13:02 Nov 9, 2009 

I think your point is well made. Still, this does not prevent others to discuss a posed question as well as any suggested translations. Furthermore, I think it does not do any harm to support a suggested translation by informed arguments. Finally, this forum allows its users to agree with or object to a suggested translation. As a result of these options, it is the responsibility of all users - and not only of the asker - to decide whether a suggested translation is viable or not and if it is based on an informed decision or rather on a lack of understanding.

11:59 Nov 9, 2009 

That is the responsibility of the asker, who, as translator should be well-acquainted with the subject matter. It is he/she who should be in a position to choose from the variety of our suggestions and judge, which term best applies to the entirety of text to be translated.

11:16 Nov 9, 2009 

@Goldcoaster: I agree. But how can a translation be viable if it is based on a false understanding of the meaning of the source text? In the present context, some knowledge on the theory of the State is indispensable in order to translate accurately, especially since the scope of the given context is rather limited.

11:05 Nov 9, 2009 

We are not in the process of establishing an academic thesis here, but in submitting a viable translation to convey the meaning in the scope of a given context.

10:52 Nov 9, 2009 

@goldcoaster and sivara: Since politics and political theory is one of your specialties, too, I would be most delighted to have a fruitful discussion about the present question. Once again, I would like to point out that a state does not need any "acts of authority" in order to be "empowered with the right to exercise authority." By definition of public international law, the state is a political body with effective internal and external sovereignty over a definite geographic area and population. All acts of a sovereign state vis à vis its population are referred to as "acts of sovereignty" (Hoheitsakte). Furthermore, it is common knowledge that a sovereign state does not have to act in accordance with the law in order to be considered a state, i.e., to be a sovereign politial association. The crucial point here is, I think, that the Rechtsstaat is bound by the constitution, i.e., that the "Rechtsstaat" has to act in accordance with the law, for otherwise it does not comply with the prerequisites of a "Rechtsstaat" any longer, yet this does not entail its losing its sovereignty or the "right to exercise power".

18:15 Nov 7, 2009 

Staatliche Herrschafts- oder Hoheitsakte sind von oben herab (""hoheitlich) beschlossene Anordnungen seitens des Staates. Ein Rechtsstaat ist ein Staat, in dem "das Handeln der staatlichen Organe gesetztem Recht (i.d.R. Verfassungen, in D dem GG) untergeordnet ist, damit den Individuen bestimmte unverbrüchliche Grundrechte zustehen und staatlichem Handeln bestimmte Grenzen gesetzt sind". Dementsprechend sind staatliche Hoheitsakte nur dann verbindlich, wenn sie auf Grundlage des geltenden Rechts angeordnet werden, wie in der zitierten Textprobe dargelegt wird. Die Macht des Staates geht solchen Hoheitsakten selbstverständlich voraus und ist der Definition von Staat praktisch eingeschrieben. Beispielsweise definiert Max Weber den Staat als einen territorial begrenzten politischen Herrschaftsverband, der "das Monopol legitimer physischer Gewaltsamkeit für sich (mit Erfolg) beansprucht" und insofern ein "auf Legitimität gestütztes Herrschaftsverhältnis von Menschen über Menschen" ist.