THE LEGAL CONCEPTIONS OF HANS KELSEN AND EUGEN EHRLICH: WEIGHTING HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGNTY
Resumen
Este artigo considera a relevância das concepções jurídicas de Eugen Ehrlich e Hans Kelsen para os debates contemporâneos sobre direitos humanos e seus limites. Afirma-se que as concepções de Ehrlich e Kelsen reforçam uma abordagem multifacetada do Direito e, ao mesmo tempo, asseguram a autonomia humana e a liberdade em face das "grandes narrativas" e das intervenções governamentais. Essa perspectiva abre uma variedade de oportunidades para uma melhor compreensão do equilíbrio entre os interesses individuais e coletivos, entre o significado dos direitos e a soberania. Ambas as concepções são ainda atuais para os debates nos campos do Direito Internacional, do Direito Constitucional e da Filosofia do Direito sobre os limites dos direitos humanos e sobre as condições epistêmicas de identificação destes direitos, de compreensão de como esses direitos são e, ao mesmo tempo, podem reivindicar um caráter universal, permanecendo culturalmente incorporados. O princípio e o valor da relatividade que sustentam a Teoria Pura do Direito de Kelsen e a Sociologia do Direito de Ehrlich são de particular importância para a discussão da “universalidade relativa” dos direitos humanos.
Descargas
Citas
ALEXY, Robert. The Arguments from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Oxford, 2002.
ALEXY, Robert. The Construction of Constitutional Rights. In: Law and Ethics of Human Rights. 2010, v. 4, p. 20-32.
ALEXY, Robert; KOCH, Hans-Joachim; KUHLEN, Lothar; RUSSMANN, Helmut. Elemente einer juristischen Begründungslehre. Baden Baden, 2003.
ALLAN, James F.P., The idea of human rights. In: Bond Law Review. 2014, v. 25(1).
ANTONOV, Mikhail. Conservatism in Russia and Sovereignty in Human Rights. In: Review of Central and East European Law. 2014, v. 39, p. 1-40.
ANTONOV, Mikhail. Eugen Ehrlich – State Law and Law Enforcement in Societal Systems. In: Rechtstheorie. 2013 (b), v. 44(3), p. 287-313.
ANTONOV, Mikhail. History of Schism: the Debates between Hans Kelsen and Eugen Ehrlich. In: International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2011,v. 1(5)., p. 5-21.
ANTONOV, Mikhail. In the Quest of Global Legal Pluralism. In: Positivität, Normativität und Institutionalität des Rechts. Festschrift für Werner Krawietz zum 80. Geburtstag. Berlin, 2013 (c), p. 15-30.
ANTONOV, Mikhail. Normativity and Facticity of Law in the Legal Sociology of Eugen Ehrlich. In: Pravo Ukrainy. 2013 (a), v. 4, p. 263-272.
AUSTIN, John. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Cambridge,1995.
BANAKAR, Reza. Sociological Jurisprudence. In: BANAKAR, Reza & TRAVERS, Max. An Introduction to Law and Social Theory. Oxford, 2002.
BANAKAR, Reza. The Politics of Legal Cultures. In: Scandinavian Studies In Law. 2008, v. 53, p. 151-175, at 168-172.
BERMAN, Harold J. Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge MA, 1983.
BERNSTROFF, Jochen von. The Changing Fortunes of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Genesis and Symbolic Dimensions of the Turn to Rights in International Law. In: The European Journal of International Law. 2008, v. 19(5), p. 903–924.
BINDREITER, Uta. Why Grundnorm? A Treatise on the Implications of Kelsen's Doctrine. Springer, 2003.
BULYGIN, Eugenio. Alexy's Thesis of the Necessary Connection between Law and Morality. In: Ratio Juris, 2000 (a), v. 13(2), p. 133-137.
BULYGIN, Eugenio. Zum Problem der Begründung der Menschenrechte. In: Politische Herrschaftsstrukturen und Neuer Konstitutionalismus –¬ Iberoamerika und Europa in theorievergleichender Perspektive. Berlin, 2000 (b), p. 175-181.
CARO, Mario & MACARTHUR, David (eds.). Naturalism and Normativity. New York, Press, 2010.
CHIASSONI, Pierluigi. Kelsen on Natural Law Theory. In: Revus. 2014, v. 23, p. 135–163.
COHEN, Hendrik Florens. The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry. Chicago, 1994, p. 37-45.
