From Wolff to Kelsen: The Transformation of the Notion of Civitas Maxima

P. Langford, Ian Bryan
{"title":"From Wolff to Kelsen: The Transformation of the Notion of Civitas Maxima","authors":"P. Langford, Ian Bryan","doi":"10.1163/9789004390393_006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A significant part of Kelsen’s work is devoted to the theoretical and methodological separation of positive law from natural law. The predominant impression of this process is of a determination to entirely sunder the conceptual framework of positive law from any continuing reliance upon natural law. However, certain of Kelsen’s works involve the appropriation of the notion of civitas maxima from Christian Wolff’s Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractatum (1749). The presence of this notion raises the question of the relationship between Kelsen’s theoretical framework and the conception of natural law developed by Christian Wolff. It is through an examination of the transformation of Wolff’s notion of civitas maxima that an important aspect of Kelsen’s relationship to the natural law tradition becomes apparent. The appropriation will be traced through the initial discussion of civitas maxima in Kelsen’s Das Problem der Souveranitat und die Theorie des Volkerrechts. Beitrag Zu Einer Reinen Rechtslehre (1920/1928), and its further exposition and development in Kelsen’s 1926 Lecture Course (‘Les Rapports de Systeme entre le Droit Interne et le Droit International’) at the l’Academie de droit international, in the Hague. In this manner, the significant methodological divergences between a Kelsenian theory of positive law, as a theory of legal monism according primacy to international law, and the Wolffian theory of natural law, as a theory of the law of nations, will become evident. This methodological divergence, however, should not obscure a more than residual affinity between Kelsen and Wolff concerning the cosmopolitical orientation of their thought.","PeriodicalId":309872,"journal":{"name":"Hans Kelsen and the Natural Law Tradition","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hans Kelsen and the Natural Law Tradition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004390393_006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

A significant part of Kelsen’s work is devoted to the theoretical and methodological separation of positive law from natural law. The predominant impression of this process is of a determination to entirely sunder the conceptual framework of positive law from any continuing reliance upon natural law. However, certain of Kelsen’s works involve the appropriation of the notion of civitas maxima from Christian Wolff’s Jus Gentium Methodo Scientifica Pertractatum (1749). The presence of this notion raises the question of the relationship between Kelsen’s theoretical framework and the conception of natural law developed by Christian Wolff. It is through an examination of the transformation of Wolff’s notion of civitas maxima that an important aspect of Kelsen’s relationship to the natural law tradition becomes apparent. The appropriation will be traced through the initial discussion of civitas maxima in Kelsen’s Das Problem der Souveranitat und die Theorie des Volkerrechts. Beitrag Zu Einer Reinen Rechtslehre (1920/1928), and its further exposition and development in Kelsen’s 1926 Lecture Course (‘Les Rapports de Systeme entre le Droit Interne et le Droit International’) at the l’Academie de droit international, in the Hague. In this manner, the significant methodological divergences between a Kelsenian theory of positive law, as a theory of legal monism according primacy to international law, and the Wolffian theory of natural law, as a theory of the law of nations, will become evident. This methodological divergence, however, should not obscure a more than residual affinity between Kelsen and Wolff concerning the cosmopolitical orientation of their thought.
从沃尔夫到凯尔森:公民至上观念的转变
凯尔森著作的一个重要部分是致力于在理论和方法上将成文法与自然法分离开来。这一过程的主要印象是决心彻底打破成文法的概念框架,不再继续依赖自然法。然而,Kelsen的某些作品涉及到从Christian Wolff的Jus Gentium Methodo scientific Pertractatum(1749)中挪用civitas maxima的概念。这一概念的存在提出了凯尔森的理论框架与克里斯蒂安·沃尔夫提出的自然法概念之间关系的问题。正是通过对沃尔夫“最大限度的公民”概念的转变的考察,凯尔森与自然法传统关系的一个重要方面变得显而易见。这笔拨款将通过凯尔森的《国家问题和人民理论》中关于最大限度公民的初步讨论来追溯。(1920/1928),并在凯尔森1926年在海牙国际法学院的讲座课程(“Les Rapports de Systeme entre le drointernet和le Droit International”)中进一步阐述和发展。以这种方式,凯尔森的成文法理论(一种依据国际法的法律一元论理论)与沃尔夫的自然法理论(一种国际法理论)之间的重大方法论分歧将变得明显。然而,这种方法论上的分歧不应该掩盖凯尔森和沃尔夫之间关于他们思想的世界政治取向的残余亲和力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信