韓非對統治正當性（也稱政治正當性）有無看法，從前似乎未有研究過。他明白主張湯武革命??君臣之義，甚至堯舜禹之相禪也是受脅迫而非自願的，故予以批判，由此可以推知他認為只有繼承或受贈與而?的君位是合乎道德的。我簡稱為權?思維。另外，從他的道??看，依據道與?而成功統治的君主是最?想的，他應該沒有?由否認這種君主有正當性，我將這種簡稱為道的思維。這?種思維應該是經與權的關係。韓非覺得臣民?得以君主沒有正當性而拒?服從，也?期望臣民以君主有正當性而?加服從。他自己對統治正當性的看法只?給和他一樣的法家哲學家，統治者並用?著正當性以將權?提昇為權威。 It seems that the question of whether Han Fei contemplates the notion of political legitimacy has not be raised. He explicitly accuses Tang 湯 and King Wu 武王 of overturning the moral relationship between prince and minister, and reverts the abdications of the throne of Yao 堯 and of Shun 舜 into forced resignations, hence enabling him to condemn the sage-kings. We can infer from his condemnation that no other way of coronation except by inheritance or gift is moral; to be short, I call this right-based legitimacy. Moreover, it is the consequence of his theory of the Dao that a prince who abides by the Dao and li ? will be the ideal prince, and there is no reason for Han Fei to deny such a prince legitimacy. I call this Dao-based legitimacy. These two kinds of legitimacy interact like constancy and expediency. Han Fei will be dismayed by the ruled not obeying their prince on the ground of the prince’s illegitimacy, and would not hope for more obedience from the ruled on the ground of their prince’s legitimacy. The legitimacy test is reserved to political philosophers like himself, while the ruler need not benefit from being legitimate in order to transform power into authority.