Hans Kelsen and the Logic of Legal Systems

Michael S. Green
{"title":"Hans Kelsen and the Logic of Legal Systems","authors":"Michael S. Green","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.455620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hans Kelsen's formalism and Kantianism have been barriers to an appreciation of his work in the United States. This article offers a sympathetic reading of Kelsen's approach in legal theory by drawing analogies between it and the writings of Gottlob Frege. For Frege, the subject matter of logic is the necessary relations between linguistic meanings. These relations can be seen as necessary only on the assumption that linguistic meanings are abstract objects that cannot be reduced to anything empirical. For this reason Frege rejected psychologism in logic. Like many other late-nineteenth century anti-psychologists, Frege offered a Neo-Kantian account of how non-empirical knowledge of meanings is possible. Analogously, Kelsen argued that legal meanings are abstract objects. Kelsen proposed an analysis of the necessary relations between legal meanings - a logic of legal systems - that is similar to the Fregean logician's account of language. And like the logical anti-psychologists, Kelsen offered a Neo-Kantian account of how knowledge of legal meanings is possible. Although I do not undertake to defend the details of Kelsen's approach, I hope to make his third way between empiricist and natural law theories approaches in jurisprudence more understandable and attractive to American audiences.","PeriodicalId":80402,"journal":{"name":"Alabama law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alabama law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.455620","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Hans Kelsen's formalism and Kantianism have been barriers to an appreciation of his work in the United States. This article offers a sympathetic reading of Kelsen's approach in legal theory by drawing analogies between it and the writings of Gottlob Frege. For Frege, the subject matter of logic is the necessary relations between linguistic meanings. These relations can be seen as necessary only on the assumption that linguistic meanings are abstract objects that cannot be reduced to anything empirical. For this reason Frege rejected psychologism in logic. Like many other late-nineteenth century anti-psychologists, Frege offered a Neo-Kantian account of how non-empirical knowledge of meanings is possible. Analogously, Kelsen argued that legal meanings are abstract objects. Kelsen proposed an analysis of the necessary relations between legal meanings - a logic of legal systems - that is similar to the Fregean logician's account of language. And like the logical anti-psychologists, Kelsen offered a Neo-Kantian account of how knowledge of legal meanings is possible. Although I do not undertake to defend the details of Kelsen's approach, I hope to make his third way between empiricist and natural law theories approaches in jurisprudence more understandable and attractive to American audiences.
汉森与法律制度逻辑
在美国,汉斯·凯尔森的形式主义和康德主义一直是欣赏他作品的障碍。本文通过将凯尔森的法理方法与戈特洛布·弗雷格的著作进行类比,对凯尔森的法理方法进行了同情的解读。在弗雷格看来,逻辑的主题是语言意义之间的必然关系。只有假设语言意义是抽象的对象,不能归结为任何经验的东西,这些关系才能被看作是必要的。因此,弗雷格拒绝逻辑中的心理主义。像许多其他19世纪晚期的反心理学家一样,弗雷格提出了一种新康德主义的解释,说明非经验的意义知识是如何可能的。类似地,Kelsen认为法律意义是抽象的对象。Kelsen提出了一种法律意义之间必要关系的分析——一种法律体系的逻辑——类似于法国逻辑学家对语言的解释。和逻辑反心理学家一样,凯尔森提供了一种新康德主义的解释,说明法律意义的知识是如何可能的。虽然我不打算为凯尔森方法的细节辩护,但我希望使他在法理学中经验主义和自然法理论之间的第三条道路更容易理解,对美国读者更有吸引力。
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