International and National Law
Identification of law as characteristically coercive is more difficult with public international law, but Kelsen finds sufficient sanctions.
As to the relation between public international law and national law, however, his position changed dramatically. In the first edition of Reine Rechtslehre, 1934, like many liberal contemporaries he was an internationalist monist: he looked to public international law as global law, subsuming all national or state legal orders. This had the happy consequence that, in its contemporary application, the universality of the Pure Theory (and Kelsen insisted that only universal truths could be 'scientific') would coincide with that of predominantly global law.
By the end of World War II, however, he gave up on this aspiration as unrealistic and, with evident reluctance, accepted a sort of optional monism. He found equally tenable the view that the public international legal order is supremely valid and the view that each national or state legal order is - for itself, in a kind of 'solipsism' - supremely valid. The story of the 'basic norm' might be read as a battle to come to terms with the 'solipsist' option. Kelsen needed not to adopt such solipsism but to provide an account of it.
Read more about this topic: Pure Theory Of Law
Famous quotes containing the words international and, national and/or law:
“U.S. international and security policy ... has as its primary goal the preservation of what we might call the Fifth Freedom, understood crudely but with a fair degree of accuracy as the freedom to rob, to exploit and to dominate, to undertake any course of action to ensure that existing privilege is protected and advanced.”
—Noam Chomsky (b. 1928)
“If the national security is involved, anything goes. There are no rules. There are people so lacking in roots about what is proper and what is improper that they dont know theres anything wrong in breaking into the headquarters of the opposition party.”
—Helen Gahagan Douglas (19001980)
“The law of humanity ought to be composed of the past, the present, and the future, that we bear within us; whoever possesses but one of these terms, has but a fragment of the law of the moral world.”
—Edgar Quinet (18031875)