Jan Sieckmann

Kelsen rejects the scientific character of natural-law doctrine. For Kelsen, value judgments are ultimately not rationally justified but a matter of emotions. They can be rationally justified only relative to a certain moral or legal order. Kelsen also rejects the assumption of natural-law doctrines that value is immanent in reality. On the other hand, he suggests that legal science is possible regarding positive law, which is converted into a normative order by presupposing a “basic norm”. I will not challenge Kelsen’s critique of traditional natural-law doctrine, but discuss two issues: Can Kelsen’s own account of the “Pure Theory of Law” claim to be scientific, and does Kelsen’s critique of traditional natural-law theories affect modern versions of normative theories of law?As to the first issue, according to Kelsen, legal science is possible because it refers to positive law, which one can identify by empirical means. However, Kelsen is not content with a purely descriptive approach to law, but wants to show how legal science is possible as a science of norms. In this respect, the “basic norm” is crucial. This chapter questions whether the mere presupposition of a basic norm is sufficient to establish the scientific character of legal doctrine.As to the second issue, quite a number of theories have been advanced that purport to show how scientific, or at least rational, treatment of normative issues is possible without the dubious assumptions of traditional natural-law doctrines. I will discuss in particular Gustav Radbruch’s “methodological trialism” and the discourse theory of law as presented by Robert Alexy. From this discussion, I will then proceed to address the further question of the continued relevance of Kelsen’s critique of natural-law doctrine for legal science.

Proportionality is the standard that guides the balancing of human or fundamental rights in law, requiring that the interference with rights must be justified by reasons that keep a reasonable relation with the intensity of the interference. One may well regard the principle of proportionality as a universal standard of rationality, which any legal system must recognise. Thus, when applied to human rights, proportionality presents a universal human rights principle. However, the thesis of the universal validity of the principle of proportionality faces various objections. I will refute these objections. First, I will distinguish diverse meanings of the universal character of principles and argue that the principle of proportionality is in a certain sense universally valid. In the second part, I will analyse the content of the principle of proportionality as part of a general framework of balancing and suggest a general scheme for examining the justification of the interference with a fundamental right according to the standard of proportionality.

According to Robert Alexy’s dual‐nature thesis, “law necessarily comprises both a real or factual dimension and an ideal or critical one.” I will suggest, first, that various dualisms need to be distinguished, in particular the empirical and the normative, the real and the ideal, the formal (procedural) and the substantive; second, that the dualism of the empirical and the normative and, within the latter, of the real and the ideal “ought,” is not specific to law but pertains to any normative system; and, third, that a dualism that distinguishes law from morality is a dualism of formal and substantive principles, which also serves to explain the authoritative character of law.

I will argue that balancing is the core of rational lawmaking. Balancing has been intensively analysed as a form of judicial reasoning. Legislative balancing, however, has features that are distinct from judicial balancing. In particular, it is open because the legislature may, in general, pursue its political objectives without further legitimation and is not necessarily bound to consider only Legal principles. It is “pure” as the issue of control and its effects on the structure of balancing are not present in Legislative balancing. And it is complex for it is not restricted to claims advanced in a judicial procedure. The aim of this contribution is to explore the distinctive features of Legislative balancing as a method of rational decision-making. In particular, I will analyse complex problems of balancing and ask in which way the model of balancing that has been developed for the elementary case of two principles in conflict must be amended or modified in order to cope with more complex problems of balancing.

The logical distinction of rules and principles as suggested by Dworkin and Alexy, which has caused much controversy but also has proven to be extremely fruitful, connects the notion of principles with that of balancing. The question then is how to understand reasons for balancing judgments. They must include an ideal ought that goes beyond of what actually is required. The nature of such an ideal ought is difficult to explain, however. Alexy‘s recent definition as an ought that