Pure Theory of Law in Mauritius
Hans Kelsen was an Austrian-American legal philosopher born on the 11th October 1881 in the Czech Republic and he passed away on the 20th April 1973 in the USA. He contributed to the drafting of the Austrian Constitution and developed the ‘pure theory of law’ which he first introduced in Chief Problems of the Doctrine of International Law (1911) and further expanded on it in General Theory of Law and State (1945). Kelsen’s work was influenced by Kantian philosophy which has inspired his quest for a ‘pure’ theory. The pure theory of law is theoretically free of any external influence and its major element is the norm, the most important one being the Grundnorm. The latter is influenced by historical facts and the aim of this research is to investigate Mauritian jurisprudence with respect to the normative science of Kelsen.
The first part of the essay will be an exposition of Kelsen’s Pure theory of Law, followed by a short summary of major historical facts of Mauritius. The next part concerns the identification of some important elements of the current legal system which pertain to and might prove incoherent with the pure theory of law. We shall end on how positive theory of law can provide solutions to the limitations of Kelsen’s .
As the name implies, the ‘pure theory’ aims at ruling out any other discipline by ‘excluding from … everything which does not strictly belong to the subject-matter law’ (Freeman, 2008) to answer the eternal question ‘what is law?’. Although Kelsen admits that law can be described as a social phenomenon, his aim is to create a normative science where law is only defined in terms of norms.
The pure theory of law is a system of norms addressed to officials who must apply ...
... middle of paper ...
...e have seen, the Pure Theory of law is much more complex than a mere series of norms arranged in hierarchal order. The process whereby each one of them is validated and at a later stage invalidated by a revolution is a small part of the theory itself. Analyzing this aspect in light of the Mauritian history and present legal system has proved to be an interesting exercise as we could infer that the process of setting up a new legal system is not only a complex one but a striking part of the old norms can still remain after the revolution. The unique hybrid legal system of Mauritius does not make the Pure Theory of Law incoherent but the process whereby the basic norm validates all the lower ones might not apply correctly in this case. To conclude it would seem that the Rule of Recognition of hart provides a better answer to this problem that the Pure Theory of Law.
...is issue. As discussed earlier, his command theory of law mainly claims that the normativity of law is entirely a matter of law’s coerciveness. His theory has been superseded views such as those of Hart. Hart took pains to distinguish, as well as relate, law’s coercive- ness and its normativity. “Both the distinction and the relationship are expressed in the locution “norms backed by sanctions”: law’s normativity in this view must be understood independently of and in contrast to its coerciveness. Normativity is a matter of voluntary obedience; it invokes and relies on people’s disposition, whose nature and sources may vary, to follow legal rules. Coercion and normativity are portrayed as two separate but complementary strategies that the law employs to secure the individual conduct that it desires. The idea of a norm backed by a sanction is not unique to law”.
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
The focus of this essay is to examine the extent to which Dworkin provides a convincing alternative to positivism. The central claim of legal positivism states that "in any legal system, whether a given norm is legally valid, and hence whether it forms part of the law of that system, depends on its sources, not its merits". Dworkin completely rejects the positivist approach because he believes that "no combination of source-based rules, no matter how broadly construed or how carefully crafted can ground a theory of law". Dworkin is evidently making a big move away from positivism. The first part of this essay will explore how Dworkin 's rejection of positivism has led him to formulate an alternative theory of law. The final part of the essay will analyse how Dworkin has failed in getting an
Law has no existence for itself; rather its essence lies, from a certain perspective, in the very life of men.
In the book Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law, J. Budziszewski, approaches the question of government through nature and its limits. This book informs the reader on how natural law plays a role in answering political and ethical questions. This is done by review of four major philosophers and their works. In the following few pages we will focus on his review of Thomas Aquinas, and how his catholic faith affected his understanding of natural law as he understood the works of Aristotle.
Law is a system of rules that are implemented throughout social establishments to govern behavior. A principle for judging acts as reasonable or unreasonable and they may seem objective, universal, and knowable, which dispositions are guide. Our function is rational activity, and our rational nature gives us dispositions when we are naturally disposed to seek to know, understand, and be
Culver, Keith Charles. Readings in the philosophy of law. 1999. Reprint. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2008. Print.
In contrary to its contemporary antagonist philosophical schools, who advocate the practices of humanness and the rightness and set ideal of the past, the Legalists, in their complete rejection of the traditional ethics, embraces the efficacy of political power and uphold a society of laws and punishments. As the old feudal states decayed and the smoke of endemic warfare suffused, the need for a more rational government that can afford greater centralized power so as to strengthen a state against its rival increased substantially among the Warring States. Such a rising urge necessitated the emergence of the Legalists and further predetermined the Legalists’ inherent nature – realistic, totalitarian and problem-solving – which, with the realization of its significance and duty in the stream of history, finds its hegemonic character as well.
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
Over the years, different jurisdictions had built their specific system of rules of conduct to govern behaviour. These legal systems, influenced by historical and cultural roots, can be distinguished in two families, the Civil law and the Common law legal systems. The distinctions lies in the process in which each decision is make by the judge and on the legal sources that shapes the law. Indeed, by contrast to the Common law system, which is largely based on Precedents, meaning the decisions that have already been made by judges in similar cases, the Civil law system is based on legislator’s decisions and legal codes with which judges have to justify their judgment . Consequently, instead of referencing to concepts and rules
Positive law can be considered the ‘politically correct’ approach to authority and justice. It encompasses the idea of a society and community with laws, and that those laws are necessary for everyone’s well-being. Kreon evokes a Positivist attitude by shunning any morally appropriate notions brought on by his kinship with Polyneices, and pursuing a stance that he sees as politically necessary for the good of the society. This is the underlying reason for his decision to forbid t...
1.The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case…
Legal Pluralism is the presence of various legal systems within a single country or a geographical area. Legal Pluralism is omnipresent although it is generally assumed to exist in countries only with a colonial past. This is because in most countries with a colonial past, colonial laws co-exist alongside indigenous laws. However, if we look at the expansive definition of legal pluralism, it can be said that every society or country if legally plural. The modern definition of legal pluralism also deals with the issues of relation between state and non-state legal orders. It shows the dichotomy that exists between customary legal norms and state law. The judiciary of India has upheld this principle of pluralism in many cases by showing that
Kelsen’s Pure Law theory attempts to describe law as a hierarchy composed of basic norms called “Grundnorms”. These grundnorms rest upon higher norms in each level of the hierarchy. The lowest level represents a completely general description and the norms become more individual as you climb the hierarchy. For example, Kelsen maintains that a higher grundnorm can determine if another norm is created, such as a bye law gets its validity from another norm being a statute, which will also get its validity from another norm being a constitution, which thereby gives the legislator/congress power to create statutes. Unless there is a revolution, then these norms are subject to change.
Leon Petrażycki and Eugen Ehrlich had independent work but their theories corresponded with one another in at least one respect (33). Both theorists believe that the law is found in institutions that are outside authority.