{"title":"作为民主参与的私法权利——凯尔森谈私法与(经济)民主","authors":"H. Dedek","doi":"10.3138/utlj-2020-0039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In the first edition of his famous treatise Reine Rechtslehre, Einleitung in die Rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik (translated as Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory), Hans Kelsen makes the claim that the existing liberal, property rights-based private law of his era is a 'democratic form of law' and that private law rights are 'political in the same sense as those rights that are usually characterized as political rights.' In this article, I aim to explain how Kelsen developed his theory of private law and private rights within the theoretical and methodological framework of the 'Pure Theory of Law' and its philosophical underpinnings of relativism and 'value neutrality,' culminating in the connection between private law and democracy. I wish to highlight, in particular, the still often underappreciated fact that the Pure Theory saw itself as a critical project, aimed at exposing and exorcizing 'ideology.' To Kelsen's contemporary audiences, drawing a connection between 'capitalist' private law and democracy must have appeared particularly counter-intuitive against the backdrop of one of the most important – if now almost forgotten – political debates of the Weimar era, the debate on 'economic democracy' ('Wirtschaftsdemokratie'). It was a powerful trope in the inter-war period that the capitalist economy and its institutional safeguards – private, labour, commercial, and corporate law – were 'undemocratic.' I submit that Kelsen's statement – flipping the contemporaneous revisionist-socialist rhetoric on its head – may be better understood in the larger context of the precarity of democracy in the Weimar period and especially in the context of a theoretical and political challenge that contrasted the existing 'bourgeois' parliamentary democracy with a 'true,' 'social' democracy that would realize conditions of social and economic justice. By connecting 'capitalistic' law with 'democracy' and 'socialistic' law with 'autocracy,' Kelsen once more underscores that democracy, properly understood as a formal principle, is irreducible to substantive justice.","PeriodicalId":46289,"journal":{"name":"University of Toronto Law Journal","volume":"71 1","pages":"376 - 414"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Private law rights as democratic participation: Kelsen on private law and (economic) democracy\",\"authors\":\"H. Dedek\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/utlj-2020-0039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:In the first edition of his famous treatise Reine Rechtslehre, Einleitung in die Rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik (translated as Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory), Hans Kelsen makes the claim that the existing liberal, property rights-based private law of his era is a 'democratic form of law' and that private law rights are 'political in the same sense as those rights that are usually characterized as political rights.' In this article, I aim to explain how Kelsen developed his theory of private law and private rights within the theoretical and methodological framework of the 'Pure Theory of Law' and its philosophical underpinnings of relativism and 'value neutrality,' culminating in the connection between private law and democracy. I wish to highlight, in particular, the still often underappreciated fact that the Pure Theory saw itself as a critical project, aimed at exposing and exorcizing 'ideology.' To Kelsen's contemporary audiences, drawing a connection between 'capitalist' private law and democracy must have appeared particularly counter-intuitive against the backdrop of one of the most important – if now almost forgotten – political debates of the Weimar era, the debate on 'economic democracy' ('Wirtschaftsdemokratie'). It was a powerful trope in the inter-war period that the capitalist economy and its institutional safeguards – private, labour, commercial, and corporate law – were 'undemocratic.' I submit that Kelsen's statement – flipping the contemporaneous revisionist-socialist rhetoric on its head – may be better understood in the larger context of the precarity of democracy in the Weimar period and especially in the context of a theoretical and political challenge that contrasted the existing 'bourgeois' parliamentary democracy with a 'true,' 'social' democracy that would realize conditions of social and economic justice. By connecting 'capitalistic' law with 'democracy' and 'socialistic' law with 'autocracy,' Kelsen once more underscores that democracy, properly understood as a formal principle, is irreducible to substantive justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Toronto Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"376 - 414\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Toronto Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj-2020-0039\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Toronto Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj-2020-0039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要:汉斯·凯尔森(Hans Kelsen)在其著名论著《法学问题导论》(Reine Rechtslehre, Einleitung In die Rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik)的第一版中声称,他那个时代现存的自由主义的、以财产权为基础的私法是一种“民主形式的法律”,私法权利“与那些通常被定性为政治权利的权利在同一意义上是政治性的”。在这篇文章中,我的目的是解释凯尔森如何在“纯粹法律理论”的理论和方法论框架内发展他的私法和私人权利理论,以及它的相对主义和“价值中立”的哲学基础,最终在私法和民主之间建立联系。我希望特别强调一个仍然经常被低估的事实,即《纯粹理论》将自己视为一个批判性的项目,旨在揭露和驱除“意识形态”。对于凯尔森同时代的读者来说,将“资本主义”私法与民主联系起来,在魏玛时代最重要的政治辩论之一——关于“经济民主”(“wirtschaftsdemocrdemocratic”)的辩论的背景下,肯定显得特别违反直觉。在两次世界大战期间,资本主义经济及其制度保障——私法、劳动法、商法和公司法——是“不民主的”,这是一个强有力的比喻。我认为,凯尔森的声明——颠覆了当时修正主义社会主义的修辞——在魏玛时期民主不稳定的大背景下,尤其是在理论和政治挑战的背景下,可以更好地理解,这种挑战将现有的“资产阶级”议会民主与“真正的”、“社会的”民主进行了对比,后者将实现社会和经济正义的条件。通过将“资本主义”法律与“民主”、“社会主义”法律与“专制”联系起来,凯尔森再次强调,民主,如果被恰当地理解为一种形式原则,是不可简化为实质正义的。
Private law rights as democratic participation: Kelsen on private law and (economic) democracy
Abstract:In the first edition of his famous treatise Reine Rechtslehre, Einleitung in die Rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik (translated as Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory), Hans Kelsen makes the claim that the existing liberal, property rights-based private law of his era is a 'democratic form of law' and that private law rights are 'political in the same sense as those rights that are usually characterized as political rights.' In this article, I aim to explain how Kelsen developed his theory of private law and private rights within the theoretical and methodological framework of the 'Pure Theory of Law' and its philosophical underpinnings of relativism and 'value neutrality,' culminating in the connection between private law and democracy. I wish to highlight, in particular, the still often underappreciated fact that the Pure Theory saw itself as a critical project, aimed at exposing and exorcizing 'ideology.' To Kelsen's contemporary audiences, drawing a connection between 'capitalist' private law and democracy must have appeared particularly counter-intuitive against the backdrop of one of the most important – if now almost forgotten – political debates of the Weimar era, the debate on 'economic democracy' ('Wirtschaftsdemokratie'). It was a powerful trope in the inter-war period that the capitalist economy and its institutional safeguards – private, labour, commercial, and corporate law – were 'undemocratic.' I submit that Kelsen's statement – flipping the contemporaneous revisionist-socialist rhetoric on its head – may be better understood in the larger context of the precarity of democracy in the Weimar period and especially in the context of a theoretical and political challenge that contrasted the existing 'bourgeois' parliamentary democracy with a 'true,' 'social' democracy that would realize conditions of social and economic justice. By connecting 'capitalistic' law with 'democracy' and 'socialistic' law with 'autocracy,' Kelsen once more underscores that democracy, properly understood as a formal principle, is irreducible to substantive justice.