不是契約的約定──論約法三章與社會契約義理的差距

Not a Contractual Engagement: The Doctrinal Chasm between the Social Contract and the Three Simple Rules Reached (Yue Fa San Zhang) upon the Demise of Qin

約法三章，典出《史記》，約字何解？是約定？是契約？約束了誰？是關中人民的大憲章嗎？與英國的大憲章乃至成文憲法有以異乎？與民國的臨時約法有以異乎？本文探究約法三章、殺人者死之「法」與「約」的意義，與從大憲章以契約發展到成文憲法，其背後折射出由蘇格拉底而霍布斯而洛克而盧梭而羅爾斯，從訂立社會契約而生憲政主義，也就是從身分到契約的法治思想相互對照，觀察天命論、予一人、建皇極、出禮入刑，有刑罰而無契約法，直到清末猶未從身分走入契約的法律文化差異；試行提供約法三章，約字不作「社會契約」（或約定）理解的憲法法理緣由。

How should we understand yue約in the maxim“yue fa san zhang”約法三章from a 207 BCE story in the“Basic Annal of Gaozu”(GaozuBenji高祖本紀, an account of the founder of the Han dynasty) of Shiji史記(The Grand Scribe’s Records)? Does it refer to an agreement, and is ittherefore a contract? Who was bound by it, then? Is it a“Magna Carta”forthe people of Qin in its capital? Does it differ from the Magna Carta of 1215,or from a written constitution, or even from the 1912 Provisional Charter ofthe Republic of China? This paper explores the“Three-Rule Compact,”andin particular the meaning of the terms fa法in its“law that he who killsmust die”(sharenzhe si殺人者死) and yue. It argues that the term“yuefa”indeed conveys a legal message but cannot be understood as a bindingcontract, by comparing the notions of politics in two different lines ofdevelopment in legal history. One is that of“from status to contract,”astraceable from the story of Magna Carta to the making of writtenconstitutions, in which is reflected and developed the legal doctrines ofSocrates, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Rawls, and leads to the birth ofconstitutionalism from the social contract. The other is that of the“Mandate”and“Son”of Heaven, as seen in concepts such as the“One Man”(yu yiren予一人), establishing the August Ultimate (jian huangji建皇極), andpunishing violators of the code of li禮(chuli ruxing出禮入刑), and theexistence of criminal law but no law of contract. The latter line nevertransitioned“from status to contract”until the adoption of the ProvisionalCharter of the Republic of China.