Index of Subject

analytical legal theory 16 19 a priori 112 argument from correctness (see also correctness, claim to, argument from principles at correctness thesis) 34-9. 77. 127

objections 36-9 positivist’s strategies 32 statement of 35-6

argument from injustice (see also connection thesis, Radbruch's legal theory) 28-31, 40-68.

contrast to argument from principles 68. 70, 1U6 definition 25 individual norms 28-31, 40-62. 65-6. 92 observer 29-31 participant 40 Radbruch’s formula 28-31, 40-62. 65-7 candour 59 61 clarity 43-5 democracy 56 dispensability 56-9 effectiveness 45 51 language 41-3 legal certainty 51-3, 65

relativism 53-5 statement of 40

summary of debate 62 legal systems 40. 62-8, 92 collapse thesis 66-8, 92 extension thesis 64-6. 92 Kriele 62_6 other names for 28n.50 argument from principles 68-81. 102-5, 127 balancing 70, 72-4 contrast to argument from injustice 68, 70, 106 correctness thesis 70,76-81 participant 77, 8pound;1 distinction between rules and

principles 70-1, 72n.l36 incorporation thesis 70 4 morality thesis 70, 74 6 strong version 25 weak version 25 necessary connection of law and morality 69-81, 691L127

'open area' (see also “doubtful case’) 68-70, 72-7, 129

Augustine's robber-band

argument 33 n.63 Austin’s legal theory 17. 69

Basic Law 6. 71. 77

art. 1, para. 1 9 n.l 9. 57 n.l 09.

71H.13O

art. L para.3 7. 7 n.l?.

art. 2. para.l 9n.l9. 71 n.l31

Basic Law (coni.)

art. 3, para. I 21 n.132

art. X para.3 7. 7nJ 3

art. 20. paras. 1=3 Zin. 133

art. 20, para.3 8, 8n,16, 10, 57 n J 09

art. 28, para.l 21 nJ 33

art. 79. para.3 57. 57 nJ09

art. 100, para.l 9. 9 nn J 8-19. W

art. 103. para.2 56, 56ilW6

art. 116. para.2 6, 6n.7 basic norm (see also Hart’s legal theory, Kant's legal theory. Kelson's legal theory, validity of law) 1^ 88, 95-123

definition 96

Dworkin’s objection 102 ’is’-'ought’ 96-102, 105.

Ross’s objection 99

BGB 2jid2

BGH 61UH

BGHSt Zu. 14.221153 BGHZ 611 JO, 29n.53 flrer/G’E 6nn.8-9, 7n.ll.

9n,17, nJ9, 28 n.52, 29n.53, 48n.90, 52n,96, 68 n. 121, 70 n.128

category 105, LUI

citizenship decision 5-7. 28-30.

56

coercion 15. [8,46,86, 128 cognition

Kant U12

‘ought’ 111

collapse thesis 66 8

command

Austin 12

'definitive' 70

subsumption 70

optimizing 70. 77 balancing 70 competence 3-4 n.3 compliance 14 16 concept of law (see also argument from correctness, argument from injustice, argument from principles, connection thesis, separation thesis) 3-5. 3n.l, 11 81, 127 30 analytical legal theory 16-19 Austin 17, 17nn.27-30 basic positions 3=4 Bierling 16. 16n.25 claim to correctness 34,

127

command 12

connection between law and morality 23

correctness of content 13. 85. 93, 128

critique of positivistic 20-81 efficacy 13, 85. 93, 127-8 elements of 13, 85, 93. 128 Geiger 15. 15 n.23

Hart 18-19

Holmes 15, 1511.2.4 injustice 127 institutional context 24 issuance 13, 85.93, 127-8 Kelsen 18. 18 nn.31-2, n.34 Luhmann 16, 16n.26 non-positivistic 3-4. 56 normative expectation 16 observer 16 participant 16, 25. 127 positivistic 3-4. 14-19 presupposed 5 principles 127

Radbruch 45 recognition Hi role of separation, connection theses 20

significance 5—10 validity 23 4, 27, 127 Weber 15. 15n.22

Concordat decision 68 n. 121 connection thesis (see also argument from injustice) 4. 21 8 arguments 2.0-3 analytical or conceptual 21.22-3,30 normative 21-3. 30 conceptual framework 23-7 classifying, qualifying 26, 28,30,79

combinations 26 7 legal system 24-5, 31 -5 necessity 26 observer, participant 25.

