The relative indifference to Kant's interpretation of aesthetics and teleology can no doubt be accounted for in several ways. Partly, it is simply that the natural approach to Kant is to begin with the Prolegomena, and then depending on one's interests, to move directly to Kant's treatment of the problem of knowledge or ethical action--thereby leaving Kant's independent analysis of judgment for last, if at all. Moreover, it is impossible to grasp the complexity of the problem of judgment without (...) a substantial understanding of Kant's first two inquiries. (shrink)

Hans Kelsen is considered by many to be the foremost legal thinker of the twentieth century. During the last decade of his life he was working on what he called a general theory of norms. Published posthumously in 1979 as Allgemeine Theorie der Normen, the book is here translated for the first time into English. Kelsen develops his "pure theory of law" into a "general theory of norms", and analyzes the applicability of logic to norms to offer an original and (...) extreme position which some have called "normative irrationalism". Examining the views of over 200 philosophers and legal theorists on law, morality, and logic, and revising several of his own earlier positions, Kelsen's final work is a mandatory resource for legal and moral philosophers. (shrink)

One of the leading legal philosophers of this century, Kelsen published this short treatise in 1934, when the neo-Kantian influence on his work was at its zenith. An earlier, "constructivist" phase had been displaced by his effort to provide something approximating a neo-Kantian foundation for his theory. If this second phase represents the Pure Theory of Law in its most characteristic form, then the present treatise may well be its central text. And of Kelsen's many statements of the Pure Theory, (...) this one is surely the most accessible. Topics covered include the legal norm and Kelsen's normativity thesis, law and morality, the role of ideology, the concept of the legal person, legal interpretation, the identity of law and state, and the theory of international law. Among the appendices is an annotated bibliography of secondary literature on Kelsen. (shrink)

This study has two goals. The first is to identify three desiderata required for a successful defense of a version of nonreductive physicalism: semantic externalism, token‐identity between mental and physical events, and nonrelational type‐individuation of physical states. In this context, the paper also presents a refutation of recent challenges to content‐externalism by those who attempt to resuscitate internalism by focusing on narrow content associated with the fundamental phenomenology, rather than the intentionality, of mental states. The second goal is to defend (...) the token‐identity thesis from Tyler Burge's argument to the effect that token‐identity is incompatible with semantic externalism. An account is also offered as to why Burge's argument, albeit fallacious, might seem persuasive under a certain interpretation of possible worlds. (shrink)

The digital transfer of the mind to a computer system requires representing the mind as a finite sequence of bits. The classic “stored-program computer” paradigm, in turn, implies the equivalence between program and data, so that the sequence of bits themselves can be interpreted as a program, which will be algorithmically executed in the receiving device. Now, according to a previous proof, on which this paper is based, a computational or algorithmic machine, however complex, cannot be free. Consequently, a finite (...) sequence of bits cannot adequately represent a free mind and, therefore, a free mind cannot be digitally transferred, quod erat demonstrandum. The impossibility of making this transfer, as demonstrated here, should be a concern especially for those who wish to achieve it. Since we intend this to be a rigorous demonstration, we must give precise definitions and conditions of validity. The most important part of the paper is devoted to explaining the meaning and reasonableness of these definitions and conditions. Special attention is paid, also, to the philosophical implications of the demonstration. Finally, this thesis is distinguished from other closely related issues. (shrink)

This article analyzes the migrant caravans as a strategy of resistance to the war against migrants in transit to the United States, exacerbated during the pandemic. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted with Honduran journalist Inmer Gerardo Chevez, correspondent of Radio Progreso. Having travelled the Central American and Mexican routes accompanying on foot the transit of thousands of migrants since 2018, Chevez is a notable eyewitness and expert in situ of the Caravans. The interview confirms that the (...) caravan has become one of the premier forms in which Latin American migrants, including agricultural workers, struggle and their spatial dispute with the heterogeneous border control regime of the Americas are materialized. The text also reflects on the role that photography and critical journalism can play in the face of the contemporary anti-migrant policy turn. We conclude with an interpretation of the effects that the militarized violence against Latin American migrants in transit to the United States is having across the region. (shrink)

This volume is an offshoot of a symposium on the relation between philology and philosophy that occurred at the 1980 Eastern Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, jointly sponsored by the Committee on International Cooperation and the Thyssen Stiftung. It consists of nine papers that explore the linguistic, philological, cultural, and philosophical problems associated with translating Kant's texts into English. As a whole, the volume attempts to provide a unified framework within which future Kant scholarship and interpretation can (...) proceed without falling prey to the mistakes of the past, and its general thesis is that if future translation is to achieve semantic equivalence, the translator must engage in careful exegesis in the context of an appreciation of eighteenth-century philosophical usage and its roots in German school-philosophy, and most important of all, must have a philosophical understanding of Kant's critical philosophy. According to Gram, this collection presents a unique contribution in being "the first useful attempt to explore this area" and the resolution of the problems it poses "constitutes a set of conditions for the possibility of any future translation of Kant's work"--an obvious echoing of the full title of one of Kant's most well-known works. (shrink)

