Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law Ch.1
Summary
TLDRDans cet épisode du podcast 'Undisciplined', le présentateur aborde le premier chapitre du livre de Hans Kelsen 'Théorie pure du droit'. Il explore les fondements du droit, en soulignant la distinction entre actes subjectifs et objectifs, et l'importance des normes dans la théorie juridique. Kelsen rejette l'influence de disciplines extérieures comme la politique ou la sociologie dans l'étude du droit. Le rôle central des sanctions coercitives et la monopolisation de la violence par l'État sont également des thèmes clés. Enfin, l'orateur met en avant l'importance de la neutralité dans le jugement juridique.
Takeaways
- 📚 Le podcast "The Undisciplined" est une série de lectures qui explore les théories juridiques.
- 👨🏫 L'épisode introductif présente l'objectif de la série et explique pourquoi les livres choisis sont importants.
- 📖 La première lecture traite du livre "A Pure Theory of Law" de Hans Kelsen, publié en allemand en 1934 et révisé en 1960.
- 🌟 Kelsen est considéré comme un pilier du mouvement positiviste en théorie du droit.
- 📘 Le livre cherche à établir une théorie du droit pure, c'est-à-dire indépendante des autres disciplines.
- 🔍 Kelsen distingue deux types d'actes : les actes subjectifs, observables par les sens, et les actes objectifs, observés du point de vue du système juridique.
- 📜 Il soutient que les normes juridiques sont des actes commandés, autorisés ou permis, et qu'elles émanent souvent de coutumes.
- 🏛️ La légitimité des normes est déterminée par leur application par les organes juridiques et leur obéissance par les sujets du système juridique.
- 📉 Kelsen souligne que les valeurs du système juridique sont arbitraires et projetées depuis l'extérieur du système.
- 👮♂️ La sanction juridique est une caractéristique essentielle du droit, distinguant le droit des autres ordres sociaux.
- 🔫 La coercition est un élément clé de la sanction juridique, contrastant avec les sanctions morales qui ne sont pas coercitives.
Q & A
Quelle est l'idée principale du livre 'La théorie pure du droit' de Hans Kelsen?
-L'idée principale du livre est de proposer une théorie du droit pure, c'est-à-dire une étude du droit qui se concentre uniquement sur les méthodes et raisonnements juridiques sans se mélanger aux disciplines extérieures comme la politique, la sociologie ou l'économie.
Pourquoi Kelsen appelle-t-il sa théorie une 'théorie positive du droit'?
-Kelsen la qualifie de théorie positive car elle repose sur des méthodes juridiques pour analyser le droit, et non sur des raisonnements issus d'autres disciplines comme la morale ou la philosophie.
Quelle distinction Kelsen fait-il entre les actes subjectifs et les actes objectifs en droit?
-Les actes subjectifs sont ceux qui peuvent être perçus par les sens, réalisés par des individus, tandis que les actes objectifs sont ceux qui sont interprétés à travers le prisme du système juridique, leur donnant une signification juridique.
Comment Kelsen définit-il une norme juridique?
-Une norme est un acte ou un comportement qui est commandé, permis ou autorisé par le système juridique. Elle distingue les actions légales des actions ordinaires par l'autorité qui les soutient.
Quelle est la différence entre une commande d'un gangster et celle d'un collecteur d'impôts selon Kelsen?
-La différence est que le collecteur d'impôts agit sous l'autorité d'une norme juridique, tandis que le gangster n'a pas de norme légale derrière son ordre.
Comment les normes juridiques sont-elles créées selon Kelsen?
-Les normes juridiques peuvent émerger par la coutume, lorsque des comportements récurrents entre individus ou groupes créent des attentes partagées, qui finissent par devenir des normes reconnues.
Qu'est-ce que la 'validité' d'une norme selon Kelsen?
-Une norme est considérée valide si elle est appliquée par les organes juridiques et généralement respectée par les sujets du système juridique. La validité peut être personnelle ou matérielle, limitée ou illimitée.