27-35 validity 23-4. 22 Hoerster 42 moral requirements 31 participant 35-81 principles 24 strong version 42 legal certainly 51-2 weak version 47-9 legal certainty 52-3 Constitution. German, see Basic Law

constitution 36 8, 67, 96. 100-1, 103-6, 127-8

criterion of legal validity 105-6

defects 36-8

conceptual 37-8 conventional 32 moral 32 technical 36

validity of 96, 100-1, 128 contra legem 8.

balancing 73 4 claim to justifiability 78-80 classifying significance 26.

36, 127

constitution 36-8 definition of law 127 ideal dimension 81, 128,

130

judicial decision 39. 58.73, 77 legal system 34-5, 63, 127 participant 39, 127 qualifying significance 26. 36.

127

Radbruch 34 n.64 correctness of content 13, 85, 87, 128

correctness thesis, see argument from principles

Court of Appeals. Bamberg 59-60

damages 8

democracy 56. 56 il 104. 71.

71 n. 133, 75, 77

democracy (coni.)

Basic Law 71, 71 n.133, 77 judicial review 56 ‘denaturalization’ 2 denunciation case 59-60, 59n.ll2

desuetudo (derogation through customary law) 91

‘dominance criterion' 90,

90 nJ 48, 128

‘doubtful case’ (see also argument from principles) 10, 69. 72-7

efficacy 3-4, 7. 13-18, 20, 89-91, 127-9 empowerment 3n,3, 67-9, 96 Enabling Act, 24 March 1933 68n,121

equality 71, 71 n.132. 77 expedience 22. 30. 40-2. 114 extension thesis 64 6

external aspect 14-16 combined with internal 14, 14n.21

Federal Constitutional Court (see also BVerfGE) 5-7, 8-9, 9 nn. 17-19. 20. 29. 48.52. 56, 6811.121, 69

Federal Supreme Court (see also BGH) 8, 29

forms of intuition 109,

10911.187

formula, see Radbruch’s legal theory

Fw/zw-principle 78.78ii.14i)

Fuller’s legal theory 24n.46. 31

German Civil Code sec. 253 8-9 gesetz/iches Unrechf see statutory injustice, statutory lawlessness 'Gesetz und Rechf 8. UnLH

Hart’s legal theory 18 19 argument from clarity 3_5 basic norm critique 98-100, 102

denunciation case 59-61 nulla poena sine lege 59 objection to Radbruch’s view 45-6, 49

‘open texture’ 68 9 points of view 25 retrospective law 60 rule of recognition or basic norm 18-19, 18n.37, 19n.38, 100, 102-3, 121-3

comparison to

Kelsen 121-3 criterion for identifying valid rules 122 Dworkin's objection 102 existence of 122-3 hierarchical structure 67, 122,

128

Hoffe’s legal theory 31-2

Hocrslcr's legal theory 41-2, 44 connection thesis 47 efficacy or social validity 90 objection to Radbruch’s view 46, 49

relativism 53, 55 role of principles 71 -2 uncritical legitimation 47 human dignity 71, Zin.

77

ideal 23.26. 77, 81, 81 ul.143, 128, 130

incorporation thesis, see argument from principles

injustice (Unrecht) (see also argument from injustice, Radbruch’s legal theory) 28, 58, 127 knowledge of 52

internal aspect 14. 16 interpretation 10 ‘is’- ought’ 96-102, 105

Hart 123

Hume 22R.160 Kelsen 96-7, 123 issuance 3-4. 3 n.3. 7. 13 14, 16-20. 85. 87. 127-8 iustuni et iniustum 119 judicial review concrete 10 justice fundamental principles 6

Kant’s legal theory 116-121 basic norm

content 118

difference from

Kelsen 116-17, 121 evaluation 120-1 formulation 116, 118 obligation to obey 117-18,