Hans KELSEN, le plus célèbre philosophe du droit issu du rang des juristes, est surtout connu pour avoir fondé une école juridique (l'Ecole de Vienne) qui radicalise la doctrine du positivisme juridique. Il a défendu, sa vie durant, une conception normativiste du droit et la thèse d'une stricte séparation entre le droit et la science du droit. Si l'on connaît bien en France son ouvrage programmatique sur la Théorie pure du droit, dans sa deuxième édition traduite par Charles Eisenmann, on (...) sait au moins que cette seconde édition, publiée en 1960, n'est pas l'expression définitive de sa pensée. La traduction de la Théorie générale des normes, qui est un ouvrage posthume et inachevé, donne au lecteur français l'occasion de découvrir cette pensée dans ses derniers développements qui rompent en partie avec ceux de l'œuvre précédente. Le Maître viennois y poursuit l'analyse de la norme juridique, entamée dans la Théorie pure du droit, mais il l'approfondit sur certains points et l'infléchit sur d'autres. Il introduit ainsi de nouvelles réflexions sur la signification de la norme et sur ses fonctions, sur l'application et l'interprétation de la norme et également sur le rapport entre la norme et le langage, insistant notamment sur la distinction entre la norme et l'énoncé sur la norme. Par ailleurs, il considère la religion et le droit comme deux ordres normatifs similaires, ce qui le conduit à proposer une théorie vraiment " générale " des normes et non pas seulement une théorie juridique des normes. Il avance une nouvelle interprétation de la norme fondamentale en recourant à l'idée de fiction juridique. Enfin, dans la dernière partie du livre, Kelsen donne le dernier état de sa pensée sur le problème majeur de l'application de la logique au droit. Rompant avec son logicisme antérieur, il nie l'existence d'une logique spécifique au droit et conteste l'application de la logique syllogistique au processus d'application du droit, renouant ainsi avec un volontarisme juridique qu'il avait rejeté au début de son œuvre. Dans cet ouvrage, sous couvert de bâtir une théorie générale des normes, Kelsen construit une théorie de l'interprétation des normes. Il propose donc une herméneutique juridique originale qui intéressera tous ceux qui étudient les sciences normatives (juristes, mais aussi théologiens et spécialistes de l'éthique). Il engage un dialogue avec les représentants anglo-américains de la philosophie du droit, de l'éthique ou de la logique, et il renoue le dialogue avec les auteurs influents à Vienne au début du siècle. (shrink)

In Section I, Kelsen introduces the legal order as an aggregate of norms and considers the question of the basis of the validity of a norm. He then turns, in Section II, to a series of questions that arise in connection with “unconstitutional” statutes. Finally, in Section III, Kelsen defends at length a monistic interpretation of the relation between the international and domestic legal orders. (Translator's summary.).

This study has two goals. The first is to identify three desiderata required for a successful defense of a version of nonreductive physicalism: semantic externalism, token‐identity between mental and physical events, and nonrelational type‐individuation of physical states. In this context, the paper also presents a refutation of recent challenges to content‐externalism by those who attempt to resuscitate internalism by focusing on narrow content associated with the fundamental phenomenology, rather than the intentionality, of mental states. The second goal is to defend (...) the token‐identity thesis from Tyler Burge's argument to the effect that token‐identity is incompatible with semantic externalism. An account is also offered as to why Burge's argument, albeit fallacious, might seem persuasive under a certain interpretation of possible worlds. (shrink)

We examine the notion of inquiry and argue that philosophic inquiry is a transcendental activity. Activities, viewed as conforming to intelligible canons, applying to appropriate contexts, and directed to specifiable ends, are contrasted with their empirical descriptions. Inquiry, characterized as an internalized, continuous activity directed to an intrinsic end, and fundamentally presupposed by other activities, is considered at the levels of (1) science, (2) philosophy and (3) transcendental philosophy. We argue that (2) is a transcendental activity which determines non-empirical concepts (...) and is presupposed by (1). Alternative philosophic frameworks are grounded on hypothetical canons conceived by intelligence itself, which imply interpretations of objectivity and universality claiming validity for the community of inquirers, but they can always be rejected. We consider the possibility of categorical canons operating as second-order rules necessarily presupposed for the formulation of alternative philosophic frameworks, and (3) would be the activity of identifying, justifying and applying such transcendental canons of inquiry in general. Finally, we suggest that the only possible justification of such categorical canons would be a kind of ontological proof. Thus, a given philosophic approach reflects the transcendental activity of determining non-empirical concepts through the implementation of its fundamental regulative norms; but transcendental philosophy would determine the concept of philosophy itself through implementation of the categorical canons of inquiry in the construction of philosophic systems. (shrink)

My central concern is to show that attempts to resolve problems of non-extensionality in abstraction from speech act theory are unsatisfactory. Generally, I shall argue that speech act theory identifies the various units, levels, and dimensions of analysis which are relevant to the problem of non-extensionality. To ignore or underplay this results in interpretations of non-extensionality which are counter-intuitive and plagued with counter-examples. In what follows, I shall first distinguish what I take to be the essential ingredients of the problem (...) of non-extensionality and restrict the primary scope of my discussion to a certain kind of paradigm case, viz., that kind of non-extensional context generated by the use of so-called verbs of propositional attitude. Although other kinds of context must also be reckoned with, I am especially interested in the attitudinal context, because it is here, as I shall try to show, that recent interpretations exhibit a significant philosophical mistake. Then I shall isolate the kind of interpretation I want to emphasize and criticize—one which I label "soft extensionalism." Finally, I shall differentiate those aspects of speech act theory which pertain to non-extensionality and apply them to the paradigm case. This will require a clarification of the role which the locutionary act, the propositional act, and the illocutionary act respectively play in the determination of the referential status of singular terms in linguistic contexts. (shrink)

ABSTRACTAs the title suggests, I take up three motifs in the article. Legal science, on a narrower reading, examines the law qua object of legal cognition. Substituting legal cognition for traditio...

