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)

This article has a twofold purpose. On the one hand, it traces the earliest developments of this concept. On the other, it argues that Leonid Pitamic played a crucial role in its development. The Grundnorm was originally conceived as part of positive law, but one unable to be grasped by legal cognition, as its determination is ultimately “a political question”. Pitamic suggested that a number of important changes to this understanding, e. g. that the Grundnorm should be conceived (...) as standing outside of legal system or placing emphasis on the principle of effectiveness or suggesting that the Grundnorm has normative import (i. e. can be considered as Sollen). His contribution, the article argues, was vital for the formulation of Kelsen’s Grundnorm, which became his signature achievement. (shrink)

African ethicists have so far not agreed on a single, precise, secular and comprehensive basic norm, an Afro-Grundnorm, which captures the core values of Ubuntu sub-Saharan African cosmopolitanism. This article constructs and proffers the ‘double-dignity’ Grundnorm that partly shares with Western stoic cosmopolitans the view that our common human ontological capacity for autonomy identifies us as members of the human species. This capacity grants our first dignity, inherent dignity. Inherent dignity only grants our universal basic (security and subsistence) (...) rights. Our duties to care of each other derive from the second dignity, acquired dignity. Acquired dignity itself derives from our second ontological capacity, our capacity for communion. Unlike inherent dignity, acquired dignity is neither universal nor automatically present in us. It is earned when we commune with others in fostering harmony as we earn ‘full personhood’. Since fostering harmony starts with nurturing communal identities and solidarities, Ubuntu entails efficiency-model moderate cosmopolitanism which permits prioritizing serving our immediate associates or compatriots not because of their special moral worthiness but because we more efficiently serve humanity at large when we do so. (shrink)

I argue that Metz's undertaking, in seeking a ‘comprehensive basic norm' to underpin African ethics, is similar to Hans Kelsen's postulation of the Grundnorm in his Pure Theory of Law. But African ethics does not need to be underpinned by an approach such as Kelsen's. In my view, Metz's preference for seeking to develop a Grundnorm rests upon a failure to attend carefully to the distinctness of African ethical thinking from Western ethical thinking. This failure is manifest in (...) a spurious distinction between ‘moral anthropology' / ‘cultural studies' and ‘normative theory'. It is also manifest in Metz's failure to attend carefully to the work of Wiredu and Bujo, both of whom present systematic, critical analyses of African ethical thinking while implicitly rejecting the quest for a Grund norm as being unAfrican. South African Journal of Philosophy Vol. 26 2007: pp. 347-355. (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)

„Ein jedes Ding in der Natur wirkt nach Gesetzen. Nur ein vernünftiges Wesen hat das Vermögen, nach der Vorstellung der Gesetze, i.e. nach Prinzipien zu handeln oder einen Willen.“ So definiert Kant in der Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten den Willen oder, was für ihn dasselbe ist, die praktische Vernunft. Die Moral ergibt sich sowohl unter dem formalen Gesichtspunkt ihres Geltungsanspruchs wie unter dem materialen ihrer Grundnorm, nämlich des kategorischen Imperativs, aus der Selbstanwendung der apriorischen Grundstruktur der praktischen Vernunft. (...) Damit ist die Frage beantwortet, "von woher ein unbedingtes Sollen verbindet, was der Grund seiner Verbindlichkeit ist", wie sie beispielhaft Dirk Greimann formuliert. (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)

This article surveys five approaches to justice in contemporary Anglo-American legal thought: pure proceduralism, the sources thesis, the semiotic model, the social convention model, and the ‘law and...’ model. Each approach has associated justice with the foundation of the legal structure of rules, principles and the like. The foundation for pure proceduralism has rested in the conditions (such as majority will, freedom of expression, and political equality), external to the pure process. For the sources thesis, the foundation has been the (...) state institutions, such as courts and legislatures and ultimately to the state external to the legal structure. With the semiotic model, the structure of signifying concepts (rules, principles, doctrines and other intelligible objects) takes the foundation as a non-signified concept (such as Hans Kelsen’s Grundnorm) external to the signifying relations inside the structure. For the social convention model, the key has been the observation by a jurist of the regularity of a multiplicity of experienced events and the regularity, in turn, is a concept which abstracts from and unifies the multiplicity into a concept. The final approach, the law and…approach, has assumed that the foundation lies in the external and independent disciplinary discourse, thereby reinforcing the observed legal structure as given. -/- The foundation, in each context, has been considered external to the units and analytical reasoning of the legal structure. The foundation, that is, has been considered neither legal nor illegal. The consequence has been that jurists, working within the structure founded by an externality, cannot access justice. The clue to justice, I suggest, is concealed inside the structure itself: namely in the multiplicity of experienced events which the concepts and signifying relations have enclosed and forgotten. The Paper briefly fleshes out the latter sense of access to justice. (shrink)

