourselves of Ultramaria and other writings on Spain and SpanishAmerica[M]．Philip Schofield (ed.),(The Collected Works of JeremyBentham), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1995.
[16] Jeremy Bentham．Legislator of the World': Writings on Codification,Education, and Law[M]．Philip Schofield and Jonathan Harris (ed.),(The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham), Oxford: ClarendonPress,1998.
[17] Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch ofJurisprudence[M]. Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2010.
[18] A.C.Dicey． Introduction to the Study of the Law of theConstitution[M]．Liberty Classic,1982.
[19] A.C.Dicey．Lectures on the Relation between Law and PublicOpinion in England during the Nineteenth Century[M]．Liberty Fund,2008.
[20] Atkinson C.M.．Jeremy Bentham: His Life and Work[M]．Methuen&Co., London,1905.
[21] Hilda G.Lundin．Infuence of Jeremy Bentham on English DemocraticDevelopment[M]．University. Iova Ctiy,1920.
[22] Harold Joseph Laski．Political thought in England from Locke toBentham[M]．Holt and Company,1927.
[23] John Wisdom．Interpretation and Analysis: In Relation to Bentham’sTheory of Definition[M]．Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner&Co.,1931.
[24] David Lyons．In the Interest of the Governed: A Study in Bentham’sPhilosophy of Utility and Law[M]．Oxford University Press,1973.
[25] Bhikhu Parekh(ed.)． Jeremy Bentham: Ten CriticalEssays[M]．London,1974.
[26] John Stuart Mill．Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Essay on Bentham:Together with Selected Writings of Jeremy Bentham and JohnAustin[M]．New American Library,1974.
[27] Nancy Rosenblum． Bentham’s Theory of the ModernState[M]．Harvard University Press,1978.
[28] L. J. Hume．Bentham and Bureaucracy[M]．Cambridge UniversityPress,1981.
[29] H. L. A. Hart．Essays on Bentham[M]．Oxford University Press,1982.
[30] Ross Harrison．Bentham[M]．Routledge&Kegan Paul,1983.
[31] Gerald J. Postema． Bentham and the Common LawTradition[M]．Clarendon Press Oxford,1986.
[32] P. J. Kelly．Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Benthamand the Civil Law[M]．Clarendon Press Oxford,1990.
[33] Keekok Lee．The Legal-Rational State[M]．Avebury,1990.
[34] James E. Crimmins．Secular Utilitarianism: Social Science and theCritique of Religion in the Thought of Jeremy Bentham[M]．OxfordUniversity Press,1990.
[35] Struan Jacobs．Science and British Liberalism: Locke, Bentham, Milland Popper[M]．Avebury,1991.
[36] F. Rosen．Bentham, Byron, and Greece[M]．Clarendon Press Oxford,1992.
[37] David Armitage． The Declaration of Independence: A GlobalHistory[M]．Harvard University Press,2007.
[38] Peter King．Utilitarian Jurisprudence in America: The Infuluence ofBentham and Austin on American Legal Thought in the NineteethCentury[M]．Garland Pub,1986.
[39] Bhikhu Parekh(ed.)． Jeremy Bentham: Critical Assessments(4vols)[M]．Routledge,1993.
[40] Bonner John． Economic Efficiency and Social Justic: TheDevelopment of Utilitarian Ideas in Economics from Bentham toEdgeworth[M]．Aldershot Hants,1995.
[41] Richard A. Cosgrove．Scholars of the Law: English Jurisprudencefrom Blackston to Hart[M]．New York University Press,1996.
[42] Oren Ben-Dor．Constitutional Limtis and the Public Sphere: ACritical Study of Bentham’s Consitutionalism[M]．Oxford-PortlandOregon,2000.
[43] James Steintrager．Bentham[M]．Routledge,2004.
[44] Philip Schofield．Utility and Democracy: The Political Thought ofJeremy Bentham[M]．Oxford University Press,2006.
[45] Frederick Rosen．Jeremy Bentham[M]．Ashgate,2007.
[46] Cyprian Blamires．The French Revolution and the Creation ofBenthamism[M]．Palgrave Macmillan2008.
[47] David Runciman．Political Hapocrisy: The Mask of Power, fromHobbes to Orwell and Beyond[M]．Princeton University Press,2008.
[48] C. K. Ogden．Jeremy Bentham,1832-2032: Being the BenthamCentenary Lecture, Delivered in University College, London, on June6th,1932, K.Paul, Trench[M]．Trubner&Co.,1932.
[49] Baumgardt David．Bentham and the Ethic of Todady: With BenthamManuscripts Hitherto Unpublished[M]．Princeton University Press,1952.
[50] Jeremy Waldron(ed.)．Nonsense upon stilts’: Bentham, Burke, andMarx on the Rights of Man[M]．Methuen,1987.
[51] Semple Janet．Bentham’s Prison: A Stduy of the Panopticon ofPenitentiary[M]．Clarendon Press Oxford,1993.
[52] John Troyer． The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham andMill[M]．Hackett Pub. Co.,2003.
[53] C. K. Ogden．From Bentham to Basic English[M]．Routledge,1994.
[54] Ian Christie．The Benthams in Russia[M]．1780-1791, Berg,1993.
[55] Eldon Eisenach．Narrative Power and Liberal Truth: Hobbes, Locke,Bentham, and Mill[M]．Rowman&Littlefield Publisher,2002.
[56] Philip Schofield． Bentham: A Guide for thePerplexed[M]．Continuum,2009.
[57] Dougals G. Long．Bentham on Liberty: Jeremy Bentham’s Idea ofLiberty in Relation to His Utilitarianism[M]．University of TorontoPress,1977.
[58] Frederick Rosen．Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy: AStudy of the Constitutional Code[M]．Oxford Clarendon Press,1983.
[59] Ross Harrison．Democracy[M]．Routledge,1993.
[60] Stephen Guest (ed.)．Positivism Today[M]．Dartmouth,1999.
[61] William L. Davidson．Political Thought in England[M]．Hery Holy&Co.,1915.
[62] David Runciman．Plitical Hypocrisy: The Mask of Power, FromHobbes to Orwell and Beyond[M]． Princeton University Press,2008.(Bentham and Utlity of Fiction)
[63] Slavko Splichal． Principles of Publicity and PressFreedom[M]．Rowman&Littlefield Publishers,2002.
[64] Jim Rodgers．Reason, Conflict and Power: Modern Political andSocial Thought from1688to the Present[M]．University Press ofAmerica,2003.
[65] Engelmann． Political Philosophy from Plato to JeremyBentham[M]．Harper&Brothers,1927.
[66] Frederick Rosen (ed.)．Jeremy Bentham[M]．Aldershot: AshgatePunlishing Ltd,2007.
[67] H.L.A.Hart．Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy[M]． Oxford:Oxford University Press,1983.
[68] H.L.A.Hart．Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence andPolitical Theory[M]．Oxford: Clarendon Press,1982.
[69] H.L.A. Hart．The Concept of Law[M]．Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress,1961.H.L.A. Hart, Postscript[M]．in The Concept of Law,2ndedn., P.Bulloch and J. Raz (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1994.
[70] Bhikhu Parekh(ed.)．Jeremy Bentham: Critical Assessments,4vols.[M]．London: Routledge,1993.
[71] P.J.Kelly．Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Benthamand the Civil Law[M]．Oxford: Oxford University Press,1990.
[72] Philip Schofield．Utility and Democracy[M]．Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,2006.
[73] Philip Schofield．Bentham: A Guide for the Perplexed [M]．London:Continuum,2009.
[74] John Austin．Lectures on Jurisprudence or the Philosophy of PositiveLaw5thedn [M]． Robert Campbell (ed.),Rev.,London: John Murray,1911.论文类一、中文论文：
[1]刘星.哈特法律概念分析的模式建构及其历史定位[J].比较法研究．1996（4）：337-350.
[2]甘德怀.从命令到规则：哈特对奥斯丁的批判：读哈特《法律的概念》[J].法制与社会发展．2007（5）：33-40.
[3]朱振.哈特/德沃金之争与法律实证主义的分裂：基于“分离命题”的考察[J].法制与社会发展．2007（5）：14-32.
[4]苗炎.哈特社会规则理论的限度[J].法制与社会发展．2007（2）：153-160.
[5]谌洪果.法律实证主义的功利主义自由观：从边沁到哈特[J].法律科学．2006（4）：17-28.
[6]泮伟江.走向规范性的法律实证主义：超越哈特与德沃金之争[J].比较法研究．2006（2）：145-149.
[7]朱振.实践理由、权威与来源命题：拉兹法律哲学的研究[D].长春：吉林大学法学院，2007.
[8]苗炎.哈特法律规范性理论研究：以法律实证主义传统为背景的分析[D].长春：吉林大学法学院．2007.
[9]泮伟江.民主的法律实证主义[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院．2005.
[10]任华敏.论法律与道德的联系：从哈特式柔性法实证主义出发[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院．2006.
[11]陈景辉.法律的界限：实证主义命题群之展开[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院．2004.
[12]张延祥.实证主义抑或自然主义？边沁法理学的理论基础研究[D].长春：吉林大学法学院，2012.二、英文论文：
[1] Rawls．Two Concepts of Rules[J]．Philosophical Review,64(1955),pp.3-32.
[2] A. Lawrence Lowell．The Limits of Sovereignty[J]．Harvard LawReview,(1888), pp.70-87.
[3] John F.Dillon．Bentham and His School ofJurisprudence[J]．American Law Review, Vol. XXIV (1890),pp.728-751.
[4] Charles Noble Gregory．Bentham and the Codifiers[J]．Harvard LawReview, Vol.13, No.5(Jan.,1900), pp.344-357.
[5] Wesley C.Mitchell．Bentham’ Felicific Calculus[J]．Political ScienceQuarterly, Vol.33, No.2(1918), pp.161-183.
[6] Lewis Rockow．Bentham on the Theory of Second Chambers[J]．TheAmerican Politcal Science Review, Vol.22, No.3(1928),pp.576-590.
[7] W. A. Hirst．Jeremy Bentham: A Hundred YearsAfer[J]．Contemporary Review,142, pp.213-219.
