On the Basic Norm

Abstract

I have been asked to talk to you about the so-called Pure Theory of Law. As it is not possible to deal within the short time allowed with all the aspects of this theory, I suggest that we discuss one problem that is most characteristic of this theory: the basic norm. The starting point of the Pure Theory of Law-as of any legal theoryis a definition of the concept of the law. The Pure Theory defines the law as an aggregate or system of norms, as a normative order. Now, what is a norm? A norm is a specific meaning, the meaning that something ought to be, or ought to be done, although actually it may not be done. There are different kinds of norms, norms of thinking, that is, logical norms, and norms of acting, that is, moral and legal norms. According to a legal norm, men ought to behave under certain conditions in a certain way. That a man ought to behave in a certain way means that this behavior is prescribed or permitted or authorized. In this sense, a legal norm is a prescription or permission or authorization. Such a norm may be the meaning of an act of will of one individual intentionally directed at the behavior of another individual. Using a figure of speech, we say: the norm is created or posited by an act of will; then it is a positive norm. The law as a system of norms created by acts of human will is positive law. The Pure Theory of Law is a theory of positive law. The act by which the norm is created must be distinguished from the norm created by the act-for instance: A legislative act and the law or statute created by it. The act is a fact, the norm is the meaning of this fact. The act by which a norm is created actually exists in space and time, and as such is the effect of certain causes, according to the law of causality. Its existence is the existence of a natural fact. The statement referring to the act by which a norm is created is an is-statement. Since the norm is not a fact but the meaning of a fact, its existence is different from the existence of a fact. Its existence is its validity. The statement that a norm prescribing, permitting, or authorizing a certain behavior is valid does not mean that this behavior actually takes place or that it will take place in the future; it means that it ought to take place, that men ought to behave as the norm prescribes, permits or authorizes men to behave. The statement referring to the validity of a norm is an ought-statement. Now, the question arises: What is the reason of the validity of a definite norm, that is the question: why ought we to behave in conformity with a