COTTERRELL, Roger. Leon Petrazycki and Contemporary Socio-Legal Studies. In: International Journal of Law in Context. 2015, v. 11 (1), p. 1-16.
DONNELLY, Jack. The Relative Universality of Human Rights. In: Human Rights Quarterly. 2007, v. 29(2), p. 281-306.
DREIER, Horst. Hans Kelsen (1881-1973): „Jurist des Jahrhunderts“? In: HEINRICH, Helmut, FRANZKI, Harald, SCHMALZ, Klaus, STOLLEIS, Michael (Hrsg.). Deutsche Juristen jüdischer Herkunft. München, 1993, p. 705-731.
DREIER, Horst. The Essence of Democracy Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt Juxtaposed. In: DINER, Dan & STOLLEIS, Michael. Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. A Juxtaposition, Gerlingen, 1999, p. 71-79.
DWORKIN, Ronald. A Matter of Principle. Cambridge, MA, 1985.
DYZENHAUS, David. Kelsen, Heller and Schmitt: Paradigms of Sovereignty Thought. In: Theoretical Inquiries in Law. 2015, v. 16 (2), p. 337-366.
E.g., BUERGENTHAL, Thomas. The evolving international human rights system. In: American Journal of International Law. 2006, v. 100(4), p. 783-807.
E.g., D'ENTREVES, Alessandro Passerin. Natural Law: An Introduction to Legal Philosophy. New York, 2009; RICE, Charles. Some Reasons for a Restoration of Natural Law Jurisprudence. In: Wake Forest Law Review. 1989, v. 24, p. 539-567.
EBENSTEIN, William. The Pure Theory of Law: Demythologizing Legal Thought. In: California Law Review. 1971, v. 59, p. 617-652.
EHRLICH, Eugen. Die juristische Logik. 2te Aufl. Tübingen, 1925.
EHRLICH, Eugen. Die richterliche Rechtsfindung auf Grund des Rechtssatzes. In: Jherings Jahrbücher für die Dogmatik des bürgerlichen Rechts. 1917. Bd. 67, p. 1-80.
EHRLICH, Eugen. Freie Rechtfindung und freie Rechtswissenschaft. In: EHRLICH, Eugen. Recht und Leben. Gesammelte Schriften zur Rechtstatsachenforschung und zur Freiheitslehre, M. REHBINDER (ed.). Berlin, 1967, p. 170–202 [first published in 1903].
EHRLICH, Eugen. Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. London, 2002.
EHRLICH, Eugen. Grundlegung der Soziologie des Rechts. Wien, 1913.
EHRLICH, Eugen. Judicial Freedom of Decision: Its Principles and Objects. In: Science of Legal Method: Select Essays by Various Authors. Boston, 1917, p. 47-85.
FEICHTINGER, Johannes. Das Neue bei Mach, Freud und Kelsen. Zur Aufkündigung der Legitimationsfunktion in den Wissenschaften in Wien und Zentraleuropa um 1900. In: FEICHTINGER, Johannes; GROSSEGGER, Elisabeth.
FOLJANTY, Lena. Recht oder Gesetz. Juristische Identität und Autorität in den Naturrechtsdebatten der Nachkriegszeit. Tübingen, 2013.
FRIEDMAN, Lawrence M. Law and Society: An Introduction. Prentice Hall, 1977.
FULLER, Lon. Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart. In: Harvard Law Review. 1958, v. 71, p. 630-672.
GALLIE, Wesley B. Essentially Contested Concepts. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 1956, v. 56, p. 167–198.
GOODHART Michael E. Neither Relative nor Universal: A Response to Donnelly. In: Human Rights Quarterly. 2008, v. 30(1), p. 183-193.
GREEN, Michael Steven. Hans Kelsen and the Logic of Legal Systems. In: Alabama Law Review. 2003, v. 54, p. 365-413.
GUMPLOVA, Petra. Law, Sovereignty, and Democracy: Hans Kelsen’s Critique of Sovereignty, p. 2. Available at http://www.newschool.edu/uploadedFiles/NSSR/Departments_and_Faculty/Political_Science/Recent_Placements/Gumplova-Law_Sovereignty_Democracy.pdf?n=7291
GUMPLOVA, Petra. Law, Sovereignty, and Democracy: Hans Kelsen’s Critique of Sovere
GURVITCH, Georges. Le temps présent et l'idée du droit social. Paris, 1931.
HAAS, Michael. International Human Rights. London and New York, 2008.
