Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T05:30:46.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Hans Kelsen’s Non-Reductive Positivism

from Part III - Central Figures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

Torben Spaak
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Patricia Mindus
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

“Green defends a ‘Kelsenian’ non-naturalist and non-reductive version of legal positivism that, he argues, is similar to the pure theory of law expressed in Hans Kelsen’s works. Kelsen is a peculiar legal positivist by Anglophone standards because he rejects the social thesis. As Kelsen sees it, law does not ultimately depend upon social facts about a community’s legal practices. The legal order is normative and so stands outside the spatiotemporal and causal world of nature. Nevertheless, Kelsen can be described as a positivist for two reasons. First, he accepts the separation thesis: law does not ultimately depend upon moral facts. Second, he accepts what Green calls the ‘positivity thesis’. Green argues that the heart of the Kelsenian argument against the social thesis is a form of legal anti-psychologism that is similar to the logical anti-psychologism offered by Frege. A challenge to this Kelsenian position is the view that the non-natural facts upon which legal inferences are based concern the concept of law, not a legal order. Green argues that this approach can be successfully resisted by invoking Kelsen’s doctrine of the unity of law.”

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, G. P. and Hacker, P. M. S. 1984. Frege: Logical Excavations. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bix, B. 2016. ‘Kelsen in the United States: Still Misunderstood’. In Telman, J. (ed.). Hans Kelsen in America. Springer Verlag: 1729.Google Scholar
Brockhaus, R. R. 1991. ‘Realism and Psychologism in 19th Century Logic’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51: 493524.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, R. 1999. Émile Durkheim: Law in a Moral Domain. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Delacroix, S. 2004. ‘Hart’s and Kelsen’s Concepts of Normativity Contrasted’. Ratio Juris 17: 501–20.Google Scholar
Delacroix, S. 2006. Legal Norms and Normativity. Hart.Google Scholar
Durkheim, É. 2013. The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and Its Method. 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ebenstein, W. 1945. Pure Theory of Law. University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Edel, G. 1988. Von der Vernunftkritik zur Erkenntnislogik: Die Entwicklung der theoretischen Philosophie Hermann Cohens. Alber.Google Scholar
Edel, G. 1998. ‘The Hypothesis of the Basic Norm: Hans Kelsen and Hermann Cohen’. In Paulson, S. and Paulson, B. (eds.). Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes. Clarendon Press: 195220.Google Scholar
Edmundson, W. 2004. ‘State of the Art: The Duty to Obey the Law’. Legal Theory 10: 215–59.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. 2011a. Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. 2011b. ‘Reason-Giving and the Law’. In Green, L. and Leiter, B. (eds.). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law vol. 1. Oxford University Press: 138.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1984a. The Foundations of Arithmetic. 2nd ed. Trans. Austin, J.. Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1984b. ‘Thoughts’. In McGuinness, B. (ed.). Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy. Trans Black, M. et al. Basil Blackwell: 351–72.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1979. Posthumous Writings. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. 2001. ‘Legal Positivism: 5½ Myths’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 46: 199227.Google Scholar
Green, L. 2008. ‘Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals’. New York University Law Review 83: 1035–58.Google Scholar
Green, L. 2019. ‘Legal Positivism’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/.Google Scholar
Green, M. S. 2003. ‘Hans Kelsen and the Logic of Legal Systems’. Alabama Law Review 54: 365413.Google Scholar
Green, M. S. 2016. ‘Marmor’s Kelsen’. In Telman, J. (ed.). Hans Kelsen in America. Springer Verlag: 4584.Google Scholar
Green, M. S. 2018. ‘Legal Monism: An American History’. In Bezemek, C., Potacs, M. and Somek, A. (eds.). Vienna Lectures on Legal Philosophy. Hart: 2348.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2004. ‘How Facts Make Law’. Legal Theory 10: 157–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2006. ‘Hartian Positivism and Normative Facts: How Facts Make Law II’. In Hershovitz, S. (ed.). Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford University Press: 265–90.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2014. ‘The Moral Impact Theory of Law’. Yale Law Journal 123: 12881342.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1983. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heidemann, C. 1997. Die Norm als Tatsache: Zur Normentheorie Hans Kelsens. Nomos.