120 1

priority of positive

law 118-21

critique of ‘purely empirical theory of law’ 119 freedom 120

law of reason 117. 119

'legitimacy of...every public law’ 120

natural law 116 17 right of resistance 118-19

Kelsen’s legal theory 18, 18nn.31-2, n.34. 89 basic norm 18, 96 116 argument 96-7 coercive order 114 content 104 5 definition 26 difference from

Kant 116-17, 121 empirico-reconstructive argument 115 fiction 110-11 gangster’s command 26 necessity 98-102 possibility 102-4 rejection of, in later

work 110-11, 110n.l89 ‘self-contradictory’ 111 status 107 116

incapability of being established 113-16

necessary presupposition

107- 8. Uh

possible presupposition

108- 10

summary 115—16 'thought norm' 110-13, 116

transcendental presupposition 108-10. 108 n.181,

116 syllogism 98. 2K11-161 tasks 105-7

creating unity 106 7 setting criteria 105-6

Kelsen’s legal theory (coni.) transforming

categories 105, 107 comparison to Mart 18. 98-104, 121-3

concept of law 18 constitution as criterion of validity 126

content 3. IS, 124 efficacy 18n.32, n.34, 89 *is’-‘ought’ 96-102. 105, 108, 116. 123

issuance 18. 18 n.34 judge’s decision in ’open area’ 69

membership as criterion of validity 126

'minimum of collective security’ 32n.62 morally indifferent character 1_LZ

'normative' dimension 18.

normativity of law as hypothetical 112-13 'ought’ as category 109-10 rejection of moral social system as law 46

'robber band’ 32 n.62 uncritical legitimation 46-9 unity of law 106 validity of law 96-116 Kt ide’s legal theory 63-4 law (see also concept of law)

and morality 3-4, 21-2. 26-8, 30, 39, 43. 46-7, 70-1

as system of norms 127 content of 3. 13 definition 127

distinct from statute 8-9.

71 n. 133 expression ‘law’ 22. 30-1,

ideal dimension 128 judicial development of 8_12

pre-constitutional On. 19 purposive effort 24 n.46 uncritical legitimation

law and morality, see argument from principles, connection thesis lawlessness (Unrecht), lawless or unjust statute 6-7, 58, 61 law of reason, see natural law legal certainly 51-3, 65 absolute principle 53, 53 n.98 Kant 118 material justice 52-3 Radbruch’s formula 52-3.

65

legal norm 28, 30-1. 36. 70-1 defective 36 individual 28, 30-1. 96, 96n.l56

legal system 28 principles 70-1 rules 70-1

legal positivism (see also basic norm, concept of law. Mart’s legal theory, Kelsen’s legal theory, separation thesis, validity of law) 3-4, 10, H 20-35 basic norms 166 clarity 43 5 concepts of law 14-27 conceptual analysis 22 critique 20-81 decision in ’open area’ 69 efficacy 3-4. 1_8 elements of 13 issuance 3-4. 16 Kelsen 3, 3 il2 moral judgments 55.

55n.lQ3

principles 76 Radbruch 45 separation thesis 3 statutory 8* 10, 10n.20 validity 24. 106

legal system 20 1 n.39. 23 5, 28, 31-5, 62-8. 71-6, 80. 127-8

claim to correctness 34-6, 63, 92

coercion 15. 86. 128 collapse thesis 66-8 concept 32 connection between law

and morality 26. 75-7, 80

defective 36 efficacy or social validity 89-90, 128 existence 92-3 extension thesis 64 6 hierarchical 67. 128 observer 25, 63 of norms 24-5. 28 of procedures 24-5, 24n.46, 80

'open area’ 69-70, 72-7, 129 participant 25 principles 71—6

unjust or lawless system 66.

92

legal validity, see validity of

law

liberty 71. 21 n.

morality, see connection thesis morality thesis, see argument

from principles

moral validity, see validity of

law

National Socialism 6-7. 29. 45.

59 60. 78

natural law 13, 59, 67, 71, 87. 116-17

natural rights 118

‘Nazi morality’ 55 non-positivistic legal theory (see also concept of law. connection thesis, Radbruch’s legal theory) 3-4. 10 analytical argument 21 argument 2

norm, see legal norm normative

arguments 20-3. 30-1,

40 expectations of behaviour 16 'necessity' 21. 23. 26 null and void 6. 7, 29 nulla poena sine lege 56-7.