Pourquoi Kelsen affirme-t-il que les jugements juridiques doivent être neutres?
-Kelsen estime que les jugements juridiques doivent être neutres car ils reposent uniquement sur la conformité ou non à une norme, sans se fonder sur des jugements de valeur extérieurs au droit.
Comment Kelsen distingue-t-il les sanctions légales des sanctions morales?
-Les sanctions légales sont imposées par la société à travers le système juridique et sont justifiées par des normes sociales. En revanche, les sanctions morales, comme le désaveu social, sont aussi sociales mais n'ont pas de fondement juridique.
Pourquoi la coercition est-elle centrale dans la théorie du droit de Kelsen?
-La coercition est essentielle car elle distingue le droit des autres ordres sociaux, comme la morale ou la religion, et établit un lien direct entre le droit et l'État, qui détient le monopole de la violence légitime.
Outlines
📚 Introduction à la théorie pure du droit de Kelsen
Ce premier épisode de la série de podcasts sur la théorie pure du droit introduit l'ouvrage de Hans Kelsen. L'épisode commence par une présentation générale de l'objectif du livre et de l'importance de Kelsen dans la philosophie du droit, notamment dans le positivisme juridique. L'auteur explique que cette première édition en allemand, publiée en 1934, a été révisée et traduite en anglais en 1967. Le chapitre 1, intitulé 'La loi et la nature', pose les fondements méthodologiques de la théorie de Kelsen, qui distingue le droit des autres disciplines comme la politique ou l'économie, et explique pourquoi il faut analyser le droit par des méthodes juridiques pures.
🔍 Actes subjectifs vs Actes objectifs dans le droit
Kelsen distingue deux types d'actes : les actes subjectifs, qui peuvent être perçus par les sens, et les actes juridiques objectifs, observés du point de vue du système juridique. Il explique que l'interprétation des actes passe par des normes, qui projettent un sens juridique sur les actions. Les normes sont des comportements commandés, permis ou autorisés, et bien que la société soit pleine de commandes, toutes les commandes ne constituent pas des normes juridiques. La clé pour distinguer une commande juridique, comme celle du percepteur d'impôts, de celle d'un gangster, réside dans la norme qui la soutient.
⚖️ Les normes et leur effet dans la société
Les normes juridiques naissent souvent de la coutume, et bien qu'elles soient créées par des individus, elles acquièrent une existence indépendante. Kelsen souligne l'importance de l'effectivité des normes, c'est-à-dire leur application par les organes juridiques et leur obéissance générale. Les normes peuvent être valides de manière personnelle ou matérielle, et elles peuvent être appliquées à une durée ou un nombre de personnes limité, ou universellement. Les valeurs dans le système juridique se résument à la conformité ou non à une norme, et ces valeurs sont arbitraires et projetées de l'extérieur du système juridique.
🔨 Jugement juridique : conformité aux normes
Dans un jugement juridique, le juge n'a pas à projeter ses propres valeurs ; son rôle se limite à déterminer si une norme a été respectée ou non. Ce jugement se veut neutre, basé sur des processus intellectuels rationnels et non sur des notions de bien ou de mal. Le droit est un ordre social car il structure le comportement humain, mais il est aussi purement social, à la différence des ordres naturels comme la logique. Les sanctions dans le droit sont socialement imminentes, c'est-à-dire que la société, et non une autorité transcendante comme Dieu ou la nature, punit l'infraction.
🔗 Coercition et violence dans le système juridique
Kelsen accorde une grande importance à la coercition dans le système juridique, qu'il distingue des autres types de sanctions, comme celles des mœurs ou des religions. La coercition légale est centralisée dans l'État, qui détient le monopole de la violence. Il cite Saint Augustin pour poser la question de ce qui différencie un État d'une bande de voleurs, et conteste l'idée que la justice soit la réponse. Pour Kelsen, la légitimité d'un État repose sur une norme fondamentale qui justifie tout l'ordre juridique, mais il insiste sur le fait que la sanction coercitive est ce qui distingue fondamentalement le droit d'autres systèmes normatifs.
