Copilot
好的。我将结合菲利普·佩蒂特（Philip Pettit）的政治哲学核心思想——尤其是他在《共和主义：一种自由与政府的理论》中提出的自由即不受支配（freedom as non-domination）、任意权力的危险、以及公共理性与问责机制——来分析陈京元案。以下为中英文对照的评析：
一、自由即不受支配
Freedom as Non-Domination
中文：
佩蒂特认为，自由并不仅仅是“不受干涉”（negative liberty），而是“不受支配”（non-domination）。即便一个人暂时没有受到干涉，如果他始终处于他人任意权力的支配之下，他也并不真正自由。在陈京元案中，国家机关通过模糊的“寻衅滋事罪”来惩罚言论，使公民始终处于可能被任意干预的状态。这种不确定性与恐惧感，正是对“不受支配自由”的破坏。
English:
Pettit argues that freedom is not merely “non-interference” but “non-domination.” Even if one is not constantly interfered with, one is not truly free if subject to arbitrary power. In Chen Jingyuan’s case, the state punished speech through the vague charge of “picking quarrels,” leaving citizens under the shadow of possible arbitrary interference. This uncertainty and fear undermine freedom as non-domination.
二、任意权力的危险
The Danger of Arbitrary Power
中文：
佩蒂特强调，任意权力（arbitrary power）是共和主义最需要防范的危险。在本案中，法律的模糊性使得国家可以随意决定何为“虚假信息”或“扰乱秩序”。这种权力缺乏透明性与可预见性，公民无法通过制度来约束它。这正是任意权力的典型表现。
English:
Pettit emphasizes that arbitrary power is the chief danger to be guarded against in republicanism. In this case, the vagueness of the law allowed the state to arbitrarily decide what counts as “false information” or “disturbing order.” Such power lacks transparency and predictability, leaving citizens unable to constrain it through institutions. This is a textbook example of arbitrary power.
三、公共理性与问责机制
Public Reason and Accountability
中文：
在佩蒂特看来，合法的政治权力必须能够在公共理性下得到辩护，并接受问责。在陈京元案中，司法机关并未提供充分的证据来证明“严重扰乱秩序”的存在，而是依赖模糊指控。这种缺乏公共理性辩护与问责的做法，使得权力失去了共和主义意义上的合法性。
English:
For Pettit, legitimate political power must be justifiable under public reason and subject to accountability. In Chen’s case, the judiciary failed to provide sufficient evidence of “serious disturbance of order,” relying instead on vague accusations. This lack of public justification and accountability deprived the exercise of power of its republican legitimacy.
四、制度保障与公民自由
Institutional Safeguards and Civic Freedom
中文：
佩蒂特主张，共和主义的核心在于建立制度性保障，使公民免于任意支配。在本案中，缺乏独立的司法监督与透明的法律程序，使得个体无法通过制度来保护自身的自由。这说明制度未能履行共和主义的基本功能。
English:
Pettit maintains that the core of republicanism lies in institutional safeguards that protect citizens from arbitrary domination. In this case, the absence of independent judicial oversight and transparent legal procedures meant that individuals could not rely on institutions to protect their freedom. This shows that the system failed to fulfill the basic function of republicanism.
五、结论
Conclusion
中文：
从佩蒂特的视角看，陈京元案揭示了：
公民自由被任意权力所威胁；
模糊法律成为支配工具；
缺乏公共理性与问责机制；
制度未能保障“不受支配”的自由。
佩蒂特会提醒我们：真正的自由不是没有干涉，而是免于任意支配。只有当权力受到制度性约束，并能在公共理性下得到辩护时，公民才算真正自由。
English:
From Pettit’s perspective, Chen Jingyuan’s case reveals that:
Citizens’ freedom was threatened by arbitrary power.
Vague laws became instruments of domination.
Public reason and accountability were absent.
Institutions failed to secure freedom as non-domination.
Pettit would remind us that true freedom is not the absence of interference but the absence of arbitrary domination. Only when power is institutionally constrained and publicly justifiable can citizens be genuinely free.
要不要我进一步帮你把这份中英文对照的分析扩展成一篇**“共和主义与不受支配自由”专题论文**，并与诺齐克的自由主义、罗尔斯的平等主义进行比较，展示不同自由观的差异？