Do Anglo-American Kant scholars typically relegate Kant’s claims about sensation, intuition, and perception to a provisional or precritical status and focus instead on the Transcendental Deduction, the second edition Refutation of Idealism, and the Analogies of Experience? Are the issues that concern these recent interpreters more appropriate to contemporary problems of meaning and reference in semantics rather than to what was of central concern to Kant? Are such approaches basically one-sided and anachronistic unless supplemented by a phenomenologically oriented interpretation? (...) To all of these questions, Richard Aquila answers in the affirmative and attempts to correct these shortcomings in his Representational Mind—a work that is clearly informed by ideas from Brentano and, to a lesser extent, from Husserl and Heidegger. But lest this triggers an immediate disinterest or avoidance in the so-called Anglo-American analytic scholars, it should be pointed out that Aquila himself is well grounded in the analytic perspective, definitely does not concentrate on Kant’s relation to his phenomenological successors, and provides a phenomenological dimension to Kant’s theory of knowledge that meshes well with the orientation of his more analytically-minded contemporaries. As he says at the end of his Preface, “In any case, I hope to have contributed to the current tendency toward ‘dialogue’ between the two approaches.” His book succeeds remarkably well in this respect. (shrink)

This paper proposes a reading of Kelsen’s basic norm based on Kant’s regulative ideas. I begin by exposing Kant’s conception of the principles of reason. Then I criticize an interpretation of the basic norm along the same lines made by Stanley Paulson. Thirdly I analyze two theses from Hermann Cohen that influenced Kelsen greatly and reinforce my stance on the basic norm. Lastly, I explain how the Kelsenian tenet that the basic norm is the transcendental grounding of the normativity (...) of law can be comprehended based on the role the ideas of reason play in the systematization of knowledge. (shrink)

Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law, presented as a form of legal positivism, is interpreted as establishing metaphysical bases of legal science, on analogy with Kant’s “metaphysical bases of natural science (Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft)”. It is asked, in the light of the Pure Theory’s acknowledged difficulties, how far it succeeds in escaping from the exegetical tradition in Western legal theory.

This paper is a discussion of A C Genova's defense of Davidson's Omniscient Interpreter anti-skeptical argument ("Analysis", 1991.

This paper explicates some aspects of Hans Kelsen’s defence of democracy. Kelsen’s aim was to formulate a realistic normative alternative to the democratic ideal derived from Rousseau. He provided two, independent arguments for majoritarian democracy. First, the validity of majority principle could be derived from epistemological relativism. Second, majority principle maximized individual liberty. The latter argument is based on Kelsen’s own definition of liberty as a correspondence between an individual will and the ruling norms. This argument could be interpreted as (...) reasoning based on a hypothetical contract. The most important critiques of majoritarian proceduralism are based on the problem of the possibility of democratic self-destruction, the problem of the democratic origins of democracy and the problem of the possibility of permanent majorities. Kelsen had a convincing answer to problems, and. The problem of permanent majorities is more difficult to solve. Ultimately, Kelsen is forced to abandon his purely proceduralistic starting point. (shrink)

In this article, I argue,inter alia, that Kelsen’s mature view—as expressed in, and around the time of, the second edition ofReine Rechtslehre—was that of a metaethical relativist, and that the commitment to metaethical relativism was the reason why Kelsen defended democracy as well as tolerance in the shape of a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of thought. I also consider the possibility that in his post‐1960 phase Kelsen abandoned metaethical relativism for moral fictionalism, but argue that, on the whole, a relativist (...) class='Hi'>interpretation of Kelsen’s late legal philosophy is to be preferred to a fictionalist interpretation. (shrink)

Focusing on Hans Kelsen's concept of the 'ought', the main problem is whether the 'ought' qua obligation or the 'ought' qua empowerment or competence serves as his fundamental normative concept. Stanley L Paulson has adduced strong textual arguments for the thesis that the fundamental role played by empowerment represented Kelsen's opinion ever since the late 1930s. But to accept the thesis of the fundamental character of empowerment as an interpretive thesis is not, eo ipso , to accept it as a (...) norm-theoretic thesis. In light of this background, I take up three arguments for conceiving the modality of obligation as being at least as fundamental: the chain argument, the argument from unlawfulness, and the argument from overload. This leads to the conclusion that Kelsen's 'ought' would be incomplete if it did not comprise obligation as a modality that is at least as fundamental as the modality of empowerment or competence. (shrink)