This article pays homage to Drucilla Cornell through examining her writings on ubuntu not only as a jurisprudential concept, but also as a philosophical and ethical concept. Cornell’s incisive ability to synthesize Kant’s idealism of the realm of ends and the African philosophy of ubuntu, combined with her revolutionary spirit, deepened understanding of the South African constitutional values and principles. Exploring the interpretation of ubuntu by the South African Constitutional Court, it shows how Cornell advanced an ubuntu-inspired ethical ideal that (...) informs and shapes dignity as the Grundnorm of the South African Constitution. For Cornell, as a transformative ethic, ubuntu imposes obligations upon us to live up to ideals in our relationships with each other and to ideals of the new democracy. Cornell championed the idea of a substantive revolution brought about by the Constitution and argued for a reading of the South African Constitution against these aspirational ideals. (shrink)

„Der introvertierte Gedankenarchitekt wohnt hinter dem Mond, den die extrovertierten Techniker beschlagnahmen.“ Begibt sich der Rechtswissenschaftler in die philosophischen Tiefen der Reinen Rechtslehre, dann erscheint die Grundnorm als eine janusköpfige Figur, die den erstaunten Leser vor ein Rätsel stellt. Ihre äquivoke Natur manifestiert sich dabei nicht nur in Kelsens variabler Bezeichnung derselben, sondern ebenso im Wandel seiner erkenntnistheoretischen Konzeptionen. Spricht Kelsen in den zwanziger Jahren noch von einer „hypothetische[n]Annahme“, so mutiert die Grundnorm in den dreißiger Jahren zur „transzendental- (...) logische[n] Bedingung“, um am Ende seiner Schaffenszeit in einer „echten […] Fiktion im Sinne der Vaihingerschen Philosophie des Als-Ob“ zu kulminieren. Bedenkt man, dass hier die schillernde Frage nach der Letztbegründung von Recht aufgeworfen wird, dann verwundert es nicht, dass die Rezeption der Grundnorm variiert, vom Postulat, „das Herz und die Seele der Reinen Rechtslehre“ zu sein, über einen „herausragenden Platz“, bis hin zum „Denkbehelf im Dienste der Selbstreferenz des Rechts“. (shrink)

In this article the relationship between Parliament and courts is examined. The views of writers on sovereignty are considered and criticized. Two criticisms of the sovereignty theorists are made: first, that they wrongly assume that a legal system must attribute supreme legal power to a single source and, second, that they wrongly assume that statutes in the English system constitute absolute exclusionary reasons for decision. It is contended that legal systems, can, and the English Constitution does, contain multiple unranked sources (...) of law. Hart's rule of recognition and Kelsen's Grundnorm are considered and compared, and found to be insufficiently flexible to meet the realities of the English Constitution. A more complicated model of judicial reactions to statutes is proposed, and decisions of the judges that run contrary to the law as set down in the statute are considered. It is contended that the relationship of the courts to Parliament ought not to be considered a purely legal issue; it also has a political dimension. (shrink)

This article examines the different approaches to the relation between law, state and economy in the works of Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt and Evgeny Pashukanis. It begins with Kelsen’s depiction of law as a dynamic and ‘self-regulating’ system of norms, founded on his rejection of ‘dualist’ separations of state and law, before turning to Schmitt and Pashukanis’s respective critiques. For all their differences, both agree Kelsen ignores the historical basis of the law – for Schmitt, the sovereign power of ‘the (...) political’, for Pashukanis, the social relations of commodity exchange. The article responds to these criticisms in a most un-Kelsenian manner, drawing upon historical sociological literature on early modern state formation to cast doubt on both Schmitt and Pashukanis’s historical accounts. It argues that the forms of political power and commodity exchange upon which Schmitt and Pashukanis’s theories rely were historically specific possibilities opened up by the same process of generalisation and depersonalisation of power relations that allowed for an autonomous ‘public’ system of legal norms. Thus, rather than the fixed causal ground for the development of modern law, ‘the political’ and exchange between equals exist in a relation of ‘difference-in-unity’ with the law. The article concludes that Kelsen’s notion of the Grundnorm is best explained as an attempt to capture the new possibilities and responsibilities opened up a normative system whose ultimate justification now lies only within itself. (shrink)

