The Kelsen/Schmitt Controversy and the Evolving Relations between Constitutional and International Law
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio Juris 23 (4):493-504 (2010)
The article examines Hans Kelsen's and Carl Schmitt's lines of thought concerning the relationship between constitutional and international law, with the aim of ascertaining their respective ability to capture developments affecting that relationship, even those of a contradictory nature. It is significant that, while the rise of wars of humanitarian intervention in the post-Cold War era has evoked Schmitt's concept of the bellum iustum, the evolution in the direction of the “constitutionalisation of international law” has drawn attention to Kelsen's theoretical approach. However, these assumptions rely heavily on the opposing objectives that the two authors claimed to pursue, such as, respectively, the search for the ultimate seat of political power and a pure theory of law. Things are more complicated, both because these objectives by no means exhaust Kelsen's and Schmitt's lines of thought, and because the conception of sovereignty as omnipotence, at the core of the Weimar controversy, is now behind us
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Hedley Bull (1986). Hans Kelsen and International Law. In Richard Tur & William L. Twining (eds.), Essays on Kelsen. Clarendon Press 321--36.
Jean L. Cohen (2004). Whose Sovereignty? Empire Versus International Law. Ethics and International Affairs 18 (3):1–24.
P. De Visscher (1981). Observations sur la contribution de Hans Kelsen au droit international positif. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 138 (138):530-8.
Hans Kelsen (1945/1999). General Theory of Law and State. Lawbook Exchange.
Franz Neumann (1942). Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism. Philosophical Review 51 (4):432-435.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jiri Priban (2012). Self-Reference of the Constitutional State: A Systems Theory Interpretation of the Kelsen-Schmitt Debate. Jurisprudence 2 (2):309-328.
Lars Vinx (2007). Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law: Legality and Legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
Andreas Kalyvas (1999). Review Essay: Who's Afraid of Karl Schmitt. Philosophy and Social Criticism 25 (5).
Michael Salter (2013). Carl Schmitt on the Secularisation of Religious Texts as a Resacralisation of Jurisprudence? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 26 (1):113-147.
Christoph Kletzer (2012). Pure Cosmopolitanism: The Theory and Politics of Kelsen's Theory of International Law. A Review of Jochen von Bernstorff, The Public International Law of Hans Kelsen: Believing in Universal Law. Jurisprudence 3 (2):505-508.
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.
B. Celano (2000). Kelsen's Concept of the Authority of Law. Law and Philosophy 19 (2):173-199.
Panu Minkkinen (2005). Why is Law a Normative Discipline? On Hans Kelsen's 'Normology'. Res Publica 11 (3):235-249.
Massimo la Torre (1999). David Dyzenhaus, Legality and Legitimacy: Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen and Hermann Heller in Weimar:Legality and Legitimacy: Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen and Hermann Heller in Weimar. Ethics 109 (3):662-663.
Peter Langford & Ian Bryan (2013). Hans Kelsen's Concept of Normative Imputation. Ratio Juris 26 (1):85-110.
Stanley L. Paulson & Bonnie Litschewski Paulson (eds.) (1998). Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes. 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.
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 index2010-11-15
Total downloads41 ( #65,667 of 1,699,806 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #88,892 of 1,699,806 )
How can I increase my downloads?