This article reinterprets the Kelsen-Schmitt debate in the context of social systems theory and rethinks its major concepts as part of legal and political self-reference and systemic differentiation. In Kelsen?s case, it is the exclusion of sovereignty from juridical logic that opens a way to the self-reference of positive law. Similarly, Schmitt constructed his concept of the political as a self-referential system of political operations protected from the social environment by the medium of power. The author argues that the process (...) of legal and political globalisation rules out the possibility of formulating substantive theories of the state associating this particular social organisation with metaphysical values and a self-validating collective identity. Kelsen and Schmitt continue to inspire current theories of non-metaphysical globalised law and politics. However, the constitutional state and sovereignty need to be reformulated as a meeting point of functionally differentiated and globalised legal and political communications and not as their ultimate end. (shrink)

This article explores the common points and the differences between Hans Kelsen’s and Robert Alexy’s application theories. Although Kelsen subscribed to moral relativism and denied the idea of a practical reason, while Alexy criticised moral relativism and defended the idea of a communicative reason, it is argued that the two theories share important common features, such as denying that interpretation can point one single answer as the right one and acknowledging that interpretation is comprised by both knowledge and (...) will. The article acknowledges that there are differences between both theories, analyses whether these differences are qualitative or quantitative and, in the end, concludes that between the two theories there is not disruption, as one might believe, but rather continuity. (shrink)

This volume explores the reasons for Hans Kelsen’s lack of influence in the United States and proposes ways in which Kelsen’s approach to law, philosophy, and political, democratic, and international relations theory could be relevant to current debates within the U.S. academy in those areas. Along the way, the volume examines Kelsen’s relationship and often hidden influences on other members of the mid-century Central European émigré community whose work helped shape twentieth-century social science in the United States. The book includes (...) major contributions to the history of ideas and to the sociology of the professions in the U.S. academy in the twentieth century. Each section of the volume explores a different aspect of the puzzle of the neglect of Kelsen’s work in various disciplinary and national settings. Part I provides reconstructions of Kelsen’s legal theory and defends that theory against negative assessments in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Part II focuses both on Kelsen’s theoretical views on international law and his practical involvement in the post-war development of international criminal law. Part III addresses Kelsen’s theories of democracy and justice while placing him in dialogue with other major twentieth-century thinkers, including two fellow émigré scholars, Leo Strauss and Albert Ehrenzweig. Part IV explores Kelsen’s intellectual legacies through European and American perspectives on the interaction of Kelsen’s theoretical approach to law and national legal traditions in the United States and Germany. Each contribution features a particular applications of Kelsen’s approach to doctrinal and interpretive issues currently of interest in the legal academy. The volume concludes with two chapters on the nature of Kelsen’s legal theory as an instance of modernism. (shrink)

This chapter traces the intellectual relationship between Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. It is well known that the two legal thinkers had sharply contrasting views on sovereignty, democracy, and the role of unity in the law and in politics. Less well known is Schmitt’s proximity, in his very early work, to Kelsen on certain issues, such as the “is”-“ought” distinction and “points of imputation.” This proximity was short-lived, and the discord between their views increased over time, culminating in the Weimar (...) period in their diametrically opposed views on the “guardian” of the constitution. This chapter reconstructs the evolution of this intellectual antagonism, exploring Schmitt’s arguments under four rubrics: subsumption, the narrow interpretation of “material facts,” the political dimension of the judicial decision, and the neutrality of the Reich president. The thrust of Kelsen’s replies is captured in the idea that Schmitt is engaged in political ideology. (shrink)

In order to raise the question of a potential compatibility between the awareness of Otherness on the one hand, and a form of universality on the other, some hypotheses should first be formulated and defined. 1) How does moral relativism equate to the rejection of universal discourses? 2) Consequently, how can this rejection be understood as a result of Modernity? 3) How can Modernity be understood as recognition of Otherness? The current paper will attempt to outline some answers to these (...) questions based on a comparative reading between Kelsen and Lefort. Firstly, in order to explicate the main lines of the Kelsenian relativistic axiology it seems crucial to consider his second edition of the Pure Theory of Law, since one can find within it the grounds for a limitation of human cognition. His Farewell Lecture, “What is justice?”, is also relevant to this theme since in it he claims that the human world is a world of relative and conflicting values. The combination of these two ideas leads to the rejection of Universalist discourses – identified with the ones of Natural Law theories – in the name of science. Secondly, three of Lefort’s articles seem to be relevant. The first, “The Image of the Body and Totalitarianism”, enables us to understand his symbolic political philosophy, and more importantly, to introduce his definition of Modernity. “Dissolution of Marks and Democratic Challenge” focuses more on the concept of moral relativism, whilst interpreting it as a consistent reaction to modern indeterminacy. Finally, “Politics and Human Rights” offers a restricted concept of Human Rights, reminiscent of Hannah Arendt’s views, namely that human rights mean the rights to have rights. (shrink)

This paper examines the critique of Voegelin in Kelsens "Secular Religion". While Kelsen sets out with the false premise that secular world view can in principle have no religious character, his critique of Voegelin remains largely unimpaired by this mistake. With convincing arguments Kelsen criticises (1) Voegelins interpretation of modernity as an age of gnosticism, (2) Voegelins reinterpretation of enlightened and secular philosopher as gnostics in disguise and (3) Voegelins rejection of modern politics and, to a lesser degree, modern (...) science. I have also uploaded the critical margin notes that some person (unfortunately I do not know any more who) had been so friendly to sent me. The paper was originally written in German, but an English translation is available as well. (shrink)

