scholarly journals Hans Kelsen as Outliner: The Defence of a Radical Norm Theory

Author(s):  
Stanley Paulson

In his first treatise on legal theory, Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre (1911), Hans Kelsen seeks to recast legal norm theory in a way that would eliminate from the theory the imperative, with what Kelsen sees as its moral connotations. The result, Kelsen’s sanction theory, is not entirely successful. It leaves in place the imperative vis-à-vis legal officials, with obligations imposed on officials to implement sanctions. In the 1930s, Kelsen returns to the issue, radically recasting legal norm theory by introducing empowerment as the fundamental modality and obligation as merely derivative, a view that prevails in the second edition of the Reine Rechtslehre (1960).

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
JÖRG KAMMERHOFER

AbstractHans Kelsen is known both as a legal theorist and as an international lawyer. This article shows that his theory of international law is an integral part of the Kelsenian Pure Theory of Law. Two areas of international law are analysed: first, Kelsen's coercive order paradigm and its relationship to the bellum iustum doctrine; second, the Kelsenian notion of the unity of all law vis-à-vis theories of the relationship of international and municipal law. In a second step, the results of Kelsenian general legal theory of the late period – as interpreted and developed by the present author – are reapplied to selected doctrines of international law. Thus is the coercive order paradigm resolved, the unity of law dissolved, and the UN Charter reinterpreted to show that the concretization of norms as positive international law cannot be unmade by a scholarship usurping the right to make law.


2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-204
Author(s):  
Matthias Goldmann

“For, he reasons pointedly, that which must not cannot be:” the last two lines of a famous poem by Christian Morgenstern bring the crux of normativity to the point: what is the relationship between facts and norms? The research of the past decades has increased rather than reduced the complexity of this fundamental question for legal theory. First of all, the relationship between facts and norms is still less than clear. Hans Kelsen had argued that facts and norms were to be clearly separated, but once theGrundnorm(basic norm) had turned out to be fictitious, the search for an appropriate description of the relationship between facts and norms began anew. Positivists after Kelsen based normativity on different facts, such as social acceptance or social discourse. Secondly, research on new modes of governance, in particular in the fields of European and international law, has revealed that behaviour can be influenced by “soft” norms and non-normative forms of governance just as much as by “hard” law. These results prompted some to consider legal normativity a matter of degree instead of an on-off issue.


2020 ◽  
pp. 97-141
Author(s):  
Raymond Wacks

This chapter explores the works of some of the leading exponents of contemporary legal positivism: H. L. A. Hart, Hans Kelsen, Joseph Raz, Jules Coleman, Scott Shapiro, and others. Hart staked out the borders of modern legal theory by applying the techniques of analytical (and especially linguistic) philosophy to the study of law. Kelsen may be the least understood and most misrepresented of all legal theorists. To the extent that he insisted on the separation of law and morals, what ‘is’ (sein) and what ‘ought to be’ (sollen), Kelsen may legitimately be characterized as a legal positivist, but he is a good deal more. Raz argues that the identity and existence of a legal system may be tested by reference to three elements: efficacy, institutional character, and sources. Thus, law is autonomous: we can identify its content without recourse to morality.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 200-216
Author(s):  
Marek Zirk-Sadowski

This paper presents Jerzy Wróblewski’s (1926–1990) theory of law. He was an eminent Polish legal philosopher. His philosophical minimalism, anticognitivism, relativism and moderate reconstructivism constitute the basis for analytical theory of law in Poland. He was developing his theory of law over the span of several dozens of years but the assumptions were formulated already in his first work on legal interpretation published in 1959. His paradigm of legal theory includes several areas: the theory of the legal norm, theory of legal interpretation, theory of the legal system, theory of application of law, theory of law-making and the methodology of legal sciences.


2021 ◽  
pp. 906-936
Author(s):  
Peter Techet

The debates on how Europe can be organized as a unity took place in the National Socialist Germany too. The aim at that time was to unite Europe under German hegemony – as a “large space” around a German empire. Carl Schmitt provided with his “Großraumlehre” one of the best-known theories of a National Socialist Europe. Carl Schmitt developed his theory against the possibility of “world law” as well against state sovereignty. In this paper, the “Großraumlehre” will be analysed, on the one hand, in the context of Schmitt's anti-universalistic and anti-pluralistic legal theory as an alternative to the universalistic and pluralistic legal theory of Hans Kelsen. (I.) On the other hand, Schmitt's theory will be linked to other – clearly racist – National Socialist European plans. (II.) At the end of this paper, I also address the question of whether and why Schmitt's theory – despite the context in which it came out – could remain compatible with today's debates on Europe and global politics. (Ausblick) Enviado el (Submission Date): 07/02/2021 Aceptado el (Acceptance Date): 16/04/2021