5711.107,59,61=2

nullum crimen sine lege 57.

57 n. 108 obligation L01

OLG Bamberg 591L11O

‘open area' 69

‘open texture' 68-9

Ordinance 11 (see also citizenship decision, Statute on Reich Citizenship) 5-6, 29. 31,40-2. 52

‘ought’, see ‘is’-‘ought’

performative contradiction 38-9. 38 n.66

positivism, see legal positivism power 4 n.3 pragmatic instrumentalism, see realist legal theory predictive definition 15 presupposition, see Kelsen's legal theory principles (see also argument from principles) 70-1, 127

examples 75, 80

Basic Law 8. 71, 77-8

National Socialism 78, 80

natural law. law of reason 21

state morality 21 judge’s legal obligation 77, 127

optimizing commands 70, 77.

127

quid sit iuris 119

Radbruch’s legal theory (see also argument from injustice) 40-62 after 1945 45.45n.8l claim to correctness

34 n.64 concept of law 45

conflict between justice and legal certainty 28, 52-3, 65

formula, argument from injustice 28-30, 40-62. 65-7, 120

after collapse of rogue regime 56

Hart’s criticism 42 nulla poena sine lege 61 2 observer 30 participant 40 summary of debate 62 threshold 40. 48 weak connection thesis 47. 49

human, civil rights 54 legal positivism 45, 45ll80, 54

relativism 53-4

realist legal theory 14-16

Rechtsstaat 8. 51. 56-7, 71. 75. 77

recognition 16. 68nn. 121-2 regulative idea 81, 81 nJ 43 relativism 53-5

Hoerster 53, 55

Radbruch 53-4

radical version 53

reply to sceptic 54-5 retroactive statute 7. 51. 56-8.

60-1

Hart 60-1

rogue regime, rogue state (Unrechtsregime. Unrechtsstaat) 7. 45. 49-50

rule of law (see also Rechtsstaat) 71. 71 n.133, 77

rules (see also principles) 70-1

‘definitive commands’ 70 distinguished from principles 70-1 subsumption 70

sanction 4-15, 12 separation thesis 3. 20-7 arguments 20 7 analytical 2k 29 31 empirical 20 I n..39 normative 21-2. 30-1 claim to correctness 35, 32 conceptual framework 23_2

classifying, qualifying 26, 27-8. M combinations 26-7 legal system 24-5 necessity, types of 26 observer, participant 25.

27.35

validity 23-4. 22 social contract theories 112 social order or system 32-4 governor system 33-4 predatory or rapacious 33 senseless 32-3 social state 71. 21n.l33. 77 social validity, see validity of law

sociological legal theory 14-15. 15n.22.20

solatium, see damages speech acts 37-8 status civilis (civil or legal state of affairs) 117 18

status naturalis (state of nature) 117-18

statutory injustice, statutory lawlessness 5-7, 46-7, 49-51, 56

Statute on Reich Citizenship (see also citizenship decision. Ordinance 11) 5 6. 40

subject, legal 12 subsumption 70 suprastatutory law 2

uncritical legitimation 46 9 Unrecht, see injustice, lawlessness validity of law 23-4, 85-123,

129

basic norm and (see also basic norm. Hart's legal theory, Kant’s legal theory. Kelsen's legal theory) 18. 88, 95-123 definition 26

‘is’-ought’ 97-102, 105 collisions of legal, moral validity 91-4

individual norms 93-4 systems of norms 92-3 collisions of legal, social validity 89-91

individual norms 21 systems of norms 89-90 ‘dominance criterion'

90. 90n.l48, 128 revolutionary context 90 concept in definition of law 127

concepts, general 23-4, 85.

87-8, 95, 127

concepts presupposing the 95

validity of law (com.) constitution, validity

of 100-1, 128 ethical concept lt;87 moral validity 87. 129 juridical concept 87-8 basic norm 88, 95 external problem 88. 95 internal problem 88. 95 issuance 87

Kelsen 89, 8911.142 legal validity 87, 129 moral validity 87 social validity 87 sociological concept 85-6

coercion 86

compliance or

sanction 85-6

Kelsen 89,89n.l42

social validity 85 6, 128 9