O separacji między prawem i moralnością. Glosa do Czystej teorii prawa Hansa Kelsena

• Authors: Marta Huk
• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

PL

This paper is dedicated to the problem of separation legal and moral order from the perspective of Kelsen`s Pure Theory of Law. In discussing the need for such a separation, the author shows its relevant consequences. According to the most controversial of them, the “amoral law” seems to be a very sovereign normative concept. But still another question arises – wouldlegal subjects be able to cooperate with the law when its effectiveness is only based on the coercive power and sanctions?

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Ethics in Progress
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 4
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 113-136

Dates

published

2013-09-01

Contributors

author

Marta Huk

• Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

References

• Anderson, S. 2010. The Enforcement Approach to Coercion. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy Vol. 5 No 1: 1-31.
• Brożek, A., Broz ek, B., Stelmach, J. 2013. Fenomen normatywności. Krako w: Copernicus Center Press.
• Cohen, J. 1978. The Political Element in Legal Theory: A Look at Kelsen`s Pure Theory. Yale Law Journal Vol. 88 No 1: 1-38.
• Edel, A. 1970. On Certain Value-Dimension in Analysis of Moral Relativism. The Journal of Philosophy Vol. 67 No 17: 584-588.
• Gardner, J. Legal Positivism: 5 ½ Myths. American Journal of Jurisprudence Vol. 46 No 1: 199-227.
• Green, M. S. 2003. Hans Kelsen and the Logic of Legal Systems. Alabama Law Review Vol. 53 No 2: 365-413.
• Guyer, P. 2010. Moral Feelings in the ‘Metaphysics of Morals'. W: Denis, L. (ed.) Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Halpin, A. 2006. Ideology and Law. Journal of Political Ideologies Vol. 11, No 2: 153-168.
• Harman, G. 1975. Moral Relativism Defended. The Philosophical Review Vol. 84, No1: 35-43.
• Hart, H. L. A. 1958. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review Vol. 71 No 4: 593-629.
• Jelic , Z. 2001. An Observation on the Theory of Law of Hans Kelsen. Law and Politics Vol. 1 No 5: 551-570.
• Kant, I. 2009. Uzasadnienie metafizyki moralności. Przeł. M. Wartenberg. Kęty: Wydawnictwo Marek Derewiecki.
• Kelsen, H. 1970. Pure Theory of Law. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Moser, S. 1979. Ethical Non-Cognitivism and Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law. The University of Toronto Law Journal Vol. 29 No 2: 93-113.
• Patterson, E. W. 1952. Hans Kelsen and His Pure Theory of Law. California Law Review, Vol. 40, No 1: 5-13.
• Paulson, S. L. 1992. Introduction. In: Kelsen, H. Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. Przeł. Paulson, B. L., Paulson, S. L. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Radbruch, G. 2009. Filozofia prawa. Tłum. E. Nowak. Warszawa: PWN. Smith, M. 2003. Neutral and Relative Value After Moore. Ethics, Vol. 113, No 3: 576-598.
• Stewart, I. 1990. The Critical Legal Science of Hans Kelsen. Journal of Law and Society Vol. 17 No 3: 273-308.
• Tokarczyk, R. 2009. Filozofia prawa.Warszawa: Lexis Nexis.
• Vinx, L. 2007. Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law: Legality and Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• White, B. 1996. Is There a Place for Morality in Law?. QUT Law Journal, Vol. 15: 229-242.
• Wróblewski, J. 1955. Krytyka normatywistycznej teorii prawa i państwa Hansa Kelsena. Warszawa: PWN.
• Zalewska, M. 2011. Historia pewnego przypisu. Pro ba rekonstrukcji dyskusji Hansa Kelsena z Jerzym Wro blewskim. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej UŁ Vol. 1: 75-85.
• Zalewska, M. 2014. Problem zarachowania w normatywizmie Hansa Kelsena. Łódz : Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ło dzkiego.
• Zirk-Sadowski, M. 2009. Soft-Kelsenism versus Multicentrism. W: ZirkSadowski, M. Golecki, M., Wojciechowski, B. (eds.) Multicentrism as an Emerging Paradigm in Legal Theory. New York: Peter Lang.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/eip.2013.2.8