HAFNER-BURTON, Emilie & TSURTSUI, Kiyoteru. Human rights in a globalizing world: the paradox of empty promises. In: American Journal of Sociology. 2005, v. 110, p. 1373–1386.
HALDMANN, Frank. Gustav Radbruch vs Hans Kelsen: A Debate on Nazi Law. In: Ratio Juris. 2005, v. 18(2), p. 162-178.
HALL, Marie Boas (ed.) Nature and Nature's Laws: Documents of The Scientific Revolution. New York, 1970.
HART, Herbert L. A. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. In: Harvard Law Review. 1958, v. 71, p. 593-629.
HOLLIS, Martin & LUKES, Steven. Rationality and Relativism, Oxford, 1982.
HORVATH, Barna. Die ungarische Rechtsphilosophie. In: Archiv für Rechts- und Wirtschaftsphilosophie. 1930, v. 24, p. 531 ff.
INGRAM, David. Reconciling positivism and realism: Kelsen and Habermas on democracy and human rights. In: Philosophy and Social Criticism. 2014, v. 40 (3), p. 237-267.
ISHAY, Micheline R. What are human rights? Six historical controversies. In: Human Rights Journal. 2004, v. 3(3), p. 359-373.
JELLINEK, Georg. Allgemeine Staatslehre. 3d ed. 1960, Bad Homburg, p. 308 ff.
KELSEN, Hans & EHRLICH, Eugen. Rechtssoziologie und Rechtswissenschaft. Eine Kontroverse (1915/1917). Baden Baden, 2003.
KELSEN, Hans. A Dynamic Theory of Natural Law. In: Louisiana Law Review. 1956, v. 16, p. 597-620.
KELSEN, Hans. Causality and Imputation. In: Ethics. 1950, v. 61(1), p. 1-11.
KELSEN, Hans. Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts. Tübingen, 1920.
KELSEN, Hans. Foundations of Democracy. In: Ethics. 1955, v. 66(1/2), p. 1-101.
KELSEN, Hans. General Theory of Law and State. Cambridge MA, 1945, p. 330–339.
KELSEN, Hans. Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre, entwickelt aus der Lehre vom Rechtssatze. Tübingen, 1911 (a).
KELSEN, Hans. Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory (Boniie Litschewski and Stanley Paulson trans.). Oxford, 1992.
KELSEN, Hans. On the Basic Norm. In: California Law Review. 1959, v. 47, p. 107-110.
KELSEN, Hans. The Natural Law Doctrine before the Tribunal of Science. In: KELSEN, Hans. What is Justice? Justice, Law, and Politics in the Mirror of Science. Berkley, 1957, p. 137-173.
KELSEN, Hans. Über Grenzen zwischen juristischer und soziologischer Methode. Tübingen, 1911 (b).
KELSEN, Hans. Vergeltung und Kausalität: Eine soziologische Untersuchung. Chicago, 1941.
KELSEN, Hans. Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie. Tübingen, 1. Aufl, 1920, 2. Aufl, 1929.
KELSEN, Hans. What is Justice? In: KELSEN, Hans. What is Justice? Justice, Law, and Politics in the Mirror of Science. Berkley, 1957, p. 1-24.
KELSEN, Hans. Will the Judgment in the Nuremberg Trial Constitute a Precedent in International Law? In: The International Law Quarterly. 1947, v. 1, p. 153-171.
KUHN, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, 1970.
LANGFORD, Peter & BRYAN, Ian. Hans Kelsen's Concept of Normative Imputation. In: Ratio Juris, 2013, v. 26(1), 85-110.
LARENZ, Karl. Über Gegenstand und Methode völkischen Rechtsdenkens, Berlin, 1938; HARTMANN, Frank. Methodologische thinking with Karl Larenz. Frankfurt/M., 2001; KAUFMAN, Arthur & HASSEMER, Winfried. Enacted Law and Judicial Decision in German Jurisprudential Thought. In: The University of Toronto Law Journal. 1969, v. 19 (4) 4, p. 461-486.
LIKHOVSKI, Assaf. Czernowitz, Lincoln, Jerusalem, and the Comparative History of American Jurisprudence. In: Theoretical Inquiries in Law. 2003, v. 4(2), p. 621-657.
LIKHOVSKI, Assaf. Venus in Czernowitz: Sacher-Masoch, Ehrlich and the Fin de Siècle Crisis of Legal Reason. In: HERTOGH, Marc (ed.). Living Law: Reconsidering Eugen Ehrlich, p. 48-71.