[8] W. Stark．Liberty and Equality or: Jeremy Bentham as anEconomist[J]．The Economic Journal, Vol.51, No.201(1941),pp.56-79.
[9] Jacob Viner．Bentham and J.S.Mill: The UtilitarianBackground[J]．The American Economic Review, Vol.39, No.2(1949),pp.360-382.
[10] T. W. Hutchison．Bentham as an Economist[J]．The Economic Journal,Vol.66, No.262(1956), pp.288-306.
[11] David Roberts．Jeremy Bentham and the Victorian AdministrativeState[J]．Victorian Studies,2:3(1959), pp.193-210.
[12] Teddy Brunius．Jeremy Bentham’s Moral Calculus[J]．ActaSociologica, Vol.3, No.2/3(1959),pp.73-85.
[13] Thomas P. Peardon．Bentham’s Ideal Republic[J]．The CanadianJoural of Economics and Political Science, Vol.17, No.2(1951),pp.184-203.
[14] J.H.Burns．Bentham and the French Revolution[J]．Transaction of theRoyal Historical Society, Vol.16(1966), pp.95-114.
[15] J. A. W. Gunn．Jeremy Bentham and the Public Interes[J]．CanadianJoural of Political Science, Vol.1, No.4(1968), pp.398-413.
[16] L. J. Lysaght．Bentham on the Aspects of a Law[J]．Northern IrelandLegel Quarterly, Vol.24, No.3(1973),pp.383-398.
[17] John H.Burns．Bentham on Sovereignty: An Exploration[J]．NorthernIreland Legel Quarterly, Vol.24, No.3(1973), pp.399-416.
[18] J. R. Dinwiddy．Bentham’s Transition to Political Radicalism,1809-10[J]．Joural of the History of Ideas, Vol.36, No.4(1975),pp.683-700.
[19] M. James．Public Interest and Majority Rule in Bentham’sDemocratic Theory[J]．Political Theory, vol.9(1983), pp.49-64.
[20] Philip Schofield．Bentham on the Identification ofInterests[J]．Utilitas. Vol.8, No.2(1996), pp.223-234.
[21] Daniel Kahneman, Peter P. Wakker and Rakesh Sarin．Back toBentham? Explorations of Experienced Utiliy[J]．The QurterlyJournal of Economics, Vol.112, No.2(1997), pp.375-405.
[22] F. Rosen．Individual Sacrifice and the Greatest Happiness: Benthamon Utiliy and Rights[J]．Utilitas, Vol.10, No.2(1998),pp.129-143.
[23] Gerald J. Postema．Bentham’s Equality-SensitiveUtilitariansim[J]．Utilitas, Vol.10, No.2(1998), pp.144-158.
[24] Ross Harrison．Rosen’s Sacrifice of Utiliy[J]．Utilitas, Vol.10,No.2(1998), pp.159-164.
[25] Jon Mandle．Dose Naturalism Imply Utilitarianism?[J]．The Journalof Value Inquiry,33(1999), pp.537-553.
[26] Fred Cutler．Jeremy Bentham and the Public OpinionTribunal[J]．Public Opinion Qqarterly,63.3(1999),pp.321-346.
[27] Dieter Paul Polloczek．Utlitarian Conscience and Legal Fictions inBentham[J]． Angelaki,4:1(1999),pp.81-98.
[28] Hugo Adam Bedau．Anarchical Fallacies,Bentham's Attack onHuman Rights[J]．Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.22. No.1(2000),pp.261-279.
[29] Stephen G.. Englemann．Imagining Interest[J]．Utilitas, Vol.13,No.3(2001), pp.289-322.
[30] Slavko Splichal．Bentham, Kant, and the Right toCommunicate[J]．Critical Review,15,3/4(2003), pp.285-305.
[31] Stephen G.Englemann．Indirect Legislation: Bentham’s LiberalGovernment[J]．Polity, Vol.35, No.3(2003), pp.369-388.
[32] Lawrence L Martin．Jeremy Bentham: Jeremy Bentham onOrganizational Theory and Decision Making, Public Policy Analysisand Administrative Management[J]．International Journal ofOrganizaton Theory and Behavior,6,1(2003), pp.144-160.
[33] Philip Schofield．Jeremy Bentham’s Nonsense upon Stilts[J]．Utilitas,Vol.15, No.1(2003), pp.1-26.
[34] Colin Tyler．A Foundaton of Chaff? A Critique of Bentham’sMetaphisics,1913-16[J]．British Journal for the History of Philosophy,12(2004), pp.685-703.
[35] Martin A. Kayman．A Memorial for Jeremy Bentham: Memory,Fiction, and Writing the Law[J]．Law and Critique,15(2004),pp.207-299.
[36] David Dyzenhaus．The Genealogy of Legal Positivism[J]．OxfordJouranl of Legal Studies, Vol.24, No.1(2004), pp.39-67.
[37] David Collard．Reserch on Well-Being: Some Advice from JeremyBentham[J]．Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol36, No.3(2006),pp.330-354.
[38] Thoma Austenfeld．A Happy Naturalist Jeremy Bentham and theCosmic Morality of The Octopus[J]．Studies in American Naturalism,2007, pp.33-45.
[39] Daniel Read．Experienced Utiliy: Utility Theory from JeremyBentham to Daniel Kahneman[J]．Thinking&Reasoning,13(1),(2007), pp.45-61.
[40] Oren Ben-Dor．The Instituionalisation of Public Opinion: Bentham’sProposed Consitutional Role for Jury and Judges[J]．Legal Studies,Vol.27, No.2(2007), pp.216-235.
[41] Melissa Schwartzberg．Jeremy Bentham on Fallibility andInfallibity[J]．Journal of the History of Ideas,68(2007),pp.563-585.
[42] José Brunner．Modern Times: Law, Temporality and Happiness inHobbes, Locke and Bentham[J]．Theoretical Inquires in Law, Vol.8,277(2007), pp.277-310.
[43] David Liberman．Bentham’s Democracy[J]．Oxford Journal of LegalStudies, Vol.28, No.3(2008), pp.605-626.
[44] Juan Pablo Couyoumdjian．An Expert at Work: Revisiting JeremyBentham's Proposals on Codification[J]．Kyklos, Vol.61(2008),pp.503-519.
②[法]让·博丹：《主权论》，李卫海、钱俊文译，北京大学出版社2008年版。另外参见陈颐：《立法主权与近代国家的建构：以近代早期法国法律为中心》，法律出版社2008年版，另外参见Daniel Engster, DivineSovereignty: The Origins of Modern State Power, Northern Illinois University, Press, p.47.以及A. London Fell,Origins of Legislative Sovereignty and the Legislative State (vol.1-8).
③参见王世杰、钱端升：《比较宪法》，商务印书馆1999年版；肖拥军：《人民主权论》，山东人民出版社2005年版；肖佳林：《国家主权论》，时世出版社2003年版。
①由于在功利主义的内涵上，各个思想家并不完全相同，虽然他们均使用了“最大多数人最大幸福”这一表述，但在“幸福”的内涵上，他们存在不同。因此，为了表示能够概况他们的共同点，我在此使用了“社会功利”一词。
②[英]迈克尔·莱斯诺夫：《社会契约论》，刘训练等译，江苏人民出版社2006年版，第97页。
③[美]列奥·施特劳斯、[美]约瑟夫·克罗波西主编：《政治哲学史》，李洪润等译，法律出版社2009年版，第553页。
④林奇富：《社会契约论与近代自由主义的转型》，光明日报出版社2010年版，第118页。
⑤林奇富：《社会契约论与近代自由主义的转型》，光明日报出版社2010年版。
①[美]小查尔斯·爱德华·梅里亚姆：《卢梭以来的主权学说史》，毕洪海译，法律出版社2006年版，第108页。作者指出，“在对布莱克斯通进行激烈且具有颠覆性的批评时，边沁抛弃了政治社会的契约论属性，而将整个结构建立在功利主义基础上。”
②边沁习惯于集中写一部书，然后不断修改，但写成后很少出版，即使那些生前出版的著作也多是由边沁的学生或朋友加以整理的，因此，边沁去世后留下了很多手稿。尽管约翰·鲍林在1843年编辑了11卷本的《边沁著作集》（The Works of Jeremy Bentham），但是，这个版本编辑的并不好。因此，伦敦大学大学学院边沁研究中心自上世纪60年代起开始重新整理编辑边沁的手稿，以《边沁全集》（The Collected Works ofJeremy Bentham）为名出版，迄今已出版了30多卷，预计全部整理完毕可达到70多卷。
①出自边沁手稿UC lxix.100.转引自[英]菲利普·斯科菲尔德：《邪恶利益与民主》，翟小波译，北京大学出版社2010年版，第301页。
②[英]边沁：《政府片论》，沈叔平译，商务印书馆1995年版。
③Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy: A Study of the Constitutional Code, OxfordClarendon Press,1983.
①[英]边沁：《立法理论》，李贵方译，人民公安大学出版社2004年版，第91-96页。
②边沁最初完《道德与立法原理》导论后，感到有必要写关于法律性质的著作，于是便有了《论一般法律》，然而这部著作写成后直至20世纪40年代才被发现整理出来。
③[英]菲利普·斯科菲尔德：《邪恶利益与民主》，翟小波译，北京大学出版社2010年版，第300页。
④[英]边沁：《论一般法律》，毛国权译，上海三联出版社2008年版，第23页。
①参见Daniel Engster, Divine Sovereignty: The Origins of Modern State Power, Northern Illinois University, Press,p50.作者讨论了近代思想史上两种秩序观。
②Jeremy Bentham, Principles of International Law, in Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol2,pp.534-560, J. Bowring, Edinburgh:William Tait,1838-43.
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.25.
①Jeremy Bentham, Rights, Representation and Reform: Nonsense upon Stilts and other Writings on the FrenchRevolution, Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin and Cyprian Blamires, Clarendon Press, Oxford,2002,p.408.
②Martin Loughlin, Foundations of Public Law, Oxford University Press,2010, p.184-185.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,p.228.
②Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.261.
