O-3

Hans Kelsen had an unusual theoretical aptitude. His theory of law is so general, in an Aristotelian way, that one can imagine someone reading it with keen interest even a thousand years from now. However, I didn’t quite enjoy this book as much as his General Theory of Law and State. At times his theoretical purity becomes a burden which restrains his thought too much. His arguments make sense, but the explanatory step from premise to conclusion is so short that every part of the argument is quite self-evident, and therefore not very interesting.

The author frequently emphasizes that his pure jurisprudence, which has quite misleadingly been translated as ”science” of law in this English translation, is independent of the ”political” aspects of law. This is somewhat disappointing from a philosophical point of view, because it means that the author disavows any considerations that have to do with legitimacy and illegitimacy. According to him, a ”valid” constitution can be put in force by any revolutionary victor, no matter how absurd and unfair its content may be. Dictators across the world could quote the Pure Theory of Law to prove that their coercion is based on ”valid” grounds.

The English translation of this book also seems a bit wobbly at times. The real meaning of some sentences has clearly been lost in translation, others are just overly complicated. I liked the chapters on the state and international law most, but the book mentioned above is a much broader analysis of these subjects. The concluding chapter on legal interpretation was also nice, but very short. Overall this is a book for the ages, but only for a very narrow community of legal scholars. Let's hope they won't serve dictatorial governments. The audience of this book could have expanded significantly if the theory had been a little bit less ”pure”.