🚨 La coercition et le monopole de l'État sur la violence
Kelsen conclut en explorant la nature coercitive du droit, en soulignant que la violence centralisée dans l'État est essentielle à la sécurité sociale. Contrairement aux sanctions morales ou religieuses, la coercition légale est exercée par un juge impartial à travers des processus rationnels. Il évoque également la possibilité que des gangs violents, s'ils parviennent à contrôler un territoire de manière stable, puissent évoluer pour ressembler à des États. Kelsen met l'accent sur la nature coercitive de la sanction légale comme étant au cœur de la distinction entre un ordre juridique et d'autres types d'ordres sociaux.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Théorie pure du droit
💡Norme
💡Acte subjectif
💡Acte juridique objectif
💡Validité des normes
💡Sanction coercitive
💡Système juridique
💡Monopole de la violence
💡Jugement légal
💡Ordre social
Highlights
Introduction to the podcast and reading series on Hans Carlson's 'A Pure Theory of Law'.
The significance of 'A Pure Theory of Law' in 20th-century legal philosophy, particularly within the positivist movement.
Carlson's argument that law should be studied through legal reasoning and not mixed with methodologies from other disciplines like politics or sociology.
Introduction of the concept of 'pure theory' of law, which focuses on law as a distinct discipline without external influences.
Carlson’s definition of law as a set of acts, distinguishing between subjective acts (perceivable by senses) and objective legal acts (viewed from the legal system's perspective).
Carlson’s key concept of interpreting acts through norms, defining norms as behaviors that are commanded, permitted, or authorized.
The distinction between everyday commands (e.g., gangster's threat) and legal commands, which are backed by norms.
The traditional account of norms emerging through custom, and how norms develop an independent existence beyond the individuals involved.
The concept of 'effectivity' of norms, determining their validity by how they are applied and obeyed within a legal system.
Carlson’s focus on compliance and non-compliance with norms as the only values that a legal system can assess.
The objectivity of legal judgment, where the only relevant question is whether a norm has been complied with, without introducing personal values.
Carlson's assertion that law is a social order, distinct from natural orders like logic, and entirely constructed by human society.
The difference between transcendental sanctions (rooted in morals or religion) and socially imminent sanctions (rooted in society).
Carlson’s emphasis on coercive sanctions as a defining feature of legal orders, distinguishing them from other social orders like morals or religion.
The monopolization of violence by the state as a means of maintaining security, according to Carlson's Hobbesian viewpoint.
Transcripts
[Music]
hello welcome to the undisciplined
podcast reading series
there's a introductory video explaining
everything that this series is about why
we're doing it
which books we're going to read how it's
structured
so now this is the first substantive
episode first release
of Hans Carlson's a pure theory of Lord
chapter one we're going to do a video
for each chapter this is the first one
the chapter is called law in nature
so
what the idea is is that I'll discuss
slowly what is going on in this chapter
my reading of it which I think is
perhaps
a little bit different an emphasis from
the standard reading that you probably
got in your undergraduate Philosophy of
Law course
but yes why a pure theory of law
this is really the book
that stands as the kind of monument in
my opinion of the positivist movement in
legal Theory
it's a work that if we talk about modern
or 20th century legal philosophy I think
we cannot get around this one we have to
go through it
it's also in our series chronologically
the first one and I think that's why we
do it first is so that it
we can see how it influenced the books
that came subsequently
the book a pure theory of law the first
edition
came out in German in 1934
but in 1960 Carlson released a much
more expanded much revised much more
thorough version
which was released seven years later
1967 in English translation by Max
Knight and this is the version that
we're reading here
so this chapter
Carlson
Lays
down a lot of the groundwork a lot of
definitional work being done a lot of
distinctions being drawn and some of
them kept some of them discarded
kind of the things you would expect the
first chapter to have
going forward into the rest of the book
he gives us justification for his
choices his methodological choices that
he makes
so
the title of the book already gives away
a big pot of Carlson's idea namely a
pure theory of law what is a pure Theory
imply what is Purity in this sense
so calcin has a problem with
the prior study of legal Theory