①对于国家理性的讨论，参见许章润、翟志勇编：《国家理性与现代国家》，清华大学2012年版。
①对于这个问题的分析，可参见[美]珍妮弗·皮茨：《转向帝国：英法帝国自由主义的兴起》，金毅、许鸿艳译，江苏人民出版社2012年版。
①张文显：《法学研究中的问题意识》，未刊稿。
①杨念群等主编：《新史学：多学科对话的图景》，中国人民大学出版社2003年版。
②秦晖：《警惕“问题殖民”：西学东渐中的问题误置——以“大小政府”“交易成本”“中产阶级”“民族国家建构”等概念为例》，超星大学堂视频，http://video1.ssreader.com/playvideo.asp?id=20441。
①陈端洪：《宪治与主权》，法律出版社2007年版，第45-50页。
①Bentham Project由成立于1959年的Bentham Committe设立，是致力于重新整理编辑边沁的手稿，出版新的边沁文集，增进对边沁的研究的专门学术机构。它计划到2030年止出版65到70卷边沁的著作和通信集。
②Bentham Newsletter后为Utilitas取代，后者成为了研究功利主义和边沁的刊物，1997年Bentham Project又创刊了专门致力于边沁研究的Journal of Bentham Studies。
①Mill, Utilitarianism and On Liberty: Including Mill’s ‘Essay on Bentham’ and Selections from the Writings ofJeremy Bentham and John Austin, Blackwell Publishing,2003.密尔《论边沁》，载于边沁：《论一般法律》，毛国权译，上海三联出版社2008年版。
②[英]边沁：《政府片论》，沈叔平等译，商务印书馆1997年版。
①Hilda G..Lundin, Infuence of Jeremy Bentham on English Democratic Development, University. Iova Ctiy,1920.
②此文收入H. L. A. Hart, Essays on Bentham, Oxford University Press,1982.
③John H.Burns, Benthanm on Sovereignty: An Exploration, Northern Ireland Legel Quarterly, Vol.24, No.3,(1973),399-416.
④David Lieberman, Bentham’s Democracy, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.28, No.3(2008)
⑤Nancy Rosenblum, Bentham’s Theory of the Modern State, Harvard University Press,1978.
⑥L. J. Hume, Bentham and Bureaucracy, Cambridge University Press,1981.
⑦[法]哈列维：《哲学激进主义的兴起》，曹海军等译，吉林人民出版社2006年版。
⑧Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986.
⑨Keekok Lee, The Legal-Rational State, Avebury,1990.
⑩Oren Ben-Dor, Consitutional Limits and the Public Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham’ s Consutitutionalism,Hart Publishing,2000.
11James Steintrager, Bentham, Routledge,2004.
12Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy: A Study of the Constitutional Code, OxfordClarendon Press,1983.
①Frederick Rosen, Classical Utilitarianism: From Hume to Mill, Routledge,2003.以及Ross Harrison,‘Rosen’sSacrifice of Utility’、Gerald J. Postema,‘Bentham’ s Equality-Sensitive Utilitariansim’和P. J. Kelly,‘More onBentham on Utility and Rights’。
②David Lyons, In the Interest of the Governed: A Study in Bentham’s Philosophy of Utility and Law, OxfordUniversity Press,1973.
③车运景：《边沁的功利主义思想在其主权理论中的运用：读杰里米·边沁的<政府片论>》，载于《重庆科技学院学报》（社会科学版）2009年第11期。
④龚祥瑞：《法与改革：读边沁与密尔<政府论>》，载于《比较法研究》1995年第1期。
⑤林奇富：《契约论批判与批判的尺度：杰里米·边沁功利主义政治哲学探析》，载于《吉林大学社会科学学
①戴维·利伯曼：《边沁论民主》，李燕涛译，未刊稿。译自David Lieberman, Bentham’s Democracy, OxfordJournal of Legal Studies, Vol.28, No.3(2008)
①Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limtis and the Public Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham’s Consitutionalism,Oxford-Portland Oregon,2000, p.49.
①Pedro Shwatz,‘Jeremy Bentham’s Democratic Despotism’, in R. D. Collison Black(ed.) Ideas in Economics,Basingstoke: Macmillan Press,1986.
②James E. Crimmins, Bentham’s Philosophical Politics, The Harvard Review of Philosophy, Spring(1993).他提到的这些学者有L. Campos Boralevi, G. Postema, P. J. Kelly,A. Dube.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯：《政治哲学史讲义》，杨通进等译，中国社会科学出版社2011年版，第51-51页。
②张一兵：《问题式、症候阅读与意识形态：关于阿尔都塞的一种文本学解读》，中央编译出版社2003年版，第63-104页。
①参见[美]汉娜·阿伦特：《人的状况》，王寅丽译，上海人民出版社2009年版。
①L.Burkholder, Tarlton on Bentham's Fragment on Government, Political Studies, vol.21(4),1973, pp.523-526.
②C.D.Tarlton, The Overlooked Strategy of Bentham's Fragment on Government, Political Studies, vol.20(4),1972,pp.397-406.
③Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.511.
①关于对社会契约论的讨论，可以参见[英]马克尔·莱斯诺夫等：《社会契约论》，刘训练等译，江苏人民出版社2006年版。
①Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Wayne Morrison(ed.), Vol.1, CavendishPublishing Limited, London Sydney,2001, p.31.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.14.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,pp.53-65.
②H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,pp.63-64.
①Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Wayne Morrison(ed.), Vol.1, CavendishPublishing Limited, London Sydney,2001, p.31.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.428.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.428.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.429.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.442.
①Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Wayne Morrison(ed.), Vol.1, CavendishPublishing Limited, London Sydney,2001, p.31.
②Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, Wayne Morrison(ed.), Vol.1, CavendishPublishing Limited, London Sydney,2001, p.31.
③Jeremy Bentham, Theory of Legislation, R. Hildreth (trans.), second edition, London, Trüber&Co., PaternosterRow,1871.
①徐大同主编：《西方政治思想史：16-18世纪》（第三卷），天津人民出版社，第416页。
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.511.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.444.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.474.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.493.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.496.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.478.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.480.
②Christopher W.Morris, An Essay on the Modern State, Cambridge University Press,1998, p.174.
③[英]霍布斯：《利维坦》（Leviathan），中国政法大学出版社（影印本）2003年版。
④[法]让·博丹：《主权论》，李卫海、钱俊文译，北京大学出版社2008年版，第37页。
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.489.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,pp.220-243.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.489.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.478.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.478.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.479.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.481.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.484.
①Micheal Oakeshott, Lectures in the History of Political Thought, Terry Nardin and Luke O'Sullivan (ed.), ImprintAcademic,2006, pp.413-426.
②参见洛克：《政府论两篇》（Two Treatises of Government），中国政法大学出版社（影印本）2003年版，[法]卢梭：《社会契约论》，李平沤译，商务印书馆2012年版。
①Richard A. Posner, Blackstone and Bentham,Journal of Law and Economics,Vol.19, No.3, Coc.,1976,pp.569-606.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.431.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.481.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.485.
①Douglas G.Long, Bentham on Liberty: Jeremy Bentham's Idea of Liberty in Relation to HisUtilitarianism,University of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo,1977, p.92.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.394.
①Douglas G.Long, Bentham on Liberty: Jeremy Bentham's Idea of Liberty in Relation to HisUtilitarianism,University of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo,1977, p.95.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.420.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.462.
①L.J.Hume, Bentham and Bureaucracy, Cambridge University Press,1981, pp.56-57.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,
①Jeremy Bentham, A Commet on the Commetaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2008, p.429.
①[英]麦基文：《宪政古今》，翟小波译，贵州人民出版社2004年版。
①Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.228.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.42.
②H. L. A. Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Oxford University Press,1982,p.222.
①对于政治义务和法律义务的区别，可参见毛兴贵编：《政治义务：证成与反驳》，江苏人民出版社2007年版，第2页；以及Political Obligation, in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/.
②参见周濂：《现代政治的正当性基础》，生活·读书·新知三联出版社2008年版。
①参见毛兴贵编：《政治义务：证成与反驳》，江苏人民出版社2007年版，第5页。
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.489.
②Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.42.
③Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.238.
①Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. pp.241-243.
②Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.241.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,pp.234-235.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,p.238.
②Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.234.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.430.
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.428.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.489.
③Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1989, p.162.
①L.J.Hume, Bentham and Bureaucracy, Cambridge University Press,1981, p.67.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.429.
③Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.225.
①Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.229.
②Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986. p.227.
①Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.125.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.126.
①Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.134.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.126.
①有关对早期功利主义讨论，参见Geoffery Scarre, Utilitarianism, Routledge, London and New york,2002.
①Jeremy Bentham, Deontology together with A Table of the Springs of Action and the Article on Utilitarianism,Amnon Goldworth (ed.), The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham,Oxford Press,1983.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.439.
③Jeremy Bentham, An Intoduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, pp.11-12.边沁在《道德与立法原理导论》中的前5章中详细阐述了功利主义的内涵，对此，P.J.Kelly认为这5章中并没不代表边沁功利主义的全部，理解边沁的功利主义还需要结合他的民法著作，边沁在这些民法著作尤其是《民法典原理》中阐述了一种分配正义理论，参见P.J.Kelly,Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1990,p.40-41.此外，有关边沁的功利主义理论，还可参见Ross Harrison, Bentham, Routledge&Kegan Paul,1983;Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford UniversityPress,2006.
①David Lyons, In the Interest of the Government: A Study in Bentham's Philosophy of Utility and Law, ClarendonPress, Oxford,1991.此外，David Lyons还提出了其他两个观点，J. R. Dinwiddy把这三个观点概况为，“边沁认为各种利益可以自然地实现和谐（natrually harmonized）。David Lyons认为从长期来看，私人利益和公共利益可以相融合。2、边沁并不接受心理学利己主义，他主张的人们为趋乐避苦的动机所驱动的观点不具有利己主义的内涵。在一生中的大多数时间里，他都不认为自私在人们的行为动机中占有主导地位；边沁的功利原理不具有普遍性（universalistic），而是一种双重标准（dual standard）。也就是说，在公共或政治领域里，以共同体利益（community interest）为标准；而在私人问题上，自我利益（self interest）则起着主导作用。”参见J. R. Dinwiddy, Bentham on Private Ethics and the Principle of Utiliy, in Bhikhu Parekh(ed.), Jeremy Bentham: Critical Assessments(vol II), Routledge,1993.