AbstarctBoth the superhero and the supervillain operate outside the law. The former replaces law with a form of substantive justice while the latter seeks to invert or overturn the law in favour of a new grundnorm that best serves their vision for how society should operate. In this paper I consider what this prefix “super” really means in relation to these two classes, drawing on Nietzsche’s original definition of the ubermensch and its relationship to legal concepts such as the (...) state of exception, sovereign power and substantive justice. These relationships will be mapped across a number of examples from the Marvel Studios films—paying particular attention to the antagonists in these movies, both the state and the supervillains, arguing that it is these antagonists who are most illustrative of these concepts in play. (shrink)

At the heart of Arendt's work is her conviction that the European tradition of moral thought has crumbled, not because of the failure of human beings to live up to their standards, or even because of philosophical inadequacy. Rather, the tradition of human dignity has succumbed to the brutal reality of the 20th century, a reality that has undone the tradition by confronting us with acts and behavior that simply fall outside or beyond the reach of these measures or ideals. (...) This chapter explores Arendt's judgment of modern European ideals. To do so it offers two examples of the role of moral and ethical ideals from the new South Africa. The first is the connection between the moral ideal of dignity, as it has been established as the Grundnorm of the entire South African Constitution. The second example is the South African Constitution's commitment of the current South African Constitutional Court to the ideal of humanity as this both demands and promotes a notion of cosmopolitan right. (shrink)

Moritz Heepe entwirft ein Gerechtigkeitsprinzip, das die zwei Gesichtspunkte der Proportionalitat des Wohlergehens zum moralischen Verdienst und der Reziprozitat vereinigt. Es steht damit zum Teil in einer aristotelischen Tradition und weicht erheblich vom liberalen Mainstream der aktuellen Gerechtigkeitsphilosophie ab. Ausgangspunkt ist eine grundliche Bestandsaufnahme der empirischen, speziell psychologischen Erforschung der alltagsmoralischen Gerechtigkeitsidee. Die proportionale Reziprozitat erweist sich dabei als zentrales Merkmal des menschlichen Gerechtigkeitsempfindens. Nach einer koharenten Rekonstruktion der proportionalen Reziprozitat werden verschiedene ihrer systematischen Eigenschaften und Schwierigkeiten diskutiert. Vor dem (...) Hintergrund zentraler Positionen aus der Geschichte der Ethik wird sie zudem den wichtigsten aktuellen Gerechtigkeitskonzeptionen gegenubergestellt. Moritz Heepe leitet aus der abstrakten proportional-reziproken Grundnorm konkrete Handlungsnormen (Heuristiken) ab und legt damit einen hoch innovativen Entwurf philosophischer Gerechtigkeit vor. (shrink)

In dem Aufsatz wird die Leistungsfähigkeit des Potentialitätsarguments am Beispiel des therapeutische Klonen untersucht. Die Diskussion bewegt sich auf drei Ebenen. Zunächst geht es auf fundamentaler Ebene darum, eine Begründung des Lebensrechts von Vernunftwesen zu skizzieren. Dann wird auf einer zweiten Ebene argumentiert, daß der Anwendungsbereich dieser Grundnorm auch nicht aktual ihre Vernunft gebrauchende Wesen einschließt. Diese hier "Erweiterungspostulat" genannte Forderung wird weitgehend intuitiv begründet. Daran anschließend wird das Potentialitätsargument als Versuch interpretiert, dieses Postulat bestmöglich zu rationalisieren. Das so (...) gewonnene Konzept einer "aktiven Potentialität" als Grundlage für das Recht auf Leben wird gegen die gängigen Einwände verteidigt. Auf einer dritten Ebene wird das Potentialitätsargument schließlich auf die beim therapeutischen Klonen anfallenden künstlichen Zygoten bzw. Embryonen angewandt und dafür argumentiert, diese beim gegenwärtigen Stand des Wissens nicht für die Forschung freizugeben. (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)

A rule of recognition for a legal order L seems utterly circular if it refers to behaviour of “officials.” For it takes a rule of recognition to identify who, for L, counts as an official and who does not. I will argue that a Kelsenian account of legal authority can solve the aporia, provided that we accept a, perhaps unorthodox, re‐interpretation of Kelsen's norm theory and his idea of the Grundnorm. I submit that we should learn to see it (...) as the vanishing point rather than the final basis of validity in a legal order. To prepare the ground for this proposal, I will briefly explore the claim to authority that is characteristic of politics. Then I sketch a multi‐layered canonical form of the legal norm, including their “empowering” character (Paulson) in terms of performative operators. I show how it leads to a “perspectival” account of the basic norm. In conclusion, I briefly point to the example of sovereignty and acquis communautair in international law to illustrate this view. (shrink)