Many writers interested in Kelsen's concept of validity state that it is primarily related to such issues as the identity of a legal system, the membership of particular norms in a legal system, its internal consistency, and so on. The result is that for many, Kelsen's concept of validity bears no affinity to the idea of validity prevailing in traditional legal philosophy. This chapter argues that this reading of Kelsen's concept of validity is mistaken. Proponents of this reading have been (...) led to disregard important aspects of Kelsen's theory, formulating unwarranted and tortuous interpretations of it in order to show how it deals with issues that are erroneously supposed to be primarily connected to its concept of validity. It is shown that Kelsen's theory, like traditional philosophical accounts of law, equates the validity of law with its binding force and its existence, and that it conceives of the ascription of validity as a normative judgement. (shrink)

Reedition of papers in English spanning from 1986 to 2009 /// Historical background -- An imposed legacy -- Twentieth century contemporaneity -- Appendix: The philosophy of teaching legal philosophy in Hungary /// HISTORICAL BACKGROUND -- PHILOSOPHY OF LAW IN CENTRAL & EASTERN EUROPE: A SKETCH OF HISTORY [1999] 11–21 // PHILOSOPHISING ON LAW IN THE TURMOIL OF COMMUNIST TAKEOVER IN HUNGARY (TWO PORTRAITS, INTERWAR AND POSTWAR: JULIUS MOÓR & ISTVÁN LOSONCZY) [2001–2002] 23–39: Julius Moór 23 / István Losonczy 29 // (...) ON THE SURVIVAL OF ILMAR TAMMELO’S LETTER AND MANUSCRIPT ADDRESSED TO PROFESSOR MOÓR [2009] 41–44 // PROFESSIONAL DISTRESS AND SCARCITY: ALEXANDER HORVÁTH AND THE LEGACY OF NATURAL LAW IN HUNGARY [2005] 45–50 // HUNGARIAN LEGAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE 20TH CENTURY [2011] 51–72: I. The Pre-war Period [1. Bódog (Felix) Somló (1871–1920) 52] / II. The Inter-war Period [2. Gyula (Julius) Moór (1888–1950) 54 / 3. Barna Horváth (1896–1973) 55 / 4. József Szabó (1909–1992) 57 / 5. István Bibó (1911–1979) 58 / 6. Tibor Vas (1911–1983) 59 / 7. István Losonczy (1918–1980) 60] III. The Post-war Period (Communism) 61 [8. Imre Szabó (1912–1991) 62 / 9. Vilmos Peschka (1929–2006) 63 / 10. Kálmán Kulcsár (1928–2010) 65] IV. Contemporary Trends and Perspectives 66 [11. Csaba Varga (b. 1941) 66 / 12. András Sajó (b. 1949) 69 / 13. Béla Pokol (b. 1950) 70] V. Our Understanding of the Law Today 71 --- AN IMPOSED LEGACY -- LOOKING BACK [1999] 75–94: 1. On Ideologies and Marxism in general 75 / 2. Life of an Intellectual in Communism 79 / 3. On Marxism and its Socialist Cultivation in Particular 82 / 4. Legal Philosophising [4.1. Approaches to Law 87 / 4.2. Arriving at a Legal Ontology 91] 5. Conclusion 94 // LEGAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE MARXISM OF SOCIALISM: HUNGARIAN OVERVIEW IN AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE [2003] 95–151: I. Development and Balance of Marxist Philosophising on Law in Hungary [1. Preliminaries (until 1948) 96 / 2. Stalinism (from the Soviet Occupation on) {a) Liquidation of the »Residues« 98 / b) Soviet-type Uniformisation [Gleichschaltung] 99 / c) Denial of the Past, with a Dual Effect 99 / d) »Socialist Legality«, Drawn from the Progressive Past of Western Europe 103 / e) Search for the Germs of Scholarly Evolution 103} 3. Institutionalisation Accompanied by Relaxation (from the 1960s) [a) Epigonism Becoming the Scholarly Ideal 104 / b) Stalinism in a Critical Self-perspective 105 / c) Disciples Diversified Launching their own Trends 107 / d) Comparatism 110 / e) (Re)discovery of the Western Legal Philosophy as a Competitor 112 / f) A Leading Mediatory Role within the »Socialist World Order« 114} 4. Disintegration (in the 1980s) {a) Attempt at Laying New Foundations for Marxism with Epigonism Exhausted 115 / b) Competitive Trends Becoming Exclusive 115 / c) Western Legal Philosophy Acknowledged as a Fellow-traveller within the Socialist