Week 1 Part A
Rechstraat and rule of law are not exactly the same
- Government serves the interests of the people
→ Relevant principles to rechtstraat
1. Principle of legality
2. Separation of powers - spreading it across organs will ensure its not abused
3. Independent judiciary
4. Universal rights - even if not codified in constitution or national law
Democratic backsliding - the incremental increase towards autocracy
→ Loosening system of checks and balances, undermining independence of judiciary
Historical Background:
- Before 1500: invention of printing press; discovery of America
- 1517: Martin Luther, 95 thesis
- 1534: King Henry VIII renounces papal authority
- 1536: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion
- 1576: Jean Bodin, Six livres de la République
- 1609: Galileo Galilei rediscovers heliocentrism (had been discovered 1200 years before)
- 1651: Thomas Hobbes, the leviathan
- 1689: John Locke, two treatises of government
- 1748: Montesquieu, de l'esprit de lois
- 1762: Jean jacques rousseau, du contrat social
- 1776: Independence of the United States
- 1789: E.J. Sieyes: what is the third estate
- 1792: Mary Wollstonecraft, A vindication on the rights of woman
→ Ebstorf world map (13th century)
How people perceived the world in that time (religious/cultural)
- Changes to this perception included:
➢ The world not being flat
➢ The sun not circling the earth
➢ World much bigger than expected
, ➢ Dissemination of written text (away from the hands of the church, through the
printing press - Martin Luther demonstrated that)
→ Relevant book: Reformation
‘What were a few years on this earth compared to the life to come? What if her family
had shut themselves out of God’s love for eternity? Wasn’t it her Christian duty to bring them
back to the one true church?’ (from: the City of Tears)
- What is the one true church / one true faith?
St. Bartholomew’s Day (the Blood Wedding) 1572
- Marriage was impending between a protestant leader and the daughter of catholic king
- Parisian population was catholic and a lot of anti protestant sentiment in the
church
- Catholic parisians hunted down and killed protestants
Explanation of Philosopher’s Ideas
→ Bodin (1529/30–1596)
‘Majesty or sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens
and subjects in a République`
- King couldn't solve the issue because he didn't have the power to resolve religious
conflict → needed to look at state power in a different lens
- the state had powers that could never be lost, individual holders were custodians
whereas the sovereign itself is singular and absolute.
- Several sovereigns however due to nobility so he consolidated it into one person,
giving king certain powers where he wouldn't be hindered by others powers
- Pope doesn't even have power over the king, cannot be obstructed by the church
- The king had absolute power and could effectively reign by imposing taxes etc…
2 Questions:
➔ Origin of sovereignty
➔ Are there no limitations to the sovereign? Or are there situations in which the people
could justly remove the king?
→ Hobbes (1588-1679)
‘In such condition [the state of nature], there is no place for industry; because the fruit
thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the
commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving,
and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no
,account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and
danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’
- Humans are inherently beasts led by the need for survival egged on by unending
fear of death
- Transfer some of our freedoms to the sovereign
- King derives his power from the people not god
- Insinuation of freedom of religion
→ Hobbes
The Consequences To Such Institution, Are:
1. The Subjects Cannot Change The Form Of Government | Successive forms of government are
sovereign
2. Soveraigne Power Cannot Be Forfeited
3. No Man Can Without Injustice Protest Against The Institution Of The Soveraigne Declared
By The Major Part
4. The Sovereigns Actions Cannot Be Justly Accused By The Subject
5. Whatsoever The Soveraigne Doth, Is Unpunishable By The Subject
6. The Soveraigne Is Judge Of What Is Necessary For The Peace And Defence Of His Subjects
And Judge Of What Doctrines Are Fit To Be Taught Them
7. The Right of making Rules, whereby the Subject may every man know what is so his owne, as
no other Subject can without injustice take it from him
8. To Him Also Belongeth The Right Of All Judicature And Decision Of Controversies,
9. And Of Making War, And Peace, As He Shall Think Best,
10. And Of Choosing All Counsellors, And Ministers, Both Of Peace, And Warre,
11. And Of Rewarding, And Punishing, And That (Where No Former Law hath Determined The
Measure Of It) Arbitrary,
12. And Of Honour And Order
→ Locke on Hobbes
‘(...) what security, what fence is there, in such a state, against the violence and oppression of
this absolute ruler? the very question can scarce be borne. They are ready to tell you, that it
deserves death only to ask after safety. Betwixt subject and subject, they will grant, there must be
measures, laws and judges, for their mutual peace and security: but as for the ruler, he ought to
be absolute, and is above all such circumstances; because he has power to do more hurt and
wrong, it is right when he does it. To ask how you may be guarded from harm, or injury, on that
side where the strongest hand is to do it, is presently the voice of faction and rebellion: as if
when men quitting the state of nature entered into society, they agreed that all of them but one,
should be under the restraint of laws, but that he should still retain all the
liberty of the state of nature, increased with power, and made licentious by
, impunity. This is to think that men are so foolish, that they take care to avoid what mischief
may be done to them by pole-cats, or foxes; but are content, nay, think it safety, to be
devoured by lions.’
- Criticism by Locke that we had to either choose the state of nature of constant
danger or the leviathan of sovereignty
→ Locke (1632-1704)
‘(…) so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is
the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of
beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief,
tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out
against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political
power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir
Robert Filmer hath taught us.’
→ Locke’s State of Nature
‘Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that
state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty
to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than
its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which
obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult
it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health,
liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely
wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about
his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one
another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of
nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to
destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures
are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so
by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he
can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take
away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or
goods of another.