①J. B. Stearns, Bentham on Public and Private Ethics,in Bhikhu Parekh (ed.), Jeremy Bentham: CriticalAssessments(vol II), Routledge,1993.
②关于当代功利主义的发展，可参见Michael.D.Bayles (ed.), Contemporary Utilitarianism, Gloucester,1968；以及晋运峰：《当代功利主义正义观》，吉林大学博士论文，2011年5月。
①参见Julius Stone, Human Law and Human Justice, Stanford University Press,1965.
①Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition, Clarendon Press Oxford,1986.
②James E. Crimmins, Utilitarian Philosophy and Politics:Bentham's Later Years, Continuum,2011, p.94.
③P. J. Kelly, Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law, Clarendon Press Oxford,1990.
①周濂：《现代政治的正当性基础》，生活·读书·新知三联出版社2008年版，第61-62页。
②[美]A·约翰·西蒙斯：《道德原则与政治义务》，郭为桂、李艳丽译，江苏人民出版社2009年版，第30页。
③Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford Univsrtiy Press,1986, pp.23-110.朱振博士在其研究中分别总结了这三个命题的内涵，优先命题（the pre-emption thesis）是指“一个权威要求实施一个行动这一事实是实施它的一个理由，当评定去做什么的时候，这一理由不是要被增加到所有其他相关理由之中，而是应当取代它们之中的一些理由。”依赖命题（the dependence thesis）是指“所有的权威命令应当基于如下理由，这些理由已经单独地适用于权威命令的服从者（subject），并且这些理由与他们在命令所及的情形中的行动相关。”常规证成命题（the normal justification thesis）是指“确定一个人对另一个人拥有权威的常规方式要表明，如果所断言的服从者把所断言的权威命令接受为有权威性约束力并尽力遵守它们，而非尽力遵循直接适用他的那些理由，那么他也许是在更好地遵循适用于他的理由（除了所断言的权威命令）。”参见朱振：《实践理由、权威与来源命题：拉兹法律哲学的研究》，吉林大学博士论文，2007年12月，第114-117页。
④朱振：《实践理由、权威与来源命题：拉兹法律哲学的研究》，吉林大学博士论文，2007年12月，第122页。
①西蒙斯认为具有一种政治义务不等于去做政治义务所要求的内容，“说一个人有政治义务（或政治责任），并不等于说他应该履行这个义务，也不等于说义务是行动的最终理由。”对此，参见[美]A·约翰·西蒙斯：《道德原则与政治义务》，郭为桂、李艳丽译，江苏人民出版社2009年版，第9页。
①关于这些不同的政治义务理论，参见毛兴贵编：《政治义务：证成与反驳》，江苏人民出版社2007年版。
②[美]A·约翰·西蒙斯：《道德原则与政治义务》，郭为桂、李艳丽译，江苏人民出版社2009年版，第43页。
①需要注意的是，它不同于“人应该服从特定某条法律”这个陈述，它旨在说明人应该服从法律整体。
②周濂：《现代政治的正当性基础》，生活·读书·新知三联出版社2008年版，第35页。
①参见Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limtis and the Public Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham’s Consitutionalism,Oxford-Portland Oregon,2000, p.127.
②[美]A·约翰·西蒙斯：《道德原则与政治义务》，郭为桂、李艳丽译，江苏人民出版社2009年版，第217-220
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.462.
②Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.451.
①Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.263.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.217.
①John H.Burns, Benthanm on Sovereignty: An Exploration, Northern Ireland Legel Quarterly, Vol.24, No.3,(1973),399-416.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.221.
①Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.264.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.213.
③Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.106.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.42.
②哈特认为这是两个体现了触及权的例子，此外，哈特对触及权进行更为详细的分析，参见H.L.A.Hart, Essayson Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982, p.197.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,p.201.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.107.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.103.
②Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.104.
①Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.105.
②Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.106.
③Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.105.
①参见Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns andH.L.A.Hart (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.439.
②Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.101.
①Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.41-54.
②Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.25.
③Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.96.
①Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.41-54.
①Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.98.
②Jeremy Bentham, Rights,Representation,and Reform:Nonsense upon Stilts and other Writings on the FrenchRevolution, Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin and Cyprian Blamires (ed.), Clrendon Press, Oxford,pp.227-263.
①Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol II, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.422.
②Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.275.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.13.
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.77-78.
③Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.87-89.
④他对布莱克斯通的批判中实际上也体现了对人的素质的重视，然而，边沁是在否定的意义上谈及这些素质
①虽然边沁并没有谈论法治，但是在其著作中可以发现他倾向于法治政府。参见Gerald J.Postema,The Soul ofJustice:Bentham on Publicity, Law, and the Rule of Law,载于《边沁法哲学国际研讨会论文集》，中国·郑州大学，2012年5月。
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.4.
③Jeremy Bentham,The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.96.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.244.
①就边沁强调人民主权在国家制度层面的实现而言，有学者认为这是一种主流的理论，参见Mark J. Kaswan,Happiness and Domocratic Theory: Jeremy Bentham and William Thompson, Western Political ScienceAssociation2010Annual Meeting Paper，[2012-8-30]。http://papers.ssrn.com。
②A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Macmillan,1915, p27. Reprinted by the
Liberty Classic in1982.
①[日]篠田英朗：《重新审视主权：从古典理论到全球时代》，戚渊译，商务印书馆2005年版，第59页。也有学者把政治主权和法律主权的区分追溯至博丹与霍布斯的著作中，认为这种区分体现的是“权威与权力之间的区分”，认为“法律主权是以最终的、终极的权威存在于国家的法律内这一信念为基础。这就是所谓的‘规范（de jure）主权’，它是从法律权威的角度来界定的至高无上的权力。换句话来说，它以拥有要求某人服从（由法律来规定）的权利为基础。与之相对是，政治主权绝不是以主张法律权威为基础的，而纯粹关注于实际的权力分配。这就是所谓的‘事实（de facto）主权。由此，政治主权指的是一个至高无上的政治权力的存在，它因垄断了强制力而拥有要求他人服从的能力。’”[英]安德鲁·海伍德编：《政治理论教程》（第三版），李智译，中国人民大学出版社2009年版，第104-106页；也可参考D. D. Raphael,《政治哲学中的论题》，朱兼章、余明贤等译，台湾幼狮文化事业事业公司，1976年五月版，第51-72页。
①参见邱家军：《代表谁：选民与代表》，复旦大学出版社2010年版，第18-19页。然而，在我国人民确是一个与阶级相关的与敌人相对的含义，在不同的宪法文本中，人民的含义也不同。另参考何青州、付子堂：《中国宪政史上的“人民”观》，载于《河南财经政法大学学报》，2012年第1期。
①[美]乔万尼萨托利：《民主新论》，冯克利、阎克文译，上海人民出版社2009年版，第34页。
②Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.96.
③Deputy和Representative两个词都可以翻译为代表，但deputy也可以翻译为代理人，representative也可以翻译为代议士，为区别起见，本文在此用代议士指representative，但由于边沁著作中使用的都是deputy，为便于理解，除有特别说明之外，本文将deputy译为代表。
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,pp.1-21.
①Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limits and the Publc Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham's Constitutionalism, HartPublish, Oxford Portland, Oregon,2000, p.53.
①Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limits and the Publc Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham's Constitutionalism, HartPublish, Oxford Portland, Oregon,2000, p.55.
②Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limits and the Publc Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham's Constitutionalism, HartPublish, Oxford Portland, Oregon,2000, p.55.
①Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limits and the Publc Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham's Constitutionalism, HartPublish, Oxford Portland, Oregon,2000, p.56.
②Oren Ben-Dor, Constitutional Limits and the Publc Sphere: A Critical Study of Bentham's Constitutionalism, HartPublish, Oxford Portland, Oregon,2000, p.62.
①关于权力的正当性的讨论，可参见David Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, Macmilan,1991.
②我将在下文中分析意志同一和个人自治这两个原则，本章第三节将讨论意志同一原则，下一章将讨论个人自治原则。
①对于关系在哲学本体论层面上的意义，罗嘉昌教授提出了一种关系实在论，这种观点认为“简单地说，关系实在论，是主张关系即实在，实在即关系，关系先于关系者，关系者和关系可随透视方式而相互转化的一种哲学观点和理论。它期望通过‘关系’和‘实在’的相互诠释达到对存有的关系实在论理解，从而破除形而上学的绝对实体观。”罗嘉昌：《从物质实体论到关系实体论》，中国人民大学出版社2012年版，第
3页；此外，他也认为“在关系实在论看来，事物（作为关系者）及其本质是由特定关系来定义的，关系的改变，在一定条件下对应于对象及其本质属性的改变。”同上，第13页。
②Martin Loughlin, The Idea of Public Law, Oxford University Press,2003, p.65.
①乌尔曼：《中世纪政治思想史》，夏洞奇译，译林出版社2011年版。
①Martin Loughlin, The Idea of Public Law, Oxford University Press,2003, p.70.
②本文在下一章中对此进行了分析。
①对于关系性主权具有的不同含义，参见本文第六章“边沁主权学说的理论本体”中的相关分析。
①普遍利益（universal interest）在某种意义上也等同于公共利益（public interest），有关边沁的普遍利益和公共利益的讨论，可以参见Stephen G.Englmann, Imagining Interest, Utilitas, Vol.13, No.3, November.,2011,pp.289-332;Gerald J.Postema, Interests, Universal and Particular: Bentham's Utilitarian Theory of Value, Utilitas,Vol.18, No.2, June,2006, pp.109-133.J.A.W.Gunn,Jeremy Bentham and the Public Interest, Canadian Journal ofPolitical Science, Vol.1, No.4, Dec.,1968,pp.398-413.以及Michael James,Public Interest and Majority Rule inBentham's Democratic Theory, Political Theory, Vol.9. No.1, Feb.,1981,pp.49-64.
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.45.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.233.
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.235.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, pp.238-242.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,
①参见[德]卡尔·施密特：《政治的浪漫派》，冯克利、刘峰译，上海人民出版社2004年版，第236页。
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.136.
③对于自治含义的分析，参见Thomas May, Autonomy, Authority and Moral Responsibility, Kluwer AcademicPublishers,1998.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.59.