Kelsen, Secular Religion, and the Problem of Transcendence An alleged ‘return to religion’ in contemporary western politics (and science) prompted the Trustees of the Hans Kelsen Institut to posthumously publish Kelsen’s critique of the concept of ‘secular religion’ advanced by his early student Eric Voegelin. This paper identifies, firstly, what concept of transcendence is targeted by Kelsen, and argues that his analysis leaves scope for other conceptions. It does so in two steps: it summarizes the arguments against ‘secular religion’ (section (...) 2) and it gives an account of the differences between Voegelin’s and Schmitt’s conception of transcendence – both under attack from Kelsen (section 3). It then submits an alternative account of the relationship between politics and religion in Modernity, building on the concept of a ‘civil religion’ as found in Rousseau’s Social Contract. Giving a Rousseauist slant to Claude Lefort’s analysis of political theology (section 4) it concludes that a thin concept of transcendence is part and parcel of every, in particular a democratic, account of politics. It should be a stronghold against any resurgence of religion that feeds on hypostatized transcendence. In closing (section 5), it is argued that two key concepts in Kelsen’s legal philosophy may well be understood as paradigms of thin transcendence, namely ‘the people’ and ‘the Grundnorm’. (shrink)

This article examines the grappling of modern positivists with the question of legal unity. It presents and contrasts two antagonistic positivist strands—naturalist and normativist—epitomized in the works of Austin and Kelsen, respectively. The two strands correspond to two contrasting models of legal authority—criterial and coherence-based—and they accordingly diverge on the proper explanation of unity. Naturalist, criterial models purport to explain the unity of law based on extra-legal facts alone; normativist, coherence-based models resort strictly to the interrelation of legal elements themselves. (...) Against this backdrop, the article argues that Raz’s work on the subject is torn between Austin and Kelsen: While his naturalist ancestors accounted for legal unity externally, Raz’s prominent works are captivated by the Kelsenian realization that the unity of law must be accounted for internally. Two central upshots follow. First, the analysis provides a litmus test for the (in)ability of naturalist positivism to explain legal unity. Second, Raz’s strategic reliance on Kelsen distorts his work: Both the Grundnorm and validity chains are upended to fit Raz’s naturalist commitments. (shrink)

The paper analyzes the sacred foundations of Western institutional order, moving from an epistemological, historical and legal–aesthetic perspective. Firstly, it identifies an epistemological theory of complexity which, pursuing Hayek’s theory of complexity, Robilant’s notion of informative–normative systems, Popper’s theory of the Worlds, and Dupuy’s theory of endogenous fixed point, will conclusively lead to presenting the hypothesis of World 0 as the World of the foundation of legal thinking, the home of the sacred and the aesthetic. Secondly, it identifies the axiological (...) character of the legal aesthetic as a discipline, a topic that will be taken up in relation to the work of the French historian of canonical law and psychoanalyst Legendre, starting from the analysis of a legal/historiographical context (Corpus Iuris Civilis, Corpus Iuris Canonici, Hobbesian Leviathan, Kelsenian Grundnorm). Thirdly, following Ellul’s thought on secularization, the idea that we now live in a secularized, lay society, lacking in the sacred is revealed as a sort of illusion, the creation of a myth of modernity, only apparently rational. Finally the paper proposes as the task of legal theory the identification of the system of “nomograms” in which the normative message is organized, according to a nonreductionistic approach that forces legal theory to recognize the plurality of the iconic forms of the normative message. The “nomograms” respond to the need of extending the field of legal science to phenomena that the positivist theory of law does not consider important, but which the process of evolution of contemporary society imposes. (shrink)

propose an interpretation of the concept of legal validity as a Kantian category so that the question about the ultimate foundation for the validity of a legal order does not arise, since it makes sense to ask about the reasons for the validity of specific legal norms, but it is illegitimate to apply this concept to the totality of norms of a legal system. Thus, the basic norm is not to be conceived as the final grounding of legal validity but (...) as the ultimate transcendental condition for the cognition of it. I also reformulate the Kelsenian concept of effectiveness in terms of the apriori condition that guarantees the existence of legal systems as the objects of study of the science of law. (shrink)