in that he says law is often
studied through the lens of other
disciplines
at least when we're doing Theory
building
he names politics sociology economy and
he says that's all good and well and
these fields have something useful to
say and that they're our insights to be
gained from it but
a pure legal Theory cannot get mixed up
with the methodologies of other
disciplines
so in order to avoid methodological
confusion
a pure theory of law should use legal
methods legal reasoning not reasoning
from other disciplines in order to
arrive at its conclusions
this
is also why he says in the very first
sentence he says this is a positive
theory of law
so a positive theory of law means that
it uses legal methods and the object of
the study
what this methodology is applied to
is law law is our object
so what does that mean
Carlson says that
what we're studying in the broader sense
are Acts
and he distinguishes immediately between
two different kinds of Acts
he says acts that can be perceived by
the senses the normal he calls these
subjective acts these always human acts
by the way not the non-human or the
natural world
laws strictly a human or social endeavor
so we have
acts subjective
perceivable by the senses and then on
the other hand we have objective legal
Acts
these two can overlap of course but
where
subjective acts are from the position
from the observing position of perhaps a
single person
object of legal Acts or acts that are
observed from the point of view of the
legal system and legal meaning is
projected and received onto those Acts
so this is what he
places as the fundamental object of a
pure theory of law
which begs the question how do we know
the difference between a
subjective act and an object of legal
Act
he says that we arrive at this answer
through interpretation
fair enough but
what do we interpret through we need a
lens when we're observing and
interpreting
Carlson's answer to that is that we
interpret acts through norms
and Norms this is the key word for him
now again
this begs another question what is a
norm
a norm
is act or behavior which is commanded
permitted or authorized
and he quickly admits that Society is
full of commands not just legal
normative commands
we're always commanding
in in every day so
he juxtaposes a legal command or a legal
Norm with the command of a gangster I
like to picture a high woman who stops
you on the highway and says your money
or your life which is a form of Command
right an everyday kind of command
why is that not a legal Act
why does that contravene the law and
it's not a legal command
he he puts this in opposition to
the income tax collector who also comes
to you and says your money or
or something else imprisonment or
whatever
what distinguishes these two
Carlson says that the gangster does not
have a norm behind him
the government tax collector has a norm
behind him so it's the norm that
distinguishes these commands
so Norms often command but not all
commands are norms
so
how do Norms come about
one of the ways which Carlson provides
us is a very traditional
account of norms and that is namely
through custom
so we know what customers so
two persons or two groups or communities
act towards each other in a certain way
and through the action and through their
mental exercise
enormous created an expectation and
enormous created
even after the original people involved
in this process have passed away
we see the norm still existing so Norms
that emerge this way have an independent
life or existence outside of the
individuals that make them
you know we could say it's not pure
contract but
something bigger than that something
more permanent
these kind of norms
but how do we recognize Norm what
that's how it comes about but how do we
measure the normless or Norm worthiness
of something
so Carlson gives quite a few
requirements of what a norm should have
he calls this the effectivity of norms
is one sense of that and how do we know
that a norm is effective
he gives at least two reasons he says
firstly Norms are applied by legal
organs
and that it is also generally obeyed by
subjects to that legal system
laws can be personally valid they can be
materially valid materially being not
applicable to persons but applicable
within a sphere of human activity such
as politics economy
[Music]
Etc
Norms can also be
valid in a limited sense or unlimited
sense
uh you know for all time and for
everyone or in a limited time for a
limited amount of people or even though
or even just one person
so quickly the idea of
values come up in the chapter
so in applying Norms you know a decision
has to be made Carlson talks here about
values and he says the only value
that we can use if we want to approach
law and Norms in a scientific or
positivistic or pure way
is the negative and positive value
attached to
non-compliance and compliance of a norm
so those are the only values that
a real scientific lawyer should