Author(s):  
Philipp Reimer

»L’ÉTAT, C’EST LE DROIT!« – SOBRE A ATUALIDADE DA TEORIA DO ESTADO DE HANS KELSEN EM FACE DA METAMORFOSE DO PODER ESTATAL*  »L’ÉTAT, C’EST LE DROIT!« - ZUR AKTUALITÄT DER STAATSLEHRE HANS KELSENS IM ANGESICHT SICH WANDELNDER STAATSGEWALT  »L’ÉTAT, C’EST LE DROIT!« - THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF HANS KELSEN'S STATE DOCTRINE IN LIGHT OF THE STATE POWER CHANGES   Philipp Reimer**  RESUMO: Confrontada com evidentes mutações na estruturação de instituições e atividades estatais, a teoria do direito pode nos dizer que aspectos deste processo de metamorfose devem ser considerados pelos estudos jurídicos – bem como quais aspectos não precisam ser levados em conta. Fazendo uso de uma abordagem kelseniana, este artigo demonstra como a teoria do direito (compreendida como disciplina normativa) não enfrenta quaisquer dificuldades ao lidar com fenômenos da ordem do dia tais quais „soft law“, „governo de múltiplos níveis“ ou „pluralismo jurídico“. A distinção entre normativo e empírico é a chave interpretativa, aqui, de tal forma que a investigação desta última esfera pertence ao domínio das ciências sociais e não da teoria do direito. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Identidade entre Estado e direito. Hans Kelsen. Teoria pura do direito. Teoria normativa. Pluralismo jurídico. ABSTRACT: When facing eminent change of the way government institutions and activities are structured, legal theory can tell us in what respects legal scholarship needs to take account of such change - and also, in what respects is does not. Using a Kelsenian approach, this paper shows how legal theory (understood as a normative discipline) has no difficulty in coping with modern-day phenomena such as "soft law", "multi-level government", and "legal pluralism". The distinction of the normative and the empirical is key here, where the study of the latter falls into the domain of the social sciences, not legal theory. KEYWORDS: Identity of legal order and state. Hans Kelsen. Pure theory of law. Normative theory. Legal pluralism. SUMÁRIO: 1 Transformação do Estado – de que Estado? 1.1 Um Estado, duas dimensões, três elementos? 1.2 Diferenciação dos conceitos de Estado. 1.3 Conceito teórico-jurídico de Estado e transformação do Estado. 2 Transformações do conteúdo do direito. 2.1 Autorregulação. 2.2 »Soft law«. 3 Transformação da estrutura do direito: Substituição do Estado. 3.1 »Sistemas de múltiplos níveis« e »pluralismo jurídico« como (aparente) desafio a um teoria do direito centrada no Estado. 3.1.1 »Sistemas de múltiplos níveis«. 3.1.2 »Pluralismo jurídico«. 3.2 Substituição, não transformação do Estado. 3.2.1 A antiquada teoria do direito centrada no Estado como quimera. 3.2.2 A necessária unidade da perspectiva jurídica da ciência normativa. 3.2.2.1 Derrogação apenas internamente a uma ordem jurídica. 3.2.2.2 Construção do direito internacional público e do direito europeu. 3.2.3 O caráter arbitrário da escolha do ponto de partida da abordagem jurídica. Conclusão – perspectivas científico-normativas e científico-sociais sobre a “transformação do Estado”. Referências Bibliográficas. * Publicação original: REIMER, Philipp. »L’État, c’est le droit!« - Zur Aktualität der Staatslehre Hans Kelsens im Angesicht sich wandelnder Staatsgewalt. In: HESCHL, Lisa et seq (Eds.). L'État, c'est quoi? Staatsgewalt im Wandel. 54. Assistententagung Öffentliches Recht. Graz: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2014, p. 37-57. Traduzido por Rodrigo Garcia Cadore, doutorando em Teoria do Direito e Direito Público pela Universidade de Freiburg (Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg), Alemanha, com autorização do autor.** Livre-docente em Direito Público e Teoria do Direito pela Universidade de Freiburg (Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg), Alemanha. Professor Privatdozent na Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Mainz (Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz), Alemanha.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelik Wardiono ◽  
Khudzaifah Dimyati

Based on the philosophical approach, it is known basic assumptions of rational paradigm as seen in Hans Kelsen's pure theory of law that consists of: human assumptions based on the quasi-transcendental along with its characters and aurea aetas; ontological assumptions based on empirical reality and equating sein reality with sollen, and normativity created as logico transcendental conditions; epistemological assumption that underlying the science of law as cognitive science, creating the rule of law as a whole object, and reconstructing legal norm as the relation between non-causal and non-metaphysical facts; axiological assumption that reconstructs norm as the object of legal science and equating the basic norms with natural laws.Key words: basic assumptions, rational paradigm, the theory pure of law, jurisprudance.


1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-355
Author(s):  
Keith C. Culver

In his recently published book Norm and Nature, Roger Shiner contends that legal positivists cannot account adequately for the internal point of view which characterizes legal agents’ attitude of commitment to legal norms. Shiner expects that an adequate legal theory will “reproduce the way in which law functions in the lives of those who have the internal point of view to law” (NN, 137). He calls this the “reproduction demand.” In his analysis of Joseph Raz he claims that such “sophisticated positivists” cannot maintain a theory of legal statements which are “detached” from moral commitment to the legal norms they refer to. The failure of the theory of detached legal statements leaves positivists without an adequate account of the necessarily personal aspect of the internal point of view in legal systems—a point of view which according to Shiner requires normative commitment to the justification of the legal norm.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document