Ratio Juris 21 (2):268-280 (2008)
|Abstract||Abstract. This paper discusses Kelsen's attempt at reducing the concept of subjektives Recht (what is subjectively right) to that of objektives Recht (what is objectively right). This attempt fails, it is argued, because in Kelsen's theory the concept of subjektives Recht survives concealed within the concept of individual norm (individuelle Norm), a norm that, pace Kelsen, is not a case of what is objectively right (objektives Recht) but is precisely what is subjectively right (subjektives Recht): We could call it "what is individually right.".|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Harald Ofstad (1950). The Descriptive Definition of the Concept 'Legal Norm' Proposed by Hans Kelsen: An Elementary Analytical and Critical Investigation. Theoria 16 (2):118-151.
Karl Engisch (1950). Vom Weltbild des Juristen. Heidelberg,C. Winter.
Panu Minkkinen (2005). Why is Law a Normative Discipline? On Hans Kelsen's 'Normology'. Res Publica 11 (3).
Lars Vinx (2007). Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law: Legality and Legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
Hans Kelsen (1992). Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory: A Translation of the First Edition of the Reine Rechtslehre or Pure Theory of Law. Oxford University Press.
Andreas Kalyvas (2006). The Basic Norm and Democracy in Hans Kelsen’s Legal and Political Theory. Philosophy and Social Criticism 32 (5):573-599.
B. Celano (2000). Kelsen's Concept of the Authority of Law. Law and Philosophy 19 (2):173-199.
Stanley L. Paulson (2000). The Weak Reading of Authority in Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law. Law and Philosophy 19 (2):131 - 171.
L. S. (2000). The Weak Reading of Authority in Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law. Law and Philosophy 19 (2):131-171.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #133,587 of 549,198 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?