Charakter władzy suwerennej w koncepcjach ładu konstytucyjnego Hansa Kelsena i Carla Schmitta

Filozofia Publiczna i Edukacja Demokratyczna

View Publication Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Charakter władzy suwerennej w koncepcjach ładu konstytucyjnego Hansa Kelsena i Carla Schmitta
The nature of sovereign power in the constitutional concepts of Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt
 
Creator Kaleta, Krzysztof J.
Koźmiński, Krzysztof
 
Subject sovereignty
normativism
authoritarianism
constitution
liberalism
sovereignty
normativism
authoritarianism
constitution
liberalism
 
Description The purpose of this article is to review the controversy between two, potentially most influential legal theorists in 20th century, Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. Their philosophical concepts: Schmittian decisionism and Kelsenian normativism, were based on different assumptions, leading their authors to variant practical conclusions. It is reasonable to infer that the differences in their visions of constitutional order were deeply rooted in different intellectual traditions – not only political (Kelsen’s involvement in defense of liberal democracy unlike Carl Schmitt, whose conservative attitude and critique of liberalism led to support totalitarian state and extreme right wing ideology), but also theological (pantheistic idea of God and fideism; conflict between rationality and faith). So from this perspective „Pure theory of law” can be seen as pantheistic political theology, because „pantheism overcomes the opposition of God and World; the Pure Theory of Law accordingly overcomes the opposition of State and Law”. On the other hand legal philosophy of Carl Schmitt is inspired by the Roman Catholic theological concept of the miracle, whereby God is free from the laws of nature – and in consequence – the sovereign is not bound by the law and may decide exceptions to it.
The purpose of this article is to review the controversy between two, potentially most influential legal theorists in 20th century, Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. Their philosophical concepts: Schmittian decisionism and Kelsenian normativism, were based on different assumptions, leading their authors to variant practical conclusions. It is reasonable to infer that the differences in their visions of constitutional order were deeply rooted in different intellectual traditions – not only political (Kelsen’s involvement in defense of liberal democracy unlike Carl Schmitt, whose conservative attitude and critique of liberalism led to support totalitarian state and extreme right wing ideology), but also theological (pantheistic idea of God and fideism; conflict between rationality and faith). So from this perspective „Pure theory of law” can be seen as pantheistic political theology, because „pantheism overcomes the opposition of God and World; the Pure Theory of Law accordingly overcomes the opposition of State and Law”. On the other hand legal philosophy of Carl Schmitt is inspired by the Roman Catholic theological concept of the miracle, whereby God is free from the laws of nature – and in consequence – the sovereign is not bound by the law and may decide exceptions to it.
 
Publisher Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan
 
Date 2013-12-15
 
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Artykuł naukowy
Artykuł naukowy
 
Format application/pdf
 
Identifier http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/fped/article/view/12938
10.14746/fped.2013.2.2.20
 
Source Filozofia Publiczna i Edukacja Demokratyczna; Tom 2 Nr 2 (2013); 154-168
Public Philosophy & Democratic Education; Vol. 2 No. 2 (2013); 154-168
2299-1875
 
Language pol
 
Relation http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/fped/article/view/12938/12708
 

Contact Us

The PKP Index is an initiative of the Public Knowledge Project.

For PKP Publishing Services please use the PKP|PS contact form.

For support with PKP software we encourage users to consult our wiki for documentation and search our support forums.

For any other correspondence feel free to contact us using the PKP contact form.

Find Us

Twitter

Copyright © 2015-2018 Simon Fraser University Library