Washington University in St. Louis,
Christian-Albrecht University of Kiel

English abstract: 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).

Keywords: Julius Binder, Karl Binding, Hans Kelsen, Adolf Julius Merkl, empowerment, imperative, legal norm theory, obligation, sanction theory, Stufenbau

Language: Polish [translated by: prof. dr hab. Tomasz Gizbert-Studnicki]

Published: Number 4(29)/2021, pp.5-17

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2021.4.5

Download: Download
Number of downloads: 891

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.

Washington University

English abstract: Much in recent discussions on legal positivism suggests that the controversy surrounding the notion turns on the distinction between inclusive and exclusive legal positivism. As a point of departure in distinguishing them, the separation principle is helpful. The separation principle counts as the contradictory of the morality principle, according to which there is “necessary overlap” between the law and morality. What the legal positivist’s denial of the morality principle comes to can be refined, we are told, by appealing to the distinction between inclusive and exclusive legal positivism. One can acquire a broader perspective by opening up the field in order to cover not only inclusive and exclusive legal positivism but also non-positivism, represented by the defence of the morality principle, that is the view that there is necessary overlap between the law and morality. Say what you will about inclusive versus exclusive legal positivism – some defend the distinction, others dismiss inclusive legal positivism as a non-starter. In any case, I want to argue that a far more fundamental distinction within the positivist camp lies elsewhere. The distinction I have in mind is that between legal positivism qua naturalism (J. Austin) and legal positivism without naturalism (H. Kelsen). For reasons institutional in nature, legal positivism has largely been discussed in a vacuum, there is a standing presumption to the effect that there are ties between legal positivism and ‘positivism writ large’ in the greater philosophical tradition – or, as it would be put in present-day philosophical circles, ties between legal positivism and naturalism.

Keywords: legal positivism, Hans Kelsen, The Separation Thesis, naturalism, normativism

Language: Polish
Translated by: Marcin Romanowicz

Published: Number 2(15)/2012, pp. 20-35.

Download: Download

Number of downloads: 380

Pedagogical University of Cracow

English abstract: According to H.L.A. Hart, the rule of recognition is one of secondary rules that is supposed to be a remedy for the uncertainty of primary rules. In this paper we will try to answer the question: To what extent may this rule guarantee legal certainty? After discussing important differences between the concept of the rule of recognition and Kelsenian concept of the basic norm (Grundnorm), we will examine the role of the rule of recognition in the context of the problem of the external certainty of law. When analyzing its content, meaning and effects of using the criteria of validity contained in the rule of recognition, we discovered three types of uncertainty related to the rule of recognition: the substantive, interpretive and applicative one. Our considerations have led us to the conclusion that the rule of recognition, having as its aim the function of removing the uncertainties of law, is itself one of the sources of these uncertainties. It is difficult to consider it as a genuine effective remedy to the external uncertainty of law. The construction of the rule of recognition means that the degree of certainty which we obtain as a result of its application appears to be greater than in the case of “ordinary” primary rules within the system, yet we will never obtain a total external certainty of law unless we apply another theoretical construction.

Keywords: Herbert L. A. Hart, Hans Kelsen, Grundnorm, rule of recognition, External Uncertainty of Law

Language: English

Published: Number 1(4)/2012, pp. 23-33.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2012.1.23

Download: Download

Number of downloads: 842

University of Łódź

English abstract: Article is an attempt to provide reconstruction of the discourse between Hans Kelsen and Jerzy Wróblewski. The main motive of the article are three footnotes from Hans Kelsen’s General Theory of Norms where he considers such issues as the meaning of the legal norm, and legal interpretation. Reconstruction leads to conclusion that if one treats H. Kelsen’s argumentation as a critique of Jerzy Wróblewski’s theory, this critique doesn’t have sound basis, because it’s essence is not to point contradictions and weakness of the theory, but it is led from the point of view of pure theory of law which itself at some points suffers from the lack of coherency. Thus the other approach of the interpretation of footnotes is offered, to treat them as an some kind of scientific testimony, and as a tool which has on scope to make improvement in pure theory of law. Additionally it has been pointed out, that Hans Kelsen didn’t put the main interest on Marxist issues which occurred in Jerzy Wróblewski’s theory, but on those elements which have it’s importance and are discussed till present day.

Keywords: Hans Kelsen, Jerzy Wroblewski, legal interpretation, normativism

Language: Polish

Published: Number 1(2)/2011, pp. 75-85.

Download file: Download

Number of downloads: 342

References:

1. Adomeit K., Der Begriff der Rechtsnorm, „Schriftenreihe des Hans Kelsen-Institutes”, Band 7, Wiedeń 1982.
2. di Bernardo G., Normative Structures of the Social World, Rodopi 1988
3. Ebenstein W., The Pure Theory of Law: Demythologizing Legal Thought, „California Law Review” 1971/59.
4. Fritzsche T., Die Reine Rechtslehre im Lichte des Kritischen Rationalismus, „Schriftenreihe des Hans Kelsens – Instituts”, Band 23, Wiedeń 2002.
5. Kelsen H., Allgemeine Theorie der Normen, Wiedeń 1979
6. Kelsen H., Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre, Scienta Aalen 1960.
7. Kelsen H., Reine Rechtslehre, Wiedeń 1960.
8. Kucsko-Stadlmayer G., Rechtsnormbegriff und Arten der Rechtnormen, „Schriften des Hans Kelsen – Instituts”, Band 18, Wiedeń 1992.
9. Opałek K., Norm, Wert, und Werturteil, „Schriftreihe des Hans Kelsen – Institutes” Band 7, Wiedeń 1982.
10. Paulson S.L., An Empowerment Theory of Legal Norm, „Ratio Iuris” 1988/1.
11. Paulson S.L., Litschewsky-Paulson B., Normativity and Norms, Oxford 1998.
12. Paulson S.L., Stolleis M., Hans Kelsen Staatslehrer und Rechtstheoretiker des 20. Jahrhunderts, Mohr Siebeck 2005.
13. Paulson S.L., Zwei radykale Objektivirungsprogramme In der Rechtslehre Hans Kelsens, w: Paulson S.L., Stolleis M., Hans Kelsen Staatslehrer und Rechtstheoretiker des 20. Jahrhunderts, Mohr Siebeck 2005.
14. Raz J., The Purity of the Pure Theory, „Revue Internationale de Philosophie” 1981/138.
15. Schreirer F., Rechtsnorm und Rechtssatz, „Schriftenreihe des Hans Kelsen – Institutes”, Band 7, Wiedeń 1982.
16. Schreirer F., Rechtsnorm und Rechtssatz, „Schriftenreihe des Hans Kelsen – Institutes”, Band 7, Wiedeń 1982.
17. Wróblewski J., Cognition of Norms and Cognition Through Norms, w: di Bernardo G., Normative Structures of the Social World, Rodopi 1988.
18. Wróblewski J., Semantic Basis of the Theory of Legal Interpretaton, „Logique at Analyse” 1963/21–24.
19. Wróblewski J., The Problem of the Meaning of the Legal Norm, „Österreiches Zeitschrift Für Öffentliches Recht” 1964/3–4.