concern himself with
has a norm been followed that's a plus
has a norm not been followed that's a
negative these are the only values that
we're
capable of judging
norms
and laws
so in this sense the values of the legal
system are not inherent but they're
completely arbitrary and they are
projected from outside of the legal
system right so we cannot say legally
speaking whether
a certain law
is
of high or low value
this has to come from outside all the
legal system can say is the law has been
complied with or it's not been complied
with this is the only positive and
negative values known from within the
legal system
this also has important implications for
legal judgment let's say the judge in a
court right
he's not projecting his own values
hopefully we know that's a problematic
statement ideally speaking or
scientifically speaking if you like
what does a judge do he only at the end
of the day even after hearing arguments
and saying that there are different
interpretations of the law
he only has to decide has a norm been
complied with or not
and if it's been complied with it's fine
not then there's sanction that follows
punishment that follows
so this is important because it means
that
this decision this value-free value of
the legal system compliance
non-compliance
it's a simple factual question
it's not about good or bad or good or
evil
or right or wrong it's simply
judgment legal judgment is a conclusion
that can be reached rationally through
the application of a intellectual
process
in this sense judgments are neutral
we should all be able to agree ideally
on what a judge decides
because we just refer back to the law
system to the Norms that's all whether
it's good or bad
is a different topic it's not a top it's
a topic for ethicists not for lawyers
so what this also means is is that law
is a social order it's an order because
it structures human behavior
but it's social because it's it's
completely socially constructed in the
sense think about it if we don't have
values referencing outside of the legal
system
it means it's
a social order humans made all of this
morals religions these also qualify as
social orders
we can distinguish this from natural
orders such as the example that Carlson
uses is logic logic has Norms there are
certain things that are logical and
true and logically false
this does not originate or emerge
strictly from the human mind that this
is found outside in nature out outside
of the social
unlike the law morals completely social
so this brings us to sanctions a norm
has to be sanctioned
so
he distinguishes here between two kinds
of sanctions he talks about
transcendental sanctions this is again
outside of society a transcendental
sanction means the justification for the
punishment comes from
morals or from religion or some idea of
nature or our terrible pop cultural
understanding of karma
on the other hand we have socially
imminent sanctions
these originate completely within
Human Society
so legal sanctions
it's not when you go to prison
it's not God punishing you it's not
nature punishing you
it's Society punishing you
so the legal system has no values
outside of its own compliance or not
and its sanctions
find their justification from within the
legal system nowhere else
in this sense moral sanctions are also
socially imminent according to Carlson
because moral disapproval is a social
construct it's not natural
so at this point this is where I want to
diverge a bit from the typical reading
of calcin
because
you know Carlson's name is very often
equated totally with his idea of the gun
Norm the basic Norm from which all Norms
as they refer infinitely back to each
other
that chain is broken
by
introducing the Google Norm the basic
Norm that justifies everything that
follows from that you know this is a
typical kind of solution to a problem if
we have a paradox
where does this law get its
justification from that law from that
law from that law and eventually you
have this Paradox where
you can infinitely regress
and one way to break a paradox like that
is to appeal to a value higher than
hierarchically higher than the level on
which you're operating at that moment
and Carlson does that by referring to
the gun Norm which is the norm that kind
of breaks open this infinite Loop and
puts a you know the bug stops there
and this is what he's been famous for
but I don't think this is the key here
for me in this chapter
what I think is more interesting
and which I think is he spends way more
time talking about at least in chapter
one is the coercive nature
of legal sanction
so as We Know
sanctions can exist in
Society in a moral sense
taboos or being shunned from society
polite Society
breaking of etiquette you don't get
invited to parties perhaps
this also happens when you study legal
positivism
but for calcin coercion does not exist
in those kind of sanctions
it is only in the law that we find real
