Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law Ch.1

Summary

Dans 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

00:00

📚 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.

05:02

🔍 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.

10:03

⚖️ 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.

15:06

🔨 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.

20:06

🔗 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.

Keywords

💡Théorie pure du droit

La 'théorie pure du droit' est le concept central du livre de Hans Kelsen, qui cherche à définir une approche du droit totalement autonome des autres disciplines comme la politique, l'économie ou la sociologie. Il s'agit de considérer le droit en utilisant uniquement des méthodes juridiques et non des raisonnements empruntés à d'autres domaines. Cette pureté permet d'éviter la confusion méthodologique.

💡Norme

La norme, dans la théorie de Kelsen, est un acte ou un comportement qui est commandé, permis ou autorisé par un système juridique. C'est un concept clé car Kelsen affirme que les actes doivent être interprétés à travers les normes juridiques, qui sont au cœur du droit et différencient les actes légaux des actes non légaux.

💡Acte subjectif

Un 'acte subjectif' selon Kelsen est un acte qui peut être perçu par les sens et observé par un individu. Il se distingue des 'actes juridiques objectifs', car il se place dans une perspective individuelle plutôt que dans une perspective systémique ou légale.

💡Acte juridique objectif

Un 'acte juridique objectif' est un acte observé du point de vue du système juridique, qui lui attribue un sens et une signification légale. Kelsen fait la distinction entre les actes perçus par les sens (subjectifs) et les actes interprétés dans le cadre du droit (objectifs), en soulignant l'importance de cette objectivité pour la compréhension du droit.

💡Validité des normes

La validité des normes est un concept selon lequel une norme est effective lorsqu'elle est appliquée par des organes juridiques et généralement respectée par les sujets soumis à ce système juridique. Cette validité peut être personnelle ou matérielle, c'est-à-dire qu'elle peut s'appliquer à des personnes ou à des sphères spécifiques d'activités humaines, comme la politique ou l'économie.

💡Sanction coercitive

La 'sanction coercitive' est essentielle dans la théorie de Kelsen pour différencier le droit des autres ordres sociaux comme la morale ou la religion. La coercition implique l'utilisation ou la menace de violence pour assurer le respect des normes légales, ce qui centralise le pouvoir de coercition dans l'État et distingue le droit des simples règles morales.

💡Système juridique

Le 'système juridique' dans la théorie de Kelsen est un ordre social structuré par des normes qui régissent le comportement humain. Ce système est autonome et distinct des autres ordres sociaux comme la morale ou la religion, et il se caractérise par l'application de sanctions coercitives pour garantir la conformité aux normes.

💡Monopole de la violence

Le 'monopole de la violence' désigne le fait que, dans la société moderne, seule l'État détient le pouvoir légitime d'utiliser la force ou la violence pour faire respecter la loi. Ce concept découle d'une évolution historique où la violence, auparavant largement répandue entre individus, a été centralisée pour assurer une sécurité collective.

💡Jugement légal

Le 'jugement légal' dans la théorie de Kelsen est le processus par lequel un juge décide si une norme a été respectée ou non, en appliquant de manière rationnelle les normes juridiques. Ce jugement est considéré comme objectif et impartial, détaché des valeurs personnelles du juge, et basé uniquement sur la conformité ou non-conformité à la norme.

💡Ordre social

L''ordre social' fait référence à la structure créée par les normes qui régissent les interactions humaines. Selon Kelsen, le droit est un ordre social car il façonne les comportements humains par des normes. Toutefois, contrairement aux ordres moraux ou religieux, l'ordre juridique se distingue par son caractère coercitif et sa dépendance à l'État.

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