LIPPMAN, Matthew. Law, Lawyers and Legality in the Third Reich: The Perversion of Principle and Professionalism. In: Temple International and Comparative Journal of Law. 1997, v. 11, p. 199-308.
MAIHOFER, Werner (Hrsg.). Naturrecht oder Rechtspositivismus. Darmstadt, 1962; KAUFMANN, Arthur. National Socialism and German Jurisprudence from 1933 to 1945. In: Cardozo Law Review. 1988, v. 9, p. 1629-1634.
MALISKA, Marcos Augusto. Introdução à Sociologia do Direito de Eugen Ehrlich. Curitiba, 2015, p. 129-148.
MANELI, Mieczyslaw. Juridical Positivism and Human Rights. New York, 1981; DEFLEM, Mathieu. The Sociological Discourse on Human Rights: Lessons from the Sociology of Law. In: Development and Society. 2011, v. 40(1), p. 101-115.
MATINELLI-KONIG, Gertraud; STACHEL, Peter; UHL, Heidemarie (eds.). Schauplatz Kultur Zentraleuropa. Transdisziplinäre Annäherungen. Innsbruck–Wien–Bozen, 2006, p. 297-306.
MOYN, Samuel. The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Cambridge, 2010.
NELKEN, David. Eugen Ehrlich, Living Law, and Plural Legalities. In: Theoretical Inquiries in Law. 2008, v. 9(2), p. 443-471.
OTT, Walter & BUOB, Frankzika. Did Legal Positivism Render German Jurists Defenseless During the Third Reich? In: Social and Legal Studies. 1993, v. 2, p. 91-104.
PALOMBELLA, Gianluigi. From Human Rights to Fundamental Rights. In: Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie. 2007, v. 93, p. 396-426.
PAULSON, Stanley. Formalism, 'Free Law', and the 'Cognition' Quandary: Hans Kelsen's Approaches to Legal Interpretation. In: The University of Queensland Law Journal. 2008, v. 27(2), p. 7-39.
PAULSON, Stanley. On the Puzzle Surrounding Hans Kelsen's Basic Norm. In: Ratio Juris. 2000, v. 1, p. 279-293.
PAULSON, Stanley. Radbruch on Unjust Laws: Competing Earlier and Later Views? In: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 1995, v. 15, p. 489-500.
PAULSON, Stanley. The Neo-Kantian Dimension of Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law. In: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 1992, v. 12(3), p. 311-332.
PINELLI, Cesare. The Kelsen/Schmitt Controversy and the Evolving Relations between Constitutional and International Law. In: Ratio Juris. 2010, v. 23(4), p. 493-504;
POSNER, Eric. The Twilight of Human Rights Law. Oxford, 2014.
PRIEL, Dan. Towards Classical Legal Positivism. In: Comparative Research in Law and Political Economy. Research Paper No. 20/2011.
RAZ, Joseph. The Purity of the Pure Theory of Law. In: PAULSON, Stanley. Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes. Oxford, 1999, p. 237-252.
REHBINDER, Manfred. Die Begründung der Rechtssoziologie durch Eugen Ehrlich. 2 Aufl. Berlin, 1986.
REHBINDER, Manfred. Eugen Ehrlichs Seminar für lebendes Recht: eine Einrichtung für die Weiterbildung von Rechtspraktikern. In: Problemi filosofii prava. 2005, v. III(2), p. 135-139.
REHBINDER, Manfred. Neues über Leben und Werk von Eugen Ehrlich. In: Festschrift für Helmut Schelsky zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin, 1978, p. 403-418.
REHBINDER, Manfred. Richterliche Rechtsfortbildung in der Sicht von Eugen Ehrlich. In: REHBINDER, Manfred. Abhandlungen zur Rechtssoziologie. Berlin, 1995, p. 191-202.
REIMANN, Mathias. Nineteenth Century German Legal Science. In: Boston College of Law Review. 1990, v. 31, p. 837-897, at p. 869-875.
ROONEY, Miriam T. Law Without Justice? The Kelsen and Hall Theories Compared. In: Notre Dame Law Review. 1948, v. 23, p. 140-172.
ROSS, Alf. Validity and the conflict between Legal Positivism and Natural Law. In: Revista Juridica de Buenos Aires. 1961, v. 4, p. 46-90
ROTTLEUTHNER, Hubert. Substanzieller Dezisionismus, In: ROTTLEUTHNER, Hubert (Hrsg.). Recht, Rechtsphilosophie und Nationalsozialismus. Wiesbaden, 1983, p. 20-35.