②Jeremy Bentham, Rights, Representation, and Reform: Nonsense upon Stilts and other Writings on the FrenchRevolution, Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin and Cyprian Blamires (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,
①Jeremy Bentham, Bentham’s Political Thought, B. Parekh (ed.), Croom Helm London,1973, pp.175-177.
①关于对伯林《两种自由概念》的分析，参见李石：《积极自由的悖论》，商务印书馆2011年版，第45-58页。
①Jeremy Bentham, Rights, Representation, and Reform: Nonsense upon Stilts and other Writings on the FrenchRevolution, Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin and Cyprian Blamires (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,p.408.
①有关日常状态与非常状态的讨论，可以参见高全喜：《现代政治五论》，法律出版社2008年版；以及《从日常政治到非常政治：论现时代的政法及其他》，中国法制出版社2009年版。
②参见Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Foundations, The Berkely Press of Harved University Press,1993.以及布鲁斯·阿克曼：《我们人民：宪法的变革》，孙文恺译，法律出版社2009年版。
①维尔曾在《宪政与分权》中提出了一个纯粹的分权概念，这可以看做分权概念的理想类型。他认为，“分权的‘纯粹学说’也许可以这样表述：为了政治自由的建立和维护，关键是要将政府划分为立法、行政和司法三部门或三部分。三个部门中的每个部门都有相应的、可确定的政府职能，即立法、行政和司法职能。政府的每个部门都一定要限于行使自己的职能，不允许侵蚀其他部门的职能。进而，组成这三个政府机构的人员一定要保持分离和不同，不允许每个人同时是一个以上部门的成员。这样一来，每个部门将对其他部门都是一个制约，没有任何一群人将能控制国家的全部机器”虽然每个思想家的分权理论与这个理想概念并不尽然相同，但这个概念还是指出了分权学说的要义——职能分立，相互制约。”[英]M.J.C.维尔：《宪政与分权》，苏力译，三联出版社1997年版。
①Philip Schofield讨论了权力分立和权力平衡的含义，可参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: ThePolitcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.233.
②边沁在《政府片论》中曾明确论及了孟德斯鸠的学说，他在鲍林版的《宪法典》中曾明确指出他所讨论的正是孟德斯鸠的分权理论。参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.),Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.123.孟德斯鸠的《论法的精神》在当时产生了较大影响，对于孟德斯鸠的分权学说，可参见[英]M.J.C.维尔：《宪政与分权》，苏力译，三联出版社1997年版，以及[法]孟德斯鸠：《论法的精神》，商务印书馆2004年版。
①参见Jeremy Bentham,The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.123.
②参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.234.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.8.
②参见Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), ClarendonPress, Oxford,1986, p.6.
①需要指出的是，边沁的理论中权威（authority）和权力（power）的含义类似，参见Jeremy Bentham,The Worksof Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.96.但从他在某些地方（如《谬论之书》）中的用法看，权威比权力含义更广，因为他认为权威可以来源于权力。
②此图来自西尾孝司：《ベンサム『憲法典』における「世論法廷」論と「最高立法議会」論》（《边沁<宪法典>中的公共舆论法庭和最高立法会议》），The Review of law and politics,24(1),1-91,1988。
①从广义上来看，法律也可以包含在政治的范畴内，本文从立法权和构成权区别的基础上认为主权存在政治和法律两种不同的形式。
②对于多元主权理论或政治多元论，可以参考拉斯基的著作，以及萧公权：《政治多元论：当代政治理论研究》，周林刚译，中国法制出版社2012年版。
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code,Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.29.
①立法刑事法庭是对现任或前任立法者成员、现任或前任首相、现任或前任司法部长等人追究法律责任的非常设法庭，这个法庭由相关立法者成员或其他官员中的三至五个人组成。Jeremy Bentham, ConstitutionalCode, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.115.
②参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.96.
③[德]卡尔·施密特：《宪法学说》，刘峰译，上海人民出版社2005年版，第84页。关于制宪权的研究，可以参见芦部信喜：《制宪权》，王贵松译，中国政法大学出版社2012年版，以及Antonio Negri, Insurgencies,Constituent Power and the Modern State, Manrizia Boscagli (trans.), University of Minnesota Press,1999.
①制宪权更强调一种非常的状态下运用，“最初，宪法制定权在西耶士和施密特的理论中都是超宪定法的存在。与之相比，边沁的构成权（ConstitutiveAuthority）理论将宪法制定权置于国家的法律制度之中。因此，边沁的构成权（ConstitutiveAuthority）理论可能不像西耶士或是施密特的理论那样拥有绝对的意义，但是他的理论不是指例外状态，而是在平常状态下将人民的意志不断反映到统治体系中。”参见小山廣和、浜田豊：《ベンサム『憲法典』におけるConstitutive Authorityの概念:ベンサムの人民主権論の理解のために》，载于Memoirs of Takayama Junior College,10,7-31,1987.制宪权更多的在欧陆语境中使用，参见陈端洪：《制宪权与根本法》，中国法制出版社2010年版;以及Martin Loughlin, The Paradox ofConstitutionalism: Constituent Power and Constitutional Form, Oxford University Press,2007.
②参见蔡宗珍：《宪法与国家》（一），元照出版公司2004年版，第48-54页。
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code,Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.41-42.
②Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.41-54.
③Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.41-54.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.6.
②边沁认为首相下面设有选举部长、立法部长、陆军部长、海军部长、预防服务部长（Preventive ServiceMinister）、国内交通部长、济贫部长、教育部长、统治部长（Domain Minister）、卫生部长、外交部长、财政部长、贸易部长等。参见Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns(ed.),Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, pp.171-172.对于各部部长的职责，Rosen进行了较为详细的概述，参见Frederick Rosen, Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy: A Study of the Constitutional Code, ClarendonPress Oxford,1983, pp.136-149.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.33.
①H.L.A.Hart, Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,1982,p.220.
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.35.
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.36.
②Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol II, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.388.
③参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.260.
①参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.262.
②Jeremy Bentham, An Intoduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.12.
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.36.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.56.
①参见David Liberman, Bentham's Demoracy, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,(2008)28(3):605-626.
①参见[法]佛朗索瓦·基佐：《欧洲代议制政府的历史起源》，张清津、袁淑娟译，复旦大学出版社2008年版，第239页，以及Hanna Fenichel Pitkin, The Concept of Representation, University of California Press,Berkeley, Los Angeles, London,1967.
②参见[德]卡尔·施密特：《宪法学说》，刘峰译，上海人民出版社2005年版，第242-255页。
③参见[美]罗伯特·A·达尔：《论民主》，李风华译，中国人民大学出版社2012年版，第52-71页。
①关于从“每个人是自己利益的最佳判断者”这观点出发对边沁的代表制进行的分析，参见Hanna FenichelPitkin, The Concept of Representation, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London,p.204-205.
②参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.97.
①参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.98.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1989, p.167.
②丛日云：《乌尔曼的名著及其误区》，载《读书》，2012年第8期，第32页。
①[法]卢梭：《社会契约论》，李平沤译，商务印书馆2012年版，第106页。
①Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.43.
②Jeremy Bentham, Constitutional Code, Vol I, F.Rosen and J.H.Burns (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1983, p.44.
①Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol II, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.421.
②参见[德]卡尔·施密特：《宪法学说》，刘峰译，上海人民出版社2005年版，第251-255页。
①[德]卡尔·施密特：《政治的浪漫派》，冯克利、刘峰译，上海人民出版社2004年版，第170-171页。
①Jeremy Bentham,Political Tactics, Michael James Cyprian Blamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin (ed.), ClarendonPress, Oxford,1999, p.29.
②参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006.
③[德]哈贝马斯：《公共领域的结构转型》，曹卫东等译，学林出版社1999年版，第125页。
④[法]佛朗索瓦·基佐：《欧洲代议制政府的历史起源》，张清津、袁淑娟译，复旦大学出版社2008年版，
①Jeremy Bentham: Political Tactics, Michael James Cyprian Blamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin (ed.),Clarendon Press, Oxford,1999, p.35.
②Jeremy Bentham: Political Tactics, Michael James Cyprian Blamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin (ed.),Clarendon Press, Oxford,1999, p.37.
①参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,p.271.
②Jeremy Bentham: Political Tactics, Michael James Cyprian Blamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin (ed.),Clarendon Press, Oxford,1999, p.40.
①关于边沁的圆形监狱，可以参见Janet Stemple, Benham's Prison: A Study of the Panoption Penitentiary,Clarendon Press, Oxford,1993.
②[法]米歇尔·福柯：《规训与惩罚》，生活·读书·新知三联书店，刘北成、杨远婴译，2003年第2版。
③James E. Crimmins, Utilitarian Philosophy and Politics:Bentham's Later Years, Continuum,2011, p.99.
①参见Philip Schofield, Utiltiy and Democracy: The Politcal Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford University Press,2006,pp.250-271.
②[美]阿米古·特曼、丹尼斯·汤普森：《民主与分歧》，东方出版社2007年版，第111页。康德在《永久和平论》中把公共性原则界定为“一切与其他人的法权相关的行动，其准则与公共性不相容者，皆是不正当的。”这条规则可以检验相关政策的正当性，从而，它也是一条检验标准。参见[德]康德：《康德著作全集第8卷：1781年之后的论文》，李秋零主编，中国人民大学出版社2010年版，第387页。
①Jeremy Bentham: Political Tactics, Michael James Cyprian Blamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin (ed.),Clarendon Press, Oxford,1999, pp.24-29.
①参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.115.
①参见Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43, p.106.
①参见[德]卡尔·施密特：《宪法学说》，刘峰译，上海人民出版社2005年版，第260-270页。
①[德]卡尔·施密特：《宪法学说》，刘峰译，上海人民出版社2005年版，第261页。
①施密特指出，自由主义理论存在一个主张，即认为通过意见之间的竞争可以产生真理。参见[德]卡尔·施密特：《政治的浪漫派》，冯克利、刘峰译，上海人民出版社2004年版，第187页。
①Donald S.Lutz, Principles of Constitutional Design, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.74.
②Donald S.Lutz, Principles of Constitutional Design, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.71.
①Donald S.Lutz, Principles of Constitutional Design, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.84.
②Donald S.Lutz, Principles of Constitutional Design, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.76.
