摘要： 在讨论西耶斯的制宪权理论基础上，施密特和凯尔森奠定了“政治宪法学”和“规范宪法学”的基础，并针锋相对地捍卫制宪权的决断主义或规范主义。施密特和凯尔森及其各自信徒的长期争论，大大加深了人们对制宪权原则及其模棱两可性的认知。然而，争论的双方却都没有认识到西耶斯的制宪权理论本身兼具决断主义和规范主义的两个维度。事实上，西耶斯制宪权理论的复杂性和丰富性远甚于此。西耶斯的制宪权理论可分解成为“谁来制宪”、“为何制宪”以及“如何制宪”等三个问题，其答案分别体现为它的三个基本特征：制宪权的决断性来自其专属于国民的特性，它的有限性产生于其捍卫人权的正当性，它的规范性则取决于其行使对代议机构的依赖性。应当准确地把握，而不是人为地割裂西耶斯制宪权理论之决断性、有限性和规范性这三种迥然不同，但又密不可分的内在维度。

关键词: 西耶斯, 制宪权, 谁来制宪, 为何制宪, 如何制宪

Abstract: There is a big divergence between Carl Schmitt's“political theory of constitution”and Hans Kelsen's“normative theory of constitution”on interpreting Emannuel Sieyès's theory of consituant power.One emphasizes its deicisionalism and another insists its normativism.Principles and ambiguities of constituant power were thus profoundly demonstrated by those two schools.But both of them missed an important fact,that is,Emannuel Sieyès's theory of consituant power combines decisionalism and normativism.In fact,his conception on this issue is more complex than people think.It could be resolved into three questions:“Who has constituant power?”,“Why a constitution is made?”and“ How a constitution is made?”.Their anwsers point out three fudamental characters.Firstly,its decisionalism comes from the fact that nation is the unique owner of constituant power.Secondly,its limits result from the princple that it must protect human rights.Thirdly,its normativity owes to the truth that a representative body is necessary for its exercise.Grasping all these three essential dimensions of Emannuel Sieyès's theory of consituant power maybe help surspass some theoretic dilemmas left by debates between“political theory of constitution”and“normative theory of constitution”.

Key words: Emannuel Sieyès, Constituant Power, Who Has Constituant Power?, Why A Constitution is Made?, How A Constitution is Made?