“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.
The Why-Question Methodology, The Guise of the Good and Legal Normativity