①Donald S.Lutz, Principles of Constitutional Design, Cambridge University Press,2006, p.89.
①对此，可参见John Birkhead, Making Laws More Effective: Jeremy Bentham and Jean-Jacques Rousseau onGood Citizenship, United States Air Force Academy Journal of Legal Studies,1994.
①W.J.Rees, The Theory of Sovereignty Restated, Mind, New Series, Vol.59, No.236(Oct.,1950), pp.520-521.
②A.V.Dicey, Law and Public Opinion in England, Universal Law Publishing Co Ltd,2003.
①Jeremy Bentham: The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol IX, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.96.
②Jeremy Bentham, The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol II, John Bowring (ed.), Edinburgh, William Tait,1838-43,p.388.
③Ruth Zimmerling, Influence and Power:Variations on a Messy Theme, Springer,2005.
①Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.11.
②Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.30.
③Jeremy Bentham, First Principles Preparatory to Constitutional Code, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,1986, p.30.
④Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.263.
⑤Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.206.
⑥Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, J.H.Burns and H.L.Hart (ed.),Clarendon Press,Oxford,1996, p.207.
⑦Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press,Oxford,2010, p.148.
①关于权力概念的更为详尽的分析，参见郭永秋：《权力概念的解析》，台湾“中研院”《人文及社会科学集刊》，第十八卷第二期（95/6），pp.215-267.
②[意]诺伯特·波比奥：《民主与独裁：国家权力的性质和限度》，梁晓君译，吉林人民出版社2011年版，第29页。
①[美]沃格林：《宗教与现代性的兴起》，霍伟岸译，华东师范大学出版社2009年版，第294-295页。
②王利：《国家与正义：利维坦释义》，上海人民出版社2008年版，第54页。
③参见丁一凡编：《权力二十讲》，天津人民出版社2008年版。以及Ruth Zimmerling, Influence and Power:Variations on a Messy Theme, Springer,2005.
①[法]米歇尔·福柯：《必须保卫社会》，钱翰译，上海人民出版社2010年版。
①Jeremy Bentham, A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragment on Government, J.H.Burns and H.L.A.Hart
(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,1977, p.451.
①关于方法论个人主义，参见[英]史蒂文·卢克斯：《个人主义》，阎克文译，江苏人民出版社2001年版。
①参见罗伯特·曼戈贝·拉昂格尔：《知识与政治》，支振锋译，中国政法大学出版社2009年版，第40-91页。
[1]张文显．二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，1996．
[2]张文显．马克思主义法理学：理论、方法和前沿[M]．北京：高等教育出版社，2003．
[3]顾肃．自由主义基本理念[M]．北京：中央编译出版社，2005．
[4]高全喜．现代政治五论[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008．
[5]高全喜．从日常政治到非常政治[M]．北京：中国法制出版社，2009．
[6]强世功．立法者的法理学[M]．北京：生活读书新知三联书店，2007．
[7]陈端洪．宪治与主权[M]．北京：法律出版社，2007．
[8]陈端洪．制宪权与根本法[M]．北京：中国法制出版社，2010．
[9]张千帆．西方宪政体系[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2004．
[10]张千帆．宪法学导论：原理与应用（修订版）[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008．
[11]张千帆．比较行政法：体系、制度与过程[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008．
[12]应奇．从自由主义到后自由主义[M]．北京：生活读书新知三联书店，2003．
[13]赵明．康德《永久和平论》的法哲学基础[M]．上海：华东师范大学出版社，2006．
[14]杜宴林．法律的人文主义解释[M]．北京：人民法院出版社，2009．
[15]黄文艺．中国法律发展的法哲学反思[M]．北京：法律出版社，2010．
[16]谈火生．公共审议与政治合法性[M]．北京：法律出版社，2007．
[17]翟小波．论我国宪法的实施制度[M]．北京：中国法制出版社，2009．
[18]翟小波．人民的宪法[M]．北京：法律出版社，2009．
[19]林国基．神义论语境中的社会契约论传统[M]．上海：上海三联出版社，2005．
[20]周濂．现代政治的正当性基础[M]．北京：生活读书新知三联出版社，2008．
[21]钱大军．法律义务研究论纲[M]．北京：科学出版社，2009．
[22]张立伟．权利的功利化及其限制[M]．北京：科学出版社，2009．
[23]谌洪果．哈特的法律实证主义：一种思想关系的视角[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2008．
[24]王利．国家与正义：利维坦释义[M]．上海：上海人民出版社，2008．
[25]龚群．当代西方道义论与功利主义研究[M]．北京：中国人民大学出版社，2002．
[26]陈真．当代西方规范伦理学[M]．南京：南京师范大学出版社，2006．
[27]徐向东．道德哲学与实践理性[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2007．
[28]牛京辉．英国功用主义伦理思想研究[M]．北京：人民出版社，2002．
[29]韩冬雪、曹海军．功利主义研究[M]．北京：吉林人民出版社，2004．
[30]霍伟岸．洛克权利理论研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011．
[31]许章润．现代中国的国家理性[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011．
[32]许章润主编．国家理性：历史法学（第四卷）[M]．北京：法律出版社，2011．
[33]陈志英．西方现代性语境下的主权理论研究[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社，2007．
[34]肖佳灵．国家主权论[M]．北京：时事出版社，2003．
[35]霍存福：权力场[M].北京：法律出版社，2003．
[1][英]边沁．政府片论[M]．沈叔平．等译．北京：商务印书馆．1995．
[2][英]边沁．道德与立法原理导论[M]．时殷弘译．北京：商务印书馆．2000．
[3][英]边沁．立法理论[M]．李贵方．等译．北京：中国人民公安大学出版社．2004．
[4][德]恩格斯．家庭、私有制和国家的起源[M]．中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局译．北京：人民出版社．1999．
[5][英]洛克．政府论：下篇[M]．叶启芳．瞿菊农译．北京：商务印书馆．2008．
[6][法]卢梭．社会契约论[M]．何兆武译．北京：商务印书馆．2003．
[7][法]西耶士．论特权第三等级是什么？[M]．冯棠译．北京：商务印书馆．2004．
[8][法]孟德斯鸠．论法的精神[M]．张雁深译．北京：商务印书馆．2004．
[9][德]康德．法的形而上学原理：权利的科学[M]．沈叔平译．北京：商务印书馆．1991．
[10][英]霍布斯．利维坦[M]．黎思复．黎廷弼译．北京：商务印书馆．1985．
[11][美]麦迪逊．联邦党人文集[M]．陈逢如．等译．北京：商务印书馆．2004．
[12][英]密尔．代议制政府[M]．汪瑄译．北京：商务印书馆．1982．
[13][英]密尔．论自由[M]．许宝骙译．北京：商务印书馆．2006．
[14][英]密尔．功利主义[M]．徐大建译．上海：上海世纪出版集团．2008．
[15][英]穆勒．论边沁与柯勒律治[M]．白利兵译．上海：上海人民出版社．2009．
[16][法]莱昂·狄骥．公法的变迁-法律与国家[M]．郑戈．冷静译．长春：江海出版社．春风文艺出版社．1999．
[17][英]戴雪．英宪精义[M]．雷宾南译．北京：中国法制出版社．2001．
[18][英]约翰·奥斯丁．法理学的范围[M]．刘星译．北京：中国法制出版社．2003．
[19][英]约翰·奥斯丁．法学讲演录（1-4）[M]．支振峰．等译．北京：中国社会科学出版社．2008．
[20][英]约翰·奥斯丁．法理学的范围[M]．刘星译．北京：中国法制出版社．2002．
[21][英]菲利普·斯科菲尔德．邪恶利益与民主：边沁的功利主义政治宪法思想[M]．翟小波译．北京：法律出版社．2006．
[22][英]霍布豪斯．形而上学的国家论[M]．汪淑钧译．北京：商务印书馆．2002．
[23][英]迈克尔·欧克肖特．政治中的理性主义[M]．张汝伦译．上海：上海译文出版社．2004．
[24][英]波兰尼．大转型：我们时代的政治与经济起源[M]．冯钢．刘阳译．杭州：浙江人民出版社．2007．
[25][奥]凯尔森．法与国家的一般理论[M]．沈宗灵译．北京：中国大百科全书．1996．
[26][英]H．L．A．哈特．法律的概念[M]．许家馨．李冠宜译．北京：北京：法律出版社．2006．
[27][法]米歇尔·福柯．安全、领土与人口[M]．钱翰．陈晓径译．上海：上海人民出版社．2010．
[28][法]米歇尔·福柯．社会必须被保卫[M]．钱翰译．上海：上海人民出版社．2010．
[29][德]哈贝马斯．公共领域的结构转型[M]．曹卫东．等译．北京：学林出版社．1999．
[30][德]哈贝马斯．在事实与规范之间：关于法律和民主法治国的商谈理论[M]．童世骏译．北京：生活·读书·新知三联出版社．2003．
[31][德]卢曼．权力[M]．瞿铁鹏译．上海：上海人民出版社．2005．
[32][德]奥特弗利德·郝费．政治的正义性：法和国家的批判哲学之基础[M]．庞学栓．李张林译．上海：上海世纪出版集团．2005．
[33][英]斯金纳．自由主义之前的自由[M]．李宏图译．上海：上海三联出版社．2004．
[34][英]斯金纳．近代政治思想的基础（上下）[M]．奚瑞森．亚方译．北京：商务印书馆．2002．
[35][巴]昂格尔．知识与政治[M]．支振峰译．北京：中国政法大学出版社．2009．
[35][美]阿米·古特曼、丹尼斯·汤普森．民主与分歧[M]．杨立峰．等译．北京：东方出版社．2007．
[37][英]戴维·赫尔德．民主的模式[M]．燕继荣．等译．北京：中央编辑出版社．2008．
[38][美]A·约翰·西蒙斯．道德原则与政治义务[M]．郭为桂．李燕丽译．南京：江苏人民出版社．2009．
[39][荷]克拉勃．近代国家观念[M]．王检译．长春：吉林出版集团有限责任公司．2009．
[40][美]小查尔斯·爱德华·梅里亚姆．卢梭以来的主权学说史[M]．毕洪海译．北京：法律出版社．2006．
[41][英]约翰·霍夫曼．主权[M]．陆彬译．长春：吉林人民出版社．2005．
[42][日]蓧田英朗．重新审视主权：从古典理论到全球时代[M]．戚渊译．北京：商务印书馆．2005．
[43][美]伊安·夏皮罗．政治的道德基础[M]．姚建华．宋国友译．上海：上海三联出版社．2006．
[44][美]威廉·邓宁．政治学说史[M]．谢义伟译．长春：吉林出版集团有限责任公司．2009．
[45][美]乔治·萨拜因．政治学说史（上）[M]．邓正来译．上海：上海人民出版社．2008．
[46][美]乔治·萨拜因．政治学说史（下）[M]．邓正来译．上海：上海人民出版社．2010．
[47][美]列奥·施特劳斯、[美]约瑟夫·克罗波西主编．政治哲学史
[M]．李洪润．等译．北京：法律出版社．2009．
[48][加]威尔·金里卡．当代政治哲学（上下）[M]．刘莘译．上海：上海三联出版社．2003．
[49][英]安德·鲁海伍德．政治理论教程（第三版）[M]．李智译．北京：中国人民大学出版社．2009．
[50][英]杰弗里·托马斯．政治哲学导论[M]．顾肃．刘雪梅译．北京：中国人民大学出版社．2006．
[51][英]乔纳森·沃尔夫．政治哲学导论[M]．王涛．等译．长春：吉林出版集团有限责任公司．2009．
[52][英]克里斯·桑希尔．德国政治哲学：法的形而上学[M]．陈江译．北京：人民出版社．2009．
[53][英]波特兰·罗素．权力论：新社会分析[M]．吴友三译．北京：商务印书馆．2009．
[1] Jeremy Bentham．The Works of Jeremy Bentham,11vols.[M]．J.Bowring, Edinburgh:William Tait,1838-43.
