论文部分内容阅读
凯尔森批评某些实证主义法学家一味坚持经验主义的立场而忽视了“是”与“应当”之间的分野。他以新康德主义为哲学基础,坚持认为法律具有规范性,并以基础规范来解释法律规范性的来源。他力图在实证主义的框架内,提出一种不同于自然法理论的法律规范性理论。他的法律规范性理论具有下述特点和问题:第一,他的规范性理论使得法律的规范性成为选择性的问题并被形式化了。第二,他将法律规范性的对象局限于官员的做法缩小了法律本应具有的对普通民众的规范性。第三,他关于效力与实效关系以及基础规范的分析存在一定的矛盾和不自洽之处。
Kelsen criticized some of the positivist jurists for insisting on empiricism blindly to the distinction between “yes ” and “should ”. Based on neo-Kantianism, he insisted that the law is normative and explained the source of legal normativeness with the basic norms. He tries to put forward a legal normative theory that is different from the theory of natural law within the framework of positivism. His theory of legal normatives has the following characteristics and problems: First, his normative theory makes the normativity of law optional and formalized. Second, his limitation of the object of legal normatives to officials narrowed the standardization of ordinary people that law should have. Third, his contradictions and inconsistencies in the analysis of the relationship between effectiveness and effectiveness and the basic norms.