摘要：

以社会系统论作为观察框架，把紧急权的运作置于法律系统和政治系统的“结构耦合”关系之中，有助于克服纯教义学中紧急权理论的封闭性和狭隘性。透过系统论的视角，追求“治理”与“法治”双重目标的紧急权，必然面临“决策悖论”问题。在“功能去分化”的紧急状态下，紧急权的运行条件可被区分为“例行化空间”与“决断空间”。在“决断空间”中，紧急权需要遵循政治系统的“目的理性”，以回应自然和社会的环境复杂性。落入“决断空间”的紧急权，难以用法教义学通说中的“比例原则”“基本权利不可克减原则”和“程序正义”对紧急决策加以绝对约束。紧急权在“决断空间”中面临的“决策悖论”，可以“目的纲要”嵌入“条件纲要”的“再条件化”方式加以展开。在决断空间中，相比“合法律性”的要求，紧急权执行主体的处置经验、政治责任感以及社会信任等，作为政治正当性的要素，是更为重要的决策限制性因素。

关键词: 紧急权, 社会系统论, 再条件化, 决策悖论, 卢曼

Abstract:

From the perspective of interdisciplinary research，relying on the observation advantages of German sociologist Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory，combined with the methods of the system theory of politics，the system theory of law and organizational sociology，this paper focuses on the logical conflicts that inevitably exist in the pursuit of the dual goals of“governance”and“rule of law”in the operation of state power under emergency，and explores the“possible conditions”for the exercise of emergency power.In order to solve the problem of“decision paradox”in the emergency state，the“reconditionalization”method of embedding the purpose programs into the conditional programs is used to create an operating space for the exercise of the emergency power，which can not only follow the“purpose rationality”of the political system，but also respond to the environmental complexity of nature and society.In the“decision-making space”of an emergency state，it is almost impossible to limit the emergency decision-making by“the principle of proportion”and“the principle of non-derogation of basic rights”.Instead，it is the disposal experience，the sense of political responsibility and the initiative of implementation of the emergency power，which are more important decision-making factors.

Key words: Emergency Power, Theory of Social Systems, Reconditionalization, Decision Paradox, Niklas Luhmann