[2] Jeremy Bentham．A Comment on the Commentaries and A Fragmenton Government[M]．eds. J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart, OxfordUniversity Press,2008.
[3] Jeremy Bentham．Constitutional Code (Volume1)[M]．ed. F. Rosenand J. H. Burns, The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham(OxfordPress,1983).
[4] Jeremy Bentham．Political Tactics, ed. Michael James CyprianBlamires and Catherine Pease-Watkin[M]．The Collected Works ofJeremy Bentham(Oxford Press,1999).
[5] Jeremy Bentham．Theory of Legislation[M]．C. K. Ogden (ed.),(Kegan Paul&Co, London,1931).
[6] Jeremy Bentham．Bentham’s Theory of Fictions[M]．C. K. Ogden(ed.),(Kegan Paul&Co, London,1932).
[7] Jeremy Bentham．Jeremy Bentham’s Economic Writings[M]．ed. W.Stark,3vols., London,1952-4.
[8] Jeremy Bentham．Bentham’s Political Thought[M]．ed. B. Parekh,London,1973.
[9] Jeremy Bentham．Of Laws in General[M]．H.L.A. Hart(ed.), London:Athlone Press,1970.
[10] Jeremy Bentham．Chrestomathia[M]． M.J. Smith and W.H. Burston(eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1983.
[11] Jeremy Bentham．Rights, Representation, and Reform-Nonsenseupon Stilts and Other Writings on the French Revolution[M]．PhilipSchofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin and Cyprian Blamires (ed.),Oxford: Clarendon Press,2002.
[12] Jeremy Bentham．First Principles preparatory to ConstitutionalCode[M]．Philip Schofield (ed.),(The Collected Works of JeremyBentham), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1989.
[13] Jeremy Bentham．Securities against Misrule and other ConstitutionalWritings for Tripoli and Greece[M]．Philip Schofield (ed.),(TheCollected Works of Jeremy Bentham), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1989.
[14] Jeremy Bentham． Official Aptitude Maximized; ExpenseMinimized[M]．Philip Schofield (ed.),(The Collected Works ofJeremy Bentham), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1993.
[15] Jeremy Bentham．Colonies, Commerce, and Constitutional Law: RidYourselves of Ultramaria and other writings on Spain and SpanishAmerica[M]．Philip Schofield (ed.),(The Collected Works of JeremyBentham), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1995.
[16] Jeremy Bentham．Legislator of the World': Writings on Codification,Education, and Law[M]．Philip Schofield and Jonathan Harris (ed.),(The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham), Oxford: ClarendonPress,1998.
[17] Jeremy Bentham, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch ofJurisprudence[M]. Philip Schofield (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford,2010.
[18] A.C.Dicey． Introduction to the Study of the Law of theConstitution[M]．Liberty Classic,1982.
[19] A.C.Dicey．Lectures on the Relation between Law and PublicOpinion in England during the Nineteenth Century[M]．Liberty Fund,2008.
[20] Atkinson C.M.．Jeremy Bentham: His Life and Work[M]．Methuen&Co., London,1905.
[21] Hilda G.Lundin．Infuence of Jeremy Bentham on English DemocraticDevelopment[M]．University. Iova Ctiy,1920.
[22] Harold Joseph Laski．Political thought in England from Locke toBentham[M]．Holt and Company,1927.
[23] John Wisdom．Interpretation and Analysis: In Relation to Bentham’sTheory of Definition[M]．Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner&Co.,1931.
[24] David Lyons．In the Interest of the Governed: A Study in Bentham’sPhilosophy of Utility and Law[M]．Oxford University Press,1973.
[25] Bhikhu Parekh(ed.)． Jeremy Bentham: Ten CriticalEssays[M]．London,1974.
[26] John Stuart Mill．Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Essay on Bentham:Together with Selected Writings of Jeremy Bentham and JohnAustin[M]．New American Library,1974.
[27] Nancy Rosenblum． Bentham’s Theory of the ModernState[M]．Harvard University Press,1978.
[28] L. J. Hume．Bentham and Bureaucracy[M]．Cambridge UniversityPress,1981.
[29] H. L. A. Hart．Essays on Bentham[M]．Oxford University Press,1982.
[30] Ross Harrison．Bentham[M]．Routledge&Kegan Paul,1983.
[31] Gerald J. Postema． Bentham and the Common LawTradition[M]．Clarendon Press Oxford,1986.
[32] P. J. Kelly．Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Benthamand the Civil Law[M]．Clarendon Press Oxford,1990.
[33] Keekok Lee．The Legal-Rational State[M]．Avebury,1990.
[34] James E. Crimmins．Secular Utilitarianism: Social Science and theCritique of Religion in the Thought of Jeremy Bentham[M]．OxfordUniversity Press,1990.
[35] Struan Jacobs．Science and British Liberalism: Locke, Bentham, Milland Popper[M]．Avebury,1991.
[36] F. Rosen．Bentham, Byron, and Greece[M]．Clarendon Press Oxford,1992.
[37] David Armitage． The Declaration of Independence: A GlobalHistory[M]．Harvard University Press,2007.
[38] Peter King．Utilitarian Jurisprudence in America: The Infuluence ofBentham and Austin on American Legal Thought in the NineteethCentury[M]．Garland Pub,1986.
[39] Bhikhu Parekh(ed.)． Jeremy Bentham: Critical Assessments(4vols)[M]．Routledge,1993.
[40] Bonner John． Economic Efficiency and Social Justic: TheDevelopment of Utilitarian Ideas in Economics from Bentham toEdgeworth[M]．Aldershot Hants,1995.
[41] Richard A. Cosgrove．Scholars of the Law: English Jurisprudencefrom Blackston to Hart[M]．New York University Press,1996.
[42] Oren Ben-Dor．Constitutional Limtis and the Public Sphere: ACritical Study of Bentham’s Consitutionalism[M]．Oxford-PortlandOregon,2000.
[43] James Steintrager．Bentham[M]．Routledge,2004.
[44] Philip Schofield．Utility and Democracy: The Political Thought ofJeremy Bentham[M]．Oxford University Press,2006.
[45] Frederick Rosen．Jeremy Bentham[M]．Ashgate,2007.
[46] Cyprian Blamires．The French Revolution and the Creation ofBenthamism[M]．Palgrave Macmillan2008.
[47] David Runciman．Political Hapocrisy: The Mask of Power, fromHobbes to Orwell and Beyond[M]．Princeton University Press,2008.
[48] C. K. Ogden．Jeremy Bentham,1832-2032: Being the BenthamCentenary Lecture, Delivered in University College, London, on June6th,1932, K.Paul, Trench[M]．Trubner&Co.,1932.
[49] Baumgardt David．Bentham and the Ethic of Todady: With BenthamManuscripts Hitherto Unpublished[M]．Princeton University Press,1952.
[50] Jeremy Waldron(ed.)．Nonsense upon stilts’: Bentham, Burke, andMarx on the Rights of Man[M]．Methuen,1987.
[51] Semple Janet．Bentham’s Prison: A Stduy of the Panopticon ofPenitentiary[M]．Clarendon Press Oxford,1993.
[52] John Troyer． The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham andMill[M]．Hackett Pub. Co.,2003.
[53] C. K. Ogden．From Bentham to Basic English[M]．Routledge,1994.
[54] Ian Christie．The Benthams in Russia[M]．1780-1791, Berg,1993.
[55] Eldon Eisenach．Narrative Power and Liberal Truth: Hobbes, Locke,Bentham, and Mill[M]．Rowman&Littlefield Publisher,2002.
[56] Philip Schofield． Bentham: A Guide for thePerplexed[M]．Continuum,2009.
[57] Dougals G. Long．Bentham on Liberty: Jeremy Bentham’s Idea ofLiberty in Relation to His Utilitarianism[M]．University of TorontoPress,1977.
[58] Frederick Rosen．Jeremy Bentham and Representative Democracy: AStudy of the Constitutional Code[M]．Oxford Clarendon Press,1983.
[59] Ross Harrison．Democracy[M]．Routledge,1993.
[60] Stephen Guest (ed.)．Positivism Today[M]．Dartmouth,1999.
[61] William L. Davidson．Political Thought in England[M]．Hery Holy&Co.,1915.
[62] David Runciman．Plitical Hypocrisy: The Mask of Power, FromHobbes to Orwell and Beyond[M]． Princeton University Press,2008.(Bentham and Utlity of Fiction)
[63] Slavko Splichal． Principles of Publicity and PressFreedom[M]．Rowman&Littlefield Publishers,2002.
