Rights In Civil Society
Appendix 9. (2437).
All writers of any worth admit that conventions between an autocrat and civil society, and members of civil society, are possible and valid. Johann Brunnemann makes this comment on the ruler:
|
|
But he can be bound by positive law if he has obliged himself, even without an oath, to observe the law. The obligation is stronger still if it has been made under oath. In these cases he is obliged not by the law, but BY THE PROMISE he has made. Let no one say that a ruler is not obliged BY CONTRACT OR CONVENTION. |
A little later he adds:
|
|
I would say with men of old (cum veteribus) no one is more obliged by convention and promise than God; he is truth and trustworthiness itself, and the God of truth. After God, no one is more strictly obliged amongst mortals than a ruler. The greater the trustworthiness of a person, the more he is bound by obligation. For this reason the learned tell us: `The trustworthiness of nobles is obligatory even when they are not on oath.' The nobleman therefore is more obliged than the rustic. (Comm. in Pandect., bk. 1, t. 3, bk. 3) |
This comment is not to be understood in the sense that obligation, objectively considered, does not oblige all equally. The law of fidelity is the same for all, although the factual bond changes as the circumstances of the subject change, that is:
1. Through awareness of one's duty. — A person more clearly and profoundly aware of his own obligation is more gravely obliged. This higher awareness is presupposed in the ruler.
2. As a result of a clearer, more repeated and more assured expression of the promise. — Both the ruler and the great man give evidence and even boast of the value of their word. A person's condition does indeed render his promise more authoritative. It is not just an individual who makes a promise, but the entire group whose dignity invests the one making the promise.
3. As a result of the greater trust of the people in the promises of such persons who in violating their promises betray the great trust placed in them.
4. Finally, because the people themselves must not use violence to obtain what has been promised — breaking the promise shows a lack of response to the people's delicacy and generosity towards the ruler, who provokes them to crime.