Правно-филозофски Основи Теорије Друштвеног Уговора

Abstract

Društveni ugovor je jedan od najspornijih pojmova pravne nauke. Usled dominacije pravnog pozitivizma u modernom vremenu, na prvi pogled se čini da je ideja društvenog ugovora donekle izgubila na aktuelnosti. Ovim radom upravo je učinjen pokušaj da se skrene pažnja na složenost tog filozofskog i pravnog pojma, njegov značaj i ulogu u savremenom dobu, ali i da se istakne shvatanje kako teorija društvenog ugovora u korelaciji sa odgovarajućim poimanjem ustava može biti i empirijski prihvatljiva.

Pojedina obeležja društvenog ugovora bila su prisutna još u antici i srednjem veku, ali je teorija doživela procvat u novovekovnoj racionalističkoj misli. Klasična teorija društvenog ugovora izvršila je veliki uticaj na prve pisane dokumente ustavnog karaktera: Veliku povelju sloboda, Deklaraciju o nezavisnosti i Ustav Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, Deklaraciju o pravima čoveka i građanina i prve francuske ustave nakon Revolucije.

Savremena literatura o društvenom ugovoru je bitno drugačija u odnosu na pisanja klasičnih teoretičara poput Tomasa Hobsa i DŽona Loka. Ona je oslonjena na DŽona Rolsa i njegovu idealističku sliku moralnih principa koji ideju društvenog ugovora podižu na najviši stepen apstraktnosti. U Rolsovom filozofskom sistemu ustav je samo instrument pomoću kojeg se ostvaruju pomenuti principi pravde. Prema tome, oba koncepta se nalaze u metapravnom svetu, zbog čega je Rols često bio kritikovan.

Zbog toga je za očuvanje društvenog ugovora potrebna efikasnost. To je neophodno po prirodi stvari jer teorija uvek mora da bude u funkciji stvarnosti i prakse. Dok se filozofski aspekt teorije društvenog ugovora bavi idealima kojima čovek treba da teži kako bi njegov život imao smisla, pravni aspekt mora da ima povezanost sa empirijskim svetom, a to je ustav. Prostor u kojem se susreću filozofija i empirija upravo predstavlja teoriju društvenog ugovora. On je posledica nužnosti da se uvaže realnost i konkretne potrebe, dok sa druge strane čovek istovremeno zadovoljava svoju težnju da uvek razmišlja i stremi ka nečemu boljem.

Usaglašavanje između stvarnosti ustava i ideala društvenog ugovora nije jednostavno, ali je jedino moguće rešenje. Društveni ugovor ne može da opstane samostalno, naročito danas kada njegov osnov predstavljaju određeni moralni principi koje nije nimalo lako ostvariti. Takođe ni ustav, ukoliko se zamisli samo kao skup pozitivnopravnih normi, ne može biti dovoljan jer bi značajno ograničio čovekovo delanje u budućnosti koje treba da bude usmereno ka stvaranju jednog boljeg sveta za život. Jedino njihovom harmonizacijom, što predstavlja trajan proces, nastaje efikasan pravni i društveni poredak koji će biti na korist čoveka.

Alternate abstract:

The social contract is one of the most controversial concepts of legal science. Due to the dominance of legal positivism in modern age, at first glance it seems that the idea of the social contract has lost its actuality. This paper is an attempt to draw attention to the complexity of that legal and philosophical concept, its importance and role in the modern age, but also to emphasize the understanding that the theory of the social contract correlated with an appropriate understanding of the constitution may be empirically acceptable.

Certain features of the social contract had been present in antiquity and in Middle Ages, but the theory emerged in 18^th century rationalistic thought. The classical theory of the social contract committed a great influence on the first written documents with constitutional nature: Magna Carta Libertatum, the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the French constitutions after the Revolution.

Modern literature on the social contract is significantly different than the writings of classical theorists, eg. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It rests on John Rawls’s theory and his idealistic picture of the moral principles of the social contract idea raised at the highest level of abstraction. In Rawls' philosophical system constitution is only an instrument to achieve the aforementioned principles of justice. Thus, Rawls has often been criticized because both concepts are in the meta-legal world.

Therefore, efficiency is necessary to preserve the social contract. This is necessary by nature because theory must always be in the function of reality and praxis. While the philosophical aspect of social contract theory deals with ideals which man should pursue in order to make a meaningful life, the legal aspect must have a connection to the empirical world, and that is the constitution. The space where philosophy and empiricism encounters represents a theory of the social contract. It is due to the necessity to take into account the reality and specific needs, while on the other hand man at the same time meets his desire to strive for something better.

Reconciliation between reality of the constitution and ideals of the social contract is not easy, but it is the only possible solution. The social contract cannot exist alone, especially today when its basis are certain moral principles that are not easy to accomplish. Also the constitution, if it is taken as a set of positive norms, cannot be sufficient because it would substantially limit a man's action in the future, which should be aimed at creating a better world to live in. Only their harmonization, which is an ongoing process, creates an efficient legal and social order that will be in favor of man.