KARL SCHMITT AND HANS KELSEN'S DISCUSSION ON THE GUARANTOR OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONFLICT OF POLITICAL AND LEGAL DOCTRINES
https://doi.org/10.18384/2224-0209-2022-3-1125
Abstract
Aim. To establish common and diverging points of Karl Schmitt's decisionism and Hans Kelsen's pure theory of law, which manifested themselves during the discussion on the guarantor of constitution.
Methodology. The approach of the Cambridge School of Conceptual History, described in the methodological works of the political thought historian Quentin Skinner, is used as the methodological basis of the study. The key approach is complemented by the use of special methods, which include comparative, formal-legal, and historical-biographical methods.
Results. It is revealed that the discussion about the guarantor of the constitution demonstrates a high degree of antagonism between the political and legal teachings of K. Schmitt and G. Kelsen. These contradictions concern not so much specific political and legal requirements (recognition of the Reich President as the guarantor of the constitution or the establishment of a constitutional court for the same purpose), but theoretical and methodological objectives and interpretations of key concepts on which thinkers base their positions, as well as the argumentative strategies that seem convincing and are used by them to defend their own points of view.
Research implications. The theoretical significance lies in the establishment of the factors underlying the contradictions between the doctrines, as well as the role of discussion in the formation of each of them. At the same time, the acuteness of the disagreements revealed during the polemic problematizes the construction of the state-legal theory as a kind of integral structure. In addition to this, it seems that the propositions put forward have significant heuristic potential and, subject to further refinement, can partially be used to explain the development of the history of political and legal thought.
About the Author
Anton D. Ukhanov
Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Assistant, Department of Theory and History of Russian and Foreign Law, Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service
References
1. Benoist A. de. Carl Schmitt Actuel: Guerre Juste, Terrorisme, État D'urgence, Nomos De La Terre (Rus. ed.: Denisov S., transl. Karl Shmitt segodnya. «Spravedlivaya voina», terrorizm, chrezvychainoe polozhenie, «Nomos Zemli». Moscow, Institut obshchegumanitarnykh issledovanii Publ., 2013. 192 p.).
2. Varga Ch. [Pitfalls of legal positivism (mutually refuting and complementing the theories of Kelsen and Schmitt)]. In: Yuridicheskii pozitivizm i konkurentsiya teorii prava: istoriya i sovremennost' (k 100-letiyu so dnya smerti G. F. Shershenevicha): materialy VI mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, Ivanovo, 5–8 oktyabrya 2012 g. [Legal positivism and competition of theories of law: history and modernity (on the 100th anniversary of the death of G. F. Shershenevich): materials of the VI International Scientific and Practical Conference, Ivanovo, 5–8 October, 2012]. Ivanovo, Ivanovo State University Publ., 2012, pp. 233–254.
3. Winkler H. A. Weimar, 1918–1933: Die Geschichte der ersten deutschen Demokratie (Rus. ed.: Zemskova E., Savin A. I., transls. Veimar 1918–1933: istoriya pervoi nemetskoi demokratii. Moscow, ROSSPEN Publ., 2013. 890 p.).
4. Kelsen H. [Judicial Guarantee of the Constitution (Constitutional Justice. Part 1)]. In: Pravo i politika [Law and Politics], 2006, no. 8, pp. 5–14.
5. Kelsen H. [Judicial Guarantee of the Constitution (Constitutional Justice. Part 2)]. In: Pravo i politika [Law and Politics], 2006, no. 9, pp. 5–18.
6. Kelsen H. [Wer soll der Hüter der Verfassung sein?]. In: Schmitt K. Staat: Recht und Politik (Rus. ed.: Kil’dyushov O. V., transl. Gosudarstvo: pravo i politika. Moscow, Territoriya budushchego Publ., 2013, pp. 359–410).
7. Kondurov V. E. [The foundations of the validity of legal order and the problem of the justiciability of the “political”: C. Schmitt on the limits of justice]. In: Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava RAN [Proceedings of the Institute of state and law of the RAS], 2018, no. 13 (5), pp. 63–91.
8. Kravets A. I. Konstitutsionnoe pravosudie. Teoriya sudebnogo konstitutsionnogo prava i praktika sudebnogo konstitutsionnogo protsessa [Constitutional justice. The theory of judicial constitutional law and the practice of judicial constitutional process]. Moscow, Yustitsinform Publ., 2017. 400 p.
9. Krasnov M. A. [Problems of the concept "guarantor of the constitution"]. In: Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie [Comparative Constitutional Review], 2021, no. 2, pp. 15–45.
10. Skinner Q. [Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas]. In: Atnashev T. M., Velizhev M. B., comps. Kembridzhskaya shkola: teoriya i praktika intellektual'noi istorii [The Cambridge School: Theory and Practice of Intellectual History]. Moscow, Novoye literaturnoe obozrenie Publ., 2018, pp. 53–122.
11. Stolleis M. Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland: Weimarer Republik und Nationalsozialismus (Rus. ed.: Subbotin O. G., transl. Istoriya publichnogo prava v Germanii: Veimarskaya respublika i natsional-sotsializm. Moscow, ROSSPEN Publ., 2017. 664 p.).
12. Schmitt K. Staat: Recht und Politik (Rus. ed.: Kil’dyushov O. V., transl. Gosudarstvo: pravo i politika. Moscow, Territoriya budushchego Publ., 2013, 448 p).
13. Schmitt K. Politische Theologie (Rus. ed.: Filippov A., transl. Politicheskaya teologiya. Moscow, Kanon-press-Ts Publ., Kuchkovo pole Publ., 2000. 336 p.).
14. Shustrov D. G. Priruchennyi leviafan: gosudarstvo kak ob"ekt konstitutsionno-pravovogo regulirovaniya [Tamed leviathan: the state as an object of constitutional and legal regulation]. St. Petersburg, Alef Press Publ., 2014. 434 p.
15. Aliprantis N., Olechowski T. Hans Kelsen: Die Aktualität eines großen Rechtswissenschafters und Soziologen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Wien, Manzsche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung, 2014. 119 p.
16. Paulson S. L. Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt: Growing Discord, Culminating in the "Guardian" Controversy of 1931. In: Meirehenrich J., Simons O. The Oxford Handbook of Carl Schmitt. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 510–546.
17. Vinx L. The Guardian of Constitution. Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt on the limits of Constitutional Law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015. 290 p.
Review
Views:
726
Email this article 