Orbit Proper 116 / d) Hungarian Legal Theory Transforming into a National Corpus 118 / e) The Practical Promotion of Some Balance 119} 5. End-game for a Substitute State Religion (in the 1990s) 120] II. Marxist Legal Philosophising in an International Perspective [Ad 1: To the Preliminaries 122 / Ad 2: To Stalinism 124 / Ad 3: To Institutionalisation Accompanied by Relaxation {a) Late Separation from Vishinskiy’s Theory 125 / b) From Ideological Self-closure to an Apparently Scholarly Openness 127 / c) From Political Ideology to Genuine Scholarship 130 / d) International Recognition of Socialist Jurisprudence as an Independent Trend 135 / e) Together with Western Trends 137} Ad 4: To Disintegration {a) Loss of Attraction as Mere Epigonism 139 / b) Exclusivity of Competing Trends 139 / c) Fellowship with »Bourgeois« Trends 140 / d) An own Trend, Internationally Recognised 141 / e) A yet Progressive Role 142} Ad 5: To the Present state 143] III. A Temporary Balance 145 // AUTONOMY AND INSTRUMENTALITY OF LAW IN A SUPERSTRUCTURAL PERSPECTIVE [1986] 151–175: 1. The Strange Fate of Concepts 151 / I. A Relational Category 2. Basis and Superstructure: The Genuine Meaning 154 / 3. Exerting Social Influence as a Conceptual Minimum 156 / 4. Relationships within the Prevailing Totality 158 / 5. Attempts at Interpretation in Hungary 159 / 6. The Lukácsian Stand 162 / 7. Lukács’s Recognitions 168 / 8. Some Criticism 169 / II. The Law’s Understanding 171 / 9. Law Interpreted as Superstructure 171 / 10. Conclusions Drawn for the Law’s Understanding 173 // LEGAL THEORY IN TRANSITION (A PREFACE FROM HUNGARY) [2000] 177–186 // DEVELOPMENT OF THEORETICAL LEGAL THOUGHT IN HUNGARY AT THE TURN OF THE MILLENNIUM [2006] 187–215: 1. International Environment 188 / 2. The Situation in Hungary 190 / 3. Outlook I: The Historical-comparative Study of Legal Cultures and of the Lawyerly Way of Thinking 203 / 4. Outlook II: The Paradigmatic Enigma of the Transition to Rule of Law 207 / 5. Incongruity in Practice 213 / 6. Perspectives 214 --- TWENTIETH CENTURY CONTEMPORANEITY -- CHANGE OF PARADIGMS IN LEGAL RECONSTRUCTION: CARL SCHMITT AND THE TEMPTATION TO FINALLY REACH A SYNTHESIS [2002] 219–234: 1. Dangers of Intellectualism 219 / 2. Schmitt in Facts 221 / 3. Schmitt and Kelsen 222 / 4. On Bordering Conditions 226 / 5. With Kelsen in Transubstantiation 230 / 6. Polarisation as the Path of Theoretical Development 232 // KELSENIAN DOCUMENTS IN HUNGARY: CHAPTERS ON CONTACTS, INCLUDING THE GENESIS OF AUTOBIOGRAPHY [2006] 235–243: 1. Preludes 235 / 2. The Search for Moór’s Bequeath 235 / 3. Moór’s Collegiality 238 / 4. Bibó as a Disciple Translating 241 // THE »HART-PHENOMENON« [2002] 245–267: I. The Hart-miracle 246 [1. The Scene of Britain at the Time 247 / 2. The Personal Career 250 / 3. The Opus’ Career 252 / 4. Verbal Sociologism 255 / 5. Growing into the British Pattern 259] II. The Hart-phenomenon 260 [6. Origination of a Strange Orthodoxy 261 / 7. Mastering Periods of the 20th Century 263 / 8. Raising the Issue of Reception in Hungary 365] // LITERATURE? A SUBSTITUTE FOR LEGAL PHILOSOPHY? [2007] 269–287: 1. The Enigma of Law and its Study 269 / 2. “Law and Literature” 271 / 3. Varieties of “Law and Literature” 274 / 4. The German Study of Artistic Representations 280 / 5. Some Literary Reconsiderations 285 / 6. Conclusion 287 --- APPENDIX -- THE PHILOSOPHY OF TEACHING LEGAL PHILOSOPHY IN HUNGARY [2007] 291–320: I. Why and How to Philosophise in Law? 291 / II. The State of Teaching Legal Philosophy 294 / III. The Philosophy of Teaching Legal Philosophy 296 / IV. Programme at the Catholic University of Hungary 300 [1. Graduate Studies 300 {a) Basic Subjects 301 / b) Facultative Seminars 305 / c) Closing Subjects 309 / d) Written Memoranda and the Thesis 312} 2. Postgraduate Studies 313 / 3. Conclusion 317] V. Perspectives 318 /// Index of Subjects 321 / Index of Normative Materials 328 / Index of Names 329 . (shrink)

