La posibilidad de una ciencia jurídica trascendental
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5347/isonomia.v0i53.286Keywords:
transcendental legal science, pure theory of law, Kelsen, constitutive character, a priori legal categoriesAbstract
The Possibility of a Transcendental Legal Science
In this paper I defend the possibility of a transcendental legal science against the criticisms raised by Jan Sieckmann and Christoph Kletzer, who claim that legal science cannot have a constitutive character. For Sieckmann the pure theory of law´s own premises lead to an objectless science, whereas for Kletzer the real constitutive work is carried out by the law. From my considerations it follows an explanation of the relation between the philosophy of law, the legal science and the law modelled on the Kantian connection between the critique of pure reason, the physical science and the natural phenomena.
References
Bulygin, Eugenio, 1980: “Kant y la filosofía del derecho contemporánea”. Archivos latinoamericanos de metodología y filosofía del derecho, vol. 1, pp. 371-382.
__________, 1990: “An Antinomy in Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law”. Ratio Juris, vol. 1, núm. 3, pp. 29-45.
__________, 2013: “Kelsen on Completeness and Consistency”, en D´Almeida, Luis, Gardner, John y Green, Leslie (eds.), KelsenRevisited. New Essays on the Pure Theory of Law. Oxford, Hart Publishing, pp. 225-243.
Duarte d´Almeida, Luis, 2011: “Comment on Kletzer – Positive Law and the `Cognitivity Thesis´”. German Law Review, vol. 12, nom 2, pp. 811-826.
García Berger, Mario, 2014: La teoría kelseniana de la normatividad. Orígenes y actualidad. México, Fontamara.
__________, 2018: “Bulygin y el Kelsen neokantiano”. Doxa, núm. 41, pp. 339-353.
Hammer, Stephen, 1998: “A Neo-Kantian Theory of Legal Knowledge in Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law”, en Paulson, Stanley y Litschewski, Bonnie (eds.), Norm and Normativity. Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes. Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp.177-194.
Hume, David, 2015: Investigación sobre el conocimiento humano. Madrid, Alianza.
Kant, Immanuel, 1996: Crítica de la razón pura. Madrid, Alfaguara.
Kelsen, Hans, 1922: “Rechtswissenschaft und Recht: Erledigung eines Versuches zur Überwindung der Rechtdogmatik”. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, vol. 3, pp. 27-52.
__________, 1960: Reine Rechtslehre., 2a ed. Deuticke, Vienna. Citado por la traducción española, por Vernengo, Roberto, Teoría pura del derecho. México, Porrúa, 1991.
Kletzer, Christoph, 2011: “Kelsen, Sander and the Gegenstandsproblem of Legal Science”. German Law Review, 12, pp. 785-810.
Natorp, Paul, 1975a: Propedéutica filosófica. México, Porrúa.
__________, 1975b: Kant y la escuela de Marburgo. México, Porrúa.
Paulson, Stanley, 1998: “Four Phases in Hans Kelsen´s Legal Theory? Reflections on a Periodization”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 18, pp. 153-166.
__________, 2003: “La distinción entre hecho y valor: la doctrina de los dos mundos y el sentido inmanente. Hans Kelsen como neokantiano”. Doxa, núm. 26, pp. 547-582.
__________, 2007: “Dos programas radicales de “objetivización”. La influencia de Kant y los neokantianos en Hans Kelsen”, en Castañeda, Felipe, Durán, Vicente y Hoyos, Luis Eduardo (eds.), Immanuel Kant: vigencia de la filosofía crítica. Bogotá, Siglo del Hombre Editores, pp. 243-278.
__________, 2012: “A Justified Normativity Thesis in Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law? Rejoinders to Robert Alexy and Joseph Raz”, en Klatt, Matthias (ed.), Institutionalized Reason: the Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 61-112.
Sander, Fritz, 1920: “Die Transzendentale Methode der Rechtsphilosophie und der Begriff der Rechtserfahrung”. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, vol. 1, pp. 460-488.
__________, 1921: “Rechtsdogmatik oder Theorie der Rechtserfahrung? Kritische Studie zur Rechtslehre Hans Kelsens”. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, vol. 2, pp. 511-670.
Sieckmann, Jan, 2017: “Kelsen on Natural Law and Legal Science”, en Langford, Peter, Bryan, Ian y McGary, John (eds.), Kelsenian Legal Science and the Nature of Law. Heidelberg/New York, Springer, pp. 257-273.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ITAM, the publisher, has the copyright of published articles and remaining types of publications. Publications are in open access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. That means, among other things, that authors can freely share their articles, once published in Isonomía, on their personal web pages, Academia.edu, etc.. Between formal acceptance and online publication, authors can share the final drafts of their articles. In contrast, authors must seek permission to reproduce or reprint work, and mention, in the first footnote, "previously published in Isonomía, year, n. x, pp. xx-xx"..