[64] Jim Rodgers．Reason, Conflict and Power: Modern Political andSocial Thought from1688to the Present[M]．University Press ofAmerica,2003.
[65] Engelmann． Political Philosophy from Plato to JeremyBentham[M]．Harper&Brothers,1927.
[66] Frederick Rosen (ed.)．Jeremy Bentham[M]．Aldershot: AshgatePunlishing Ltd,2007.
[67] H.L.A.Hart．Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy[M]． Oxford:Oxford University Press,1983.
[68] H.L.A.Hart．Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence andPolitical Theory[M]．Oxford: Clarendon Press,1982.
[69] H.L.A. Hart．The Concept of Law[M]．Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress,1961.H.L.A. Hart, Postscript[M]．in The Concept of Law,2ndedn., P.Bulloch and J. Raz (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press,1994.
[70] Bhikhu Parekh(ed.)．Jeremy Bentham: Critical Assessments,4vols.[M]．London: Routledge,1993.
[71] P.J.Kelly．Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Benthamand the Civil Law[M]．Oxford: Oxford University Press,1990.
[72] Philip Schofield．Utility and Democracy[M]．Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,2006.
[73] Philip Schofield．Bentham: A Guide for the Perplexed [M]．London:Continuum,2009.
[74] John Austin．Lectures on Jurisprudence or the Philosophy of PositiveLaw5thedn [M]． Robert Campbell (ed.),Rev.,London: John Murray,1911.论文类一、中文论文：
[1]刘星.哈特法律概念分析的模式建构及其历史定位[J].比较法研究．1996（4）：337-350.
[2]甘德怀.从命令到规则：哈特对奥斯丁的批判：读哈特《法律的概念》[J].法制与社会发展．2007（5）：33-40.
[3]朱振.哈特/德沃金之争与法律实证主义的分裂：基于“分离命题”的考察[J].法制与社会发展．2007（5）：14-32.
[4]苗炎.哈特社会规则理论的限度[J].法制与社会发展．2007（2）：153-160.
[5]谌洪果.法律实证主义的功利主义自由观：从边沁到哈特[J].法律科学．2006（4）：17-28.
[6]泮伟江.走向规范性的法律实证主义：超越哈特与德沃金之争[J].比较法研究．2006（2）：145-149.
[7]朱振.实践理由、权威与来源命题：拉兹法律哲学的研究[D].长春：吉林大学法学院，2007.
[8]苗炎.哈特法律规范性理论研究：以法律实证主义传统为背景的分析[D].长春：吉林大学法学院．2007.
[9]泮伟江.民主的法律实证主义[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院．2005.
[10]任华敏.论法律与道德的联系：从哈特式柔性法实证主义出发[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院．2006.
[11]陈景辉.法律的界限：实证主义命题群之展开[D].北京：中国政法大学法学院．2004.
[12]张延祥.实证主义抑或自然主义？边沁法理学的理论基础研究[D].长春：吉林大学法学院，2012.二、英文论文：
[1] Rawls．Two Concepts of Rules[J]．Philosophical Review,64(1955),pp.3-32.
[2] A. Lawrence Lowell．The Limits of Sovereignty[J]．Harvard LawReview,(1888), pp.70-87.
[3] John F.Dillon．Bentham and His School ofJurisprudence[J]．American Law Review, Vol. XXIV (1890),pp.728-751.
[4] Charles Noble Gregory．Bentham and the Codifiers[J]．Harvard LawReview, Vol.13, No.5(Jan.,1900), pp.344-357.
[5] Wesley C.Mitchell．Bentham’ Felicific Calculus[J]．Political ScienceQuarterly, Vol.33, No.2(1918), pp.161-183.
[6] Lewis Rockow．Bentham on the Theory of Second Chambers[J]．TheAmerican Politcal Science Review, Vol.22, No.3(1928),pp.576-590.
[7] W. A. Hirst．Jeremy Bentham: A Hundred YearsAfer[J]．Contemporary Review,142, pp.213-219.
[8] W. Stark．Liberty and Equality or: Jeremy Bentham as anEconomist[J]．The Economic Journal, Vol.51, No.201(1941),pp.56-79.
[9] Jacob Viner．Bentham and J.S.Mill: The UtilitarianBackground[J]．The American Economic Review, Vol.39, No.2(1949),pp.360-382.
[10] T. W. Hutchison．Bentham as an Economist[J]．The Economic Journal,Vol.66, No.262(1956), pp.288-306.
[11] David Roberts．Jeremy Bentham and the Victorian AdministrativeState[J]．Victorian Studies,2:3(1959), pp.193-210.
[12] Teddy Brunius．Jeremy Bentham’s Moral Calculus[J]．ActaSociologica, Vol.3, No.2/3(1959),pp.73-85.
[13] Thomas P. Peardon．Bentham’s Ideal Republic[J]．The CanadianJoural of Economics and Political Science, Vol.17, No.2(1951),pp.184-203.
[14] J.H.Burns．Bentham and the French Revolution[J]．Transaction of theRoyal Historical Society, Vol.16(1966), pp.95-114.
[15] J. A. W. Gunn．Jeremy Bentham and the Public Interes[J]．CanadianJoural of Political Science, Vol.1, No.4(1968), pp.398-413.
[16] L. J. Lysaght．Bentham on the Aspects of a Law[J]．Northern IrelandLegel Quarterly, Vol.24, No.3(1973),pp.383-398.
[17] John H.Burns．Bentham on Sovereignty: An Exploration[J]．NorthernIreland Legel Quarterly, Vol.24, No.3(1973), pp.399-416.
[18] J. R. Dinwiddy．Bentham’s Transition to Political Radicalism,1809-10[J]．Joural of the History of Ideas, Vol.36, No.4(1975),pp.683-700.
[19] M. James．Public Interest and Majority Rule in Bentham’sDemocratic Theory[J]．Political Theory, vol.9(1983), pp.49-64.
[20] Philip Schofield．Bentham on the Identification ofInterests[J]．Utilitas. Vol.8, No.2(1996), pp.223-234.
[21] Daniel Kahneman, Peter P. Wakker and Rakesh Sarin．Back toBentham? Explorations of Experienced Utiliy[J]．The QurterlyJournal of Economics, Vol.112, No.2(1997), pp.375-405.
[22] F. Rosen．Individual Sacrifice and the Greatest Happiness: Benthamon Utiliy and Rights[J]．Utilitas, Vol.10, No.2(1998),pp.129-143.
[23] Gerald J. Postema．Bentham’s Equality-SensitiveUtilitariansim[J]．Utilitas, Vol.10, No.2(1998), pp.144-158.
[24] Ross Harrison．Rosen’s Sacrifice of Utiliy[J]．Utilitas, Vol.10,No.2(1998), pp.159-164.
[25] Jon Mandle．Dose Naturalism Imply Utilitarianism?[J]．The Journalof Value Inquiry,33(1999), pp.537-553.
[26] Fred Cutler．Jeremy Bentham and the Public OpinionTribunal[J]．Public Opinion Qqarterly,63.3(1999),pp.321-346.
[27] Dieter Paul Polloczek．Utlitarian Conscience and Legal Fictions inBentham[J]． Angelaki,4:1(1999),pp.81-98.
[28] Hugo Adam Bedau．Anarchical Fallacies,Bentham's Attack onHuman Rights[J]．Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.22. No.1(2000),pp.261-279.
[29] Stephen G.. Englemann．Imagining Interest[J]．Utilitas, Vol.13,No.3(2001), pp.289-322.
[30] Slavko Splichal．Bentham, Kant, and the Right toCommunicate[J]．Critical Review,15,3/4(2003), pp.285-305.
[31] Stephen G.Englemann．Indirect Legislation: Bentham’s LiberalGovernment[J]．Polity, Vol.35, No.3(2003), pp.369-388.
[32] Lawrence L Martin．Jeremy Bentham: Jeremy Bentham onOrganizational Theory and Decision Making, Public Policy Analysisand Administrative Management[J]．International Journal ofOrganizaton Theory and Behavior,6,1(2003), pp.144-160.
[33] Philip Schofield．Jeremy Bentham’s Nonsense upon Stilts[J]．Utilitas,Vol.15, No.1(2003), pp.1-26.
[34] Colin Tyler．A Foundaton of Chaff? A Critique of Bentham’sMetaphisics,1913-16[J]．British Journal for the History of Philosophy,12(2004), pp.685-703.
[35] Martin A. Kayman．A Memorial for Jeremy Bentham: Memory,Fiction, and Writing the Law[J]．Law and Critique,15(2004),pp.207-299.
[36] David Dyzenhaus．The Genealogy of Legal Positivism[J]．OxfordJouranl of Legal Studies, Vol.24, No.1(2004), pp.39-67.
[37] David Collard．Reserch on Well-Being: Some Advice from JeremyBentham[J]．Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol36, No.3(2006),pp.330-354.
[38] Thoma Austenfeld．A Happy Naturalist Jeremy Bentham and theCosmic Morality of The Octopus[J]．Studies in American Naturalism,2007, pp.33-45.
[39] Daniel Read．Experienced Utiliy: Utility Theory from JeremyBentham to Daniel Kahneman[J]．Thinking&Reasoning,13(1),(2007), pp.45-61.
[40] Oren Ben-Dor．The Instituionalisation of Public Opinion: Bentham’sProposed Consitutional Role for Jury and Judges[J]．Legal Studies,Vol.27, No.2(2007), pp.216-235.
[41] Melissa Schwartzberg．Jeremy Bentham on Fallibility andInfallibity[J]．Journal of the History of Ideas,68(2007),pp.563-585.
[42] José Brunner．Modern Times: Law, Temporality and Happiness inHobbes, Locke and Bentham[J]．Theoretical Inquires in Law, Vol.8,277(2007), pp.277-310.
[43] David Liberman．Bentham’s Democracy[J]．Oxford Journal of LegalStudies, Vol.28, No.3(2008), pp.605-626.
[44] Juan Pablo Couyoumdjian．An Expert at Work: Revisiting JeremyBentham's Proposals on Codification[J]．Kyklos, Vol.61(2008),pp.503-519.