This article proposes an interpretation of the status of the Grundnorm in Hans Kelsen’s legal theory which addresses the broader philosophical problem of the ultimate foundation of normativity. It begins by reviewing the main objections that have been raised against Kelsen’s theory, pointing out that most of these can be met by a ‘transcendental’ interpretation of the Grundnorm as a condition of possibility for legal cognition. It then argues that in order to solve the problem of the ultimate (...) foundation for legal validity it is also necessary to read the Grundnorm in light of the parallel category of ‘nomo-dynamicity’, which Kelsen introduced in all his legal writings beginning with the Pure Theory of Law of 1933. This yields a conception of legal validity as an ‘essentially temporal’ category, from the point of view of which the problem of ultimate foundations cannot emerge because the beginning is by definition not situated conceptually within time. The broader conclusion is therefore that overcoming the problem of the ultimate foundation of normativity requires abandoning the theologico-political assumption that valid norms are posited through a sovereign gesture analogous to that through which God is supposed to have created the universe ex nihilo. Construing normativity as ‘essentially temporal’ implies that the search for ultimate foundations must run into a category that is entirely foreign to political theology but well known to phenomenology: that of an ‘always-already’. (shrink)

O presente artigo tem o escopo de analisar as influências deixadas por Hans Kelsen e sua Teoria Pura do Direito para a Hermenêutica Jurídica e as incertezas ainda presentes em sua clássica obra sobre o processo interpretativo. O positivismo kelseniano, reconhecido pela separação entre direito e moral, não se omitiu quanto à realidade da interpretação jurídica, e, sem desconsiderar suas bases teóricas, deixou diretrizes para a consolidação de uma teoria da interpretação. Kelsen desenvolveu o conceito de moldura normativa como um (...) limite para o intérprete autêntico da norma cuja subjetividade influenciaria o processo interpretativo, mas também viu possibilidades de interpretações fora desta moldura. O trabalho pretende entender estas possibilidades de interpretação, analisando Hans Kelsen e seus ensinamentos sobre interpretação jurídica. (shrink)

This article pays special attention to the large number of references to political theology by Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt, particularly in the interwar period, and seeks to interpret these references in a new way. While Schmitt's analogies between God and state are to be expected considering his strong Catholic roots, such comparisons are much more surprising for a positivist like Hans Kelsen, who always tried to relieve state and law from transcendental elements. The article concludes that, far from being (...) marginal in the doctrinal dispute between Schmitt and Kelsen, references to political theology express and summarize their major controversy about the relation between state and law, as well as about the sources of the state's unity. The heart of the disputatio between the two jurists concerned the ability of the political power to emancipate itself from the juridical order. The ‘legal miracle’—in this context meaning the occasional autonomization of the state from law—was for Schmitt the manifestation of sovereign power. However, for Kelsen it represented the negation of the state's essence, whose actions must be determined only by the legal order. (shrink)

This chapter first considers the most important of Kelsen's own express statements of a connection between his legal theory and the philosophy of Cohen. It then argues that Cohen's interpretations of Kant as well as his own ‘System of Philosophy’ actually differ profoundly from the historical Kant, thus showing the key theorem of Cohen's system to be not Kantian in origin but Platonic. Finally, the chapter considers the centrepiece of Kelsen's theory, the doctrine of the basic norm. It shows that (...) Kelsen's solution to the problem of establishing legal validity by appeal to the basic norm represents a direct application of the key theorem of Cohen's system, and that this theorem offers one plausible possibility — albeit not the only one — for the problem of validity on the basis of a concept of law that refers neither to natural law nor to any metajuridical source. (shrink)

Who presupposes Kelsen's basic norm? Is it possible to defend the presupposition in a way that is convincing? And what difference does the presupposition make? Endeavouring to highlight the role of basic assumptions in the law, the author argues that the verb "to presuppose', with Kelsen, has not only a conceptual but also a normative dimension; and that the expression 'presupposing the basic norm'is adequate in so far as it marks the descriptive-normative nature of utterances made in specifically legal speech-situations.Addressed (...) to legal theorists in general, the treatise purports to show that Kelsen's doctrine lends itself to an interpretation according to which the very act of "presupposing" the Grundnorm can be understood as a Grund, i.e. normative source of all positive law; and, what is more, that this interpretation admits of addressing the issue of the (formal) legitimacy of supra-national and directly applicable rules and other norms. (shrink)

The objective of the article is to present Hans Kelsen’s basic norm concept that allows the combination of the two relevant dimensions in relation to juridical science, namely the positivity and validity of law. The role of the concept of basic norm is presented by the author of the Reine Rechtslehre with reference to Kant as a concept enabling formulation of an answer to the question “To what extent is it possible to interpret certain facts as objectively valid legal norms?” (...) The epistemological problem of the object of cognition of juridical science is connected with the issue of normativity. According to Kelsen, only the assumption of a certain nonpositive hypothetical norm regulating the legislation of norms of a given system enables normative interpretation of certain facts. The basic norm authorizes the way of issuing norms, yet not their content. The structure of the legal order creates a hierarchical system in which the higher category norms delegate the law-making power to create the lower category norms. The legal system creates a dynamic system of norms. (shrink)

La 4ème de couv. indique : "Ce livre concis et accessible présente les principales facettes de la pensée de Hans Kelsen, reconnu comme l'un des plus grands juristes du XXe siècle. Figure de proue du positivisme juridique, ce théoricien prône une science pure du droit, dédiée à la description objective du système juridique existant. Cet ouvrage restitue pas à pas le sens précis des concepts fondamentaux de Kelsen, dont la célèbre "hiérarchie des normes". Ce faisant, il s'agit de montrer la (...) profonde cohérence du projet intellectuel de Kelsen, marqué par l'idéal de la science.". (shrink)

In this article the author presents an alternative to the theories of legal interpretation of H. L. A. Hart and Hans Kelsen. In that sense, he aims, first, to recapitulate the main characteristics of such theories; second, to resume the left phenomenological alternative to legal positivism; and, third, to respond to some misreadings of that alternative.Resumen:En este artículo el autor presenta una alternativa a las teorías de la interpretación jurídica de H. L. A. Hart y de Hans Kelsen. En (...) ese sentido, intenta, primero, recapitular las principales características de las mismas; segundo, resumir la alternativa de la izquierda fenomenológica al positivismo jurídico; y, tercero, responder a algunas de las lecturas equivocadas de dicha alternativa. (shrink)

