Abstract
In this paper I compare the understanding of jurisprudence by Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. By establishing the primacy of politics and rejecting the prescriptive function of jurisprudence, Hans Kelsen enabled a democratic understanding of law (and of jurisprudence), and at the same time a critical approach. Kelsen defines the law from a dynamic perspective, which justifies the constant changeability of the law - and in this respect the primacy of democracy over dogmatic jurisprudence. The basis for Kelsen's understanding of jurisprudence is his relativism, which at the same time - as mentioned at the end of the paper - is based on a moral position on the autonomy of the individual. Keywords: Carl Schmitt - critical law studies - democracy - dynamic of law - Hans Kelsen - jurisprudence - theory of law
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