RUETHERS, Bernd. Die unbegrenzte Auslegung. Zum Wandel der Privatrechtsordnung im Nationalsozialismus. 6. Aufl. Tübingen, 2004.
SANDER, Franz. Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit. In: Zeitschrift für öffentliche Recht. 1928, v. VII, p. 507 ff.; HORVATH, Barna. Die ungarische Rechtsphilosophie. In: Archiv für Rechts- und Wirtschaftsphilosophie. 1930, v. 24, p. 531 ff.
SANKEY, Howard. Rationality, Relativism and Incommensurability, Aldershot, 1997, p. 149-184.
SCHEIPERS, Sybille. Negotiating sovereignty and human rights. Manchester, 2009.
SEITZER, Jeffrey & THORNHILL, Christopher. An Introduction to Carl Schmitt’s Constitutional Theory: Issues and Context. In: Carl Schmitt, Constitutional Theory. Durham, 2008, p. 1-50.
SOMEK, Alexander. In: European Journal of International Law. 2007, v. 18, p. 409-451.
STEWART, Iain. The Critical Legal Science of Hans Kelsen. In: Journal of Law and Society. 1990, v. 17(3), p. 273-308.
TIMASHEFF, Nicholas. The Introduction to the Sociology of Law. New Brunswick, 2009.
TREVINO, Javier A. Toward a General Theoretical-Methodological Framework for the Sociology of Law: Another Look at the Eastern European Pioneers. In: ULMER, Jeffrey T. (ed.). Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance. Greenwich, 1998, v. 1, p. 155-202; BANAKAR, Reza. Merging Law and Society: Beyond the Dichotomies in Socio-Legal Research. Berlin, 2003.
TREVINO, Xavier. The Continuing Relevance of the Classics for Contemporary Sociology of Law: The American Context. In: Jurisprudence: Journal of Higher Education Establishments [Pravovedenie: Izvestiia vyzov]. 2013, v. 5, p. 26-47 [In Russian].
VAIHINGER, Hans. The Philosophy of 'As if': A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind (Transl. by Charles Ogden). New York, 1924.
VAN KLINK, Bart. Facts and Norms: The Unfinished Debate between Eugen Ehrlich and Hans Kelsen. In: In: HERTOGH, Marc (ed.). Living Law: Reconsidering Eugen Ehrlich, p. 127-156.
VINX, Lars. Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law. Legality and Legitimacy. Oxford, 2008, p. 66-68.
VOGL, Stefan. Eugen Ehrlich’s Linking of Sociology and Jurisprudence and the Reception of his Work in Japan. In: HERTOGH, Marc (ed.). Living Law: Reconsidering Eugen Ehrlich. Oxford and Portland, 2009, p. 95-124.
WEINREB, Lloyd. Natural Law and Justice. Cambridge MA, 1987.
ZIEGERT, Klaus A. Introduction to the Transaction Edition. In: EHRLICH, Eugen. Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. New Brunswick, 2009, p. XIX-XLIX.
ZIEGERT, Klaus A. The Sociology behind Eugen Ehrlich’s Sociology of Law. In: International Journal of Sociology of Law. 1979, v. 7, p. 225-273.
ZIEGERT, Klaus A. World Society, Nation State and Living Law in the Twenty-first Century. In: HERTOGH, Marc (ed.). Living Law: Reconsidering Eugen Ehrlich. Oxford/Portland, 2009, p. 223-236.
ZIEGERT, Klaus. Beyond "Living Law": Eugen Ehrlich's General Theory of Law. In: PAPENDORF, Knut, MACHURA, Stefan, HELLUM, Anne (eds.), Eugen Ehrlich's Sociology of Law. Wien, 2014, p. 17-38.
ZIMMERMANN, Augusto. Legislating Evil: The Philosophical Foundations of the Nazi Legal System. In: International Trade and Business Law Review. 2010, v. 13, p. 221-232.
ZOLO, Danilo. Hans Kelsen: International Peace through International Law. In: European Journal International Law. 1998. 9 (2), p. 306-324.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Os direitos autorais, dos artigos publicados na Revista, são do autor e da RDFD com os direitos de primeira publicação para a Revista. Em virtude de aparecerem nesta revista de acesso público, os artigos são de uso gratuito, com atribuições próprias, com aplicações educacionais e não comerciais, de acordo com o creative commons.