In the enquiry into the import and function of the basic norm in Hans Kelsen's legal theory, the interpretations of special interest are those dealing with the notion of the basic norm as the ‘logico-transcendental’ condition for cognition in legal science, or with the relation of Kelsen's juridico-scientific method to Kant's practice philosophy. Two thinkers in particular have written along these lines, Norbert Leser and Ralf Dreier, respectively. This chapter begins by describing the positions taken up by the two authors. (...) It then asks, whether in terms of Leser's thesis, it is in fact possible to maintain the notion of the transcendental character of the basic norm. It then turns to Dreier's suggested reinterpretation of the basic norm by appeal to the law of reason, examining the suggestion from the point of view of Kant's philosophy. (shrink)

Penser l’acte de décider en droit comme une opération mentale d’interprétation conduit bien souvent à en faire un objet métaphysique donné à la connaissance du droit et non construit par elle. Cette réification implique également de recourir à un modèle causal de la décision judiciaire, lequel recèle de nombreuses difficultés au regard du caractère proprement juridique d’une telle enquête. En appréhendant cette problématique de la décision par les outils de la philosophie analytique de l’esprit et de l’action, cet article entend (...) défendre une autre approche qui, dans le prolongement des travaux du juriste Hans Kelsen, s’efforce de penser la décision judiciaire comme un acte de justification au sein d’un cadre de rationalité stipulé. (shrink)

The core of Kelsen's strong views onauthority emerging from his concept of law is this:Authority of law, authority in law andauthority about law are one and the same thing.The conceptual problems suggested by these threedifferent prepositions must and can be solved in onefell swoop. Kelsen's core view will first be probed bygiving an account of what is a promising approachoffered in a fairly early text, Das Problem derSouveränität, namely, what it means to`set' or `posit' the law. Inevitably, this leadsto an (...) interpretation of the Grundnorm, one thatintends to accommodate as many Kelsenian emphases aspossible. The Grundnorm will be presented as ashield against hypostatising authority. From there,some characteristics will be inferred of the type ofauthority that arises from Kelsen's account of legalknowledge, which will be called, somewhat polemically,authority without an author. (shrink)

The core of Kelsen's strong views on authority emerging from his concept of law is this:Authority of law, authority in law and authority about law are one and the same thing. The conceptual problems suggested by these three different prepositions must and can be solved in one fell swoop. Kelsen's core view will first be probed by giving an account of what is a promising approach offered in a fairly early text, Das Problem der Souveränität, namely, what it means to (...) `set' or `posit' the law. Inevitably, this leads to an interpretation of the Grundnorm, one that intends to accommodate as many Kelsenian emphases as possible. The Grundnorm will be presented as a shield against hypostatising authority. From there, some characteristics will be inferred of the type of authority that arises from Kelsen's account of legal knowledge, which will be called, somewhat polemically, authority without an author. (shrink)

What kind of reality is legal reality, how is it created, and what are its a priori foundations? These are the central questions asked by the early phenomenologists who took interest in social ontology and law. While Reinach represents the well-known “realist” approach to phenomenology of law, Felix Kaufmann and Fritz Schreier belonged to the “positivist” “Vienna School of Jurisprudence,” combining Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law with Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology—and thereby challenging Reinach’s views on how legal reality and the (...) legal a priori were to be conceived. This paper addresses the controversy between these positivist and realist approaches to phenomenology of law, with the goal of introducing the lesser known theories of Kaufmann and Schreier. The special focus on their critique of Reinach’s outline should give us an overview of their positions vis-à-vis the basic and a priori elements of which legal reality consists and the role that phenomenology plays in analyzing them. There is one general tendency to be noted: While the phenomenological legal positivists see the root of legal reality in an act of interpretation according to a “normative scheme of interpretation,” Reinach locates the roots of legal reality in social interaction and argues for the existence of entities independent of any interpretation. (shrink)

Academic philosophy may have lost its audience, but the traditional subjects of philosophy--love, death, justice, knowledge, and faith--remain as compelling as ever. To reach a new generation, Paul W. Kahn argues that philosophy must take up these fundamental concerns as we find them in contemporary culture. He demonstrates how this can be achieved through a turn to popular film. Discussing such well-known movies as _Forrest Gump_ (1994), _The American President_ (1995), _The Matrix_ (1999), _Memento_ (2000), _The History of Violence_ (2005), (...) _Gran Torino_ (2008), _The Dark Knight_ (2008), _The Road_ (2009), and _Avata_r (2009), Kahn explores powerful archetypes and their hold on us. His inquiry proceeds in two parts. First, he uses film to explore the nature of action and interpretation, arguing that narrative is the critical concept for understanding both. Second, he explores the narratives of politics, family, and faith as they appear in popular films. Engaging with genres as diverse as romantic comedy, slasher film, and pornography, Kahn explores the social imaginary through which we create and maintain a meaningful world. He finds in popular films a new setting for a philosophical inquiry into the timeless themes of sacrifice, innocence, rebirth, law, and love. (shrink)