Sect. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to
one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all
mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands,
whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as
may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this
Rechstraat and rule of law are not exactly the same
- Government serves the interests of the people
→ Relevant principles to rechtstraat
1. Principle of legality
2. Separation of powers - spreading it across organs will ensure its not abused
3. Independent judiciary
4. Universal rights - even if not codified in constitution or national law
Democratic backsliding - the incremental increase towards autocracy
→ Loosening system of checks and balances, undermining independence of judiciary
Historical Background:
- Before 1500: invention of printing press; discovery of America
- 1517: Martin Luther, 95 thesis
- 1534: King Henry VIII renounces papal authority
- 1536: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion
- 1576: Jean Bodin, Six livres de la République
- 1609: Galileo Galilei rediscovers heliocentrism (had been discovered 1200 years before)
- 1651: Thomas Hobbes, the leviathan
- 1689: John Locke, two treatises of government
- 1748: Montesquieu, de l'esprit de lois
- 1762: Jean jacques rousseau, du contrat social
- 1776: Independence of the United States
- 1789: E.J. Sieyes: what is the third estate
- 1792: Mary Wollstonecraft, A vindication on the rights of woman
→ Ebstorf world map (13th century)
How people perceived the world in that time (religious/cultural)
- Changes to this perception included:
➢ The world not being flat
➢ The sun not circling the earth
➢ World much bigger than expected
, ➢ Dissemination of written text (away from the hands of the church, through the
printing press - Martin Luther demonstrated that)
→ Relevant book: Reformation
‘What were a few years on this earth compared to the life to come? What if her family
had shut themselves out of God’s love for eternity? Wasn’t it her Christian duty to bring them
back to the one true church?’ (from: the City of Tears)
- What is the one true church / one true faith?
St. Bartholomew’s Day (the Blood Wedding) 1572
- Marriage was impending between a protestant leader and the daughter of catholic king
- Parisian population was catholic and a lot of anti protestant sentiment in the
church
- Catholic parisians hunted down and killed protestants
Explanation of Philosopher’s Ideas
→ Bodin (1529/30–1596)
‘Majesty or sovereignty is the most high, absolute, and perpetual power over the citizens
and subjects in a République`
- King couldn't solve the issue because he didn't have the power to resolve religious
conflict → needed to look at state power in a different lens
- the state had powers that could never be lost, individual holders were custodians
whereas the sovereign itself is singular and absolute.
- Several sovereigns however due to nobility so he consolidated it into one person,
giving king certain powers where he wouldn't be hindered by others powers
- Pope doesn't even have power over the king, cannot be obstructed by the church
- The king had absolute power and could effectively reign by imposing taxes etc…
2 Questions:
➔ Origin of sovereignty
➔ Are there no limitations to the sovereign? Or are there situations in which the people
could justly remove the king?
→ Hobbes (1588-1679)
‘In such condition [the state of nature], there is no place for industry; because the fruit
thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the
commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving,
and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no
,account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and
danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’
- Humans are inherently beasts led by the need for survival egged on by unending
fear of death
- Transfer some of our freedoms to the sovereign
- King derives his power from the people not god
- Insinuation of freedom of religion
→ Hobbes
The Consequences To Such Institution, Are:
1. The Subjects Cannot Change The Form Of Government | Successive forms of government are
sovereign
2. Soveraigne Power Cannot Be Forfeited
3. No Man Can Without Injustice Protest Against The Institution Of The Soveraigne Declared
By The Major Part
4. The Sovereigns Actions Cannot Be Justly Accused By The Subject
5. Whatsoever The Soveraigne Doth, Is Unpunishable By The Subject
6. The Soveraigne Is Judge Of What Is Necessary For The Peace And Defence Of His Subjects
And Judge Of What Doctrines Are Fit To Be Taught Them
7. The Right of making Rules, whereby the Subject may every man know what is so his owne, as
no other Subject can without injustice take it from him
8. To Him Also Belongeth The Right Of All Judicature And Decision Of Controversies,
9. And Of Making War, And Peace, As He Shall Think Best,
10. And Of Choosing All Counsellors, And Ministers, Both Of Peace, And Warre,
11. And Of Rewarding, And Punishing, And That (Where No Former Law hath Determined The
Measure Of It) Arbitrary,
12. And Of Honour And Order
→ Locke on Hobbes
‘(...) what security, what fence is there, in such a state, against the violence and oppression of
this absolute ruler? the very question can scarce be borne. They are ready to tell you, that it
deserves death only to ask after safety. Betwixt subject and subject, they will grant, there must be
measures, laws and judges, for their mutual peace and security: but as for the ruler, he ought to
be absolute, and is above all such circumstances; because he has power to do more hurt and
wrong, it is right when he does it. To ask how you may be guarded from harm, or injury, on that
side where the strongest hand is to do it, is presently the voice of faction and rebellion: as if
when men quitting the state of nature entered into society, they agreed that all of them but one,
should be under the restraint of laws, but that he should still retain all the
liberty of the state of nature, increased with power, and made licentious by
, impunity. This is to think that men are so foolish, that they take care to avoid what mischief
may be done to them by pole-cats, or foxes; but are content, nay, think it safety, to be
devoured by lions.’
- Criticism by Locke that we had to either choose the state of nature of constant
danger or the leviathan of sovereignty
→ Locke (1632-1704)
‘(…) so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is
the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of
beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief,
tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out
against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political
power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir
Robert Filmer hath taught us.’
→ Locke’s State of Nature
‘Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that
state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty
to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than
its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which
obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult
it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health,
liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely
wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about
his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one
another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of
nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to
destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures
are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so
by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he
can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take
away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or
goods of another.
Sect. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to
one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all
mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands,
whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as
may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this
