Article
The legal conceptions of Hans Kelsen and Eugen Ehrlich: weighting human rights and sovereignty
This paper considers the relevance of the legal conceptions put forward by Eugen Ehrlich and Hans Kelsen to the contemporary debate on human rights and their limits. It is asserted that the conceptions of Ehrlich and Kelsen adopt a multifaceted approach to the law and, at the same time, a philosophical perspective that secures human autonomy and freedom from “great narratives” and governmental intervention. This perspective opens up a variety of opportunities for better understanding the balance between individual and collective interests, and between the significance of rights and sovereignty. Both conceptions are still relevant to debates in the fields of international and constitutional law, and to legal philosophies about the limits of human rights and the epistemic conditions for identifying these rights, and how these rights can the same time lay claim to a universal character while remaining culturally embedded. The principle of relativity that underpins the Pure Theory of Law of Kelsen and the legal sociology of Ehrlich are of particular importance for discussing the “relative universality” of human rights.
In this paper the basic princips of the legal theory of Hans Kelsen are summarized.
A number of puzzles surround Kelsen’s doctrine of the normativity of the law. What, exactly, does it mean? Some writers in analytical jurisprudence have attributed a “justified” or “contentual” normativity thesis to Hans Kelsen. One representative of this view, Joseph Raz, goes so far as to claim that the “justified normativity thesis” defended by Kelsen is an expression of traditional natural law theory. In the present essay it is argued that a “justified” or “contentual” normativity thesis forms no part of Kelsen’s theory, and the point is demonstrated textually. Rather, Kelsen defends a “modal” normativity thesis. Support for this thesis in Kelsen’s writings is drawn from Kelsen’s analogy between causality in the physical sciences and peripheral imputation in the law. The latter, as Kelsen argues, provides the underlying Gesetzlichkeit of the law,* and one explication of the notion, explored in the present essay, draws on a Neokantian notion, namely, Heinrich Rickert’s doctrine of methodological forms. The modal normativity thesis underscores the irreducible character of the law, but without making any claims respecting the content of the law.
A number of puzzles surround Kelsen’s doctrine of the normativity of the law. What, exactly, does it mean? Some writers in analytical jurisprudence have attributed a “justified” or “contentual” normativity thesis to Hans Kelsen. One representative of this view, Joseph Raz, goes so far as to claim that the “justified normativity thesis” defended by Kelsen is an expression of traditional natural law theory. In the present essay it is argued that a “justified” or “contentual” normativity thesis forms no part of Kelsen’s theory, and the point is demonstrated textually. Rather, Kelsen defends a “modal” normativity thesis. Support for this thesis in Kelsen’s writings is drawn from Kelsen’s analogy between causality in the physical sciences and peripheral imputation in the law. The latter, as Kelsen argues, provides the underlying Gesetzlichkeit of the law,* and one explication of the notion, explored in the present essay, draws on a Neokantian notion, namely, Heinrich Rickert’s doctrine of methodological forms. The modal normativity thesis underscores the irreducible character of the law, but without making any claims respecting the content of the law.
In this paper are studied the problems of legal development in the modern societies. This development is examined in the perspective of globalization and modernisation which lead the lawyers to the new understanding of communicative and social dimension of law. In author’s opinion, the contemporary theory of law needs a new approach to law which takes into account social possibilities of the interhuman behaviour and the social reality of law. Introducing such a theory implies a self-referent, operative and normative integrity of law and of the legal communication
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/