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. and Pettit, P. 1992. ‘Structural Explanation in Social Theory’. In Charles, D. and Lennon, K. (eds.). Reduction, Explanation, and Realism. Clarendon Press: 97131.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1965. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Smith, N.. St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1911. Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre: Entwickelt aus der Lehre vom Rechtssatz. Mohr.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1920. Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts. Mohr.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1921. ‘Das Verhältnis von Staat und Recht im Lichte der Erkenntniskritik’. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 2: 453510.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1922a. ‘Der Begriff des Staates und die Sozialpsychologie’. Imago 8: 97141.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1922b. Der soziologische und der juristische Staatsbegriff. Mohr.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1925. Algemeine Staatslehre. Julius Springer.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1945. General Theory of Law and State. Trans. Wedberg, A.. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1950. ‘Causality and Imputation’. Ethics 61: 111.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1957. What Is Justice? University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1967. Pure Theory of Law. 2nd ed. Trans. Knight, M.. University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1973. Essays in Legal and Moral Philosophy. Reidel.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1981. ‘On the Basis of Legal Validity’. Trans. Paulson, S.. American Journal of Jurisprudence 26: 178–89.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. 1992. Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. Trans. Paulson, B. and Paulson, S.. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marmor, A. 2011. Philosophy of Law. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 1975. ‘Review: Constraints on Legal Norms: Kelsen’s View in the Essays’. University of Chicago Law Review 42: 768–86.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 1992. ‘Kelsen’s Legal Theory: The Final Round’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 12: 265–74.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 1993. ‘Continental Normativism and Its British Counterpart: How Different Are They?’. Ratio Juris 6: 227–44.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 1998. ‘Four Phases in Hans Kelsen’s Legal Theory? Reflections on a Periodization’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18: 153–66.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 1999. ‘Arriving at a Defensible Periodization of Hans Kelsen’s Legal Theory’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 19: 351–65.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2000. ‘The Weak Reading of Authority in Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law’. Law and Philosophy 19: 131–71.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2001. Hans Kelsen’s Doctrine of Imputation’. Ratio Juris 14: 4763.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2005. ‘Some Issues in the Exchange between Kelsen and Kaufmann’. Scandinavian Studies in Law 48: 269–90.Google Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2012. ‘A “Justified Normativity” Thesis in Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law? Rejoinders to Robert Alexy and Joseph Raz’. In Klatt, M. (ed.). Institutionalized Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy. Oxford University Press: 61111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulson, S. L. 2013. ‘The Great Puzzle: Kelsen’s Basic Norm’. In Duarte d’Almeida, L., Gardner, J. and Green, L. (eds.). Kelsen Revisited: New Essays on the Pure Theory of Law. Hart: 4362.Google Scholar
Pavlakos, G. 2018. ‘Kelsenian Imputation and the Explanation of Legal Norms’. Revus 37: 4756. https://journals.openedition.org/revus/4808.Google Scholar
Pavlakos, G. Forthcoming. ‘A Non-naturalist Account of Law’s Place in Reality’. In Brozek, B., Hage, J. and Vincent, N. (eds.). Law and Mind. A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plunkett, D. 2012. ‘A Positivist Route for Explaining How Facts Make Law’. Legal Theory 18: 139207.Google Scholar
Poma, A. 1997. The Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Trans. Denton, J.. SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1979. The Authority of Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1994. Ethics in the Public Domain. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. J. 2011. Legality. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, I. 1980. ‘The Basic Norm as Fiction’. Juridical Review 25: 199224.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. 1982. ‘Joseph Raz on Kelsen’s Basic Norm’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 27: 4663.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×