coercive sanctioning violence
so how did this arise
he starts from a very hobbsian starting
point
saying that
violence was
widespread and anyone could
enact violence on others and that this
was a threat to Social Security
so in order to increase Security Mutual
Security within a society
violence had to be taken out of the
hands of most people
and centralized and monopolized in one
place and in this way the average man
becomes less and less violent
for his own security
until all this violence is monopolized
in one organ
namely the state
some forms of personal violence have
remained such as well blood feuds are
gone but took much longer than other
forms self-defense is still allowed in
many cases so not all Vines has been
monopolized but of the vast majority of
it
at this point Carlson brings up Saint
Augustine who asks the question what's
the difference between
the threats and violence of a robber
gang compared to the threats and
violence of a state
but no seriously what's the difference
and
Augustine's answer to this was that the
state has Justice on its side the rubber
gang doesn't
for Carlson as you might Intuit this is
not a satisfactory answer firstly
Justice is a transcendental value
Carlson is not sure what Justice is
so he says that cannot be the difference
so what is the difference between the
state and a and a gang
he gives a few answers to this none of
which satisfy me entirely
he says in the first case that
when a robber gang threatens you to do
something they threaten you with
violence
give your money or else
that or else
is a command saying that violence will
be inflicted
whereas in the legal system then
sanctioning Norm is an ought to it's not
a promise of direct
violence
this is not entirely satisfying to me
secondly he says that
the legal systems
sanction is backed by a gun Norm the
robber gangs not
again
uh it's a kind of a circular argument to
me
but he would say
the point is that the legal system or
the state has a good Norm behind it
finally and this this one I buy the most
but also not completely
he says that the advantage that
the legal system has in its sanctions
it's coercion
is this idea of objectivity over
subjectivity in other words that
legal sanctions and coercion is
applied
and decided upon by a judge whose
impartial and objective to your certain
case he doesn't stand anything to gain
directly I guess
and the point is that he judges as we
said through a rational
process of applying
existing Norms he doesn't have skin in
the game he's just going by this
positive negative value inherent in the
legal system
on the other hand Carlson goes on to say
that the
a robber gang which can be stable enough
can control the territory long enough
can
protect itself from external threats and
that it's
internal threats and and and Norms are
being basically effectively followed by
the people living there
that such a gank could
graduate to the point of
estate although he never actually says
that directly he uses the example of
pirate states in the past to say that
they were state-like but not completely
States
um
which I mean this again begs the
question at what point
uh does a robber gang become a state for
Kelson I'm not sure maybe we'll see it
in later chapters although I doubt it
so finally I think the point that I'm
trying to emphasize here is that
rather than the Goon Norm
the aspect of coercion seems much more
important in this first chapter for
Kelson
he also gives his reasons for this he
says in the first place that it's
coercive sanctions that distinguishes
the legal order from other orders from
moral orders religious orders whatever
so coercion is a defining feature of the
law
the second point is is that it's through
this coercion this Monopoly on violence
that we can make a direct and strong
link between the law and the state
in Carlson's definition of the law
the state is essential and coercion
violence is essential
anyway that's it for chapter one
I'm looking forward to doing chapter two
next
just to finish off with here is a list
of a lot of the kind of binary
distinctions that Kelson draws in this
chapter maybe it's a nice guide if
you're reading it by yourself to keep
that next to you and refer back and
forth between that to see exactly kind
of the these branching distinctions that
he keeps making in this chapter laying
out the definitions and the work and the
assumptions that we're going to deal
with in the future
so thank you very much and
have a lovely day and I'll see you next
week thank you
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law Ch.2
Interview Benoit Frydman - Partie 1
Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law Ch.3
CEJM - Th4 Chap3 : Le numérique dans l'entreprise et la protection des personnes
ROUSSEAU - L'homme est bon par nature
Le droit de propriété des biens corporels et incorporels (Séquence 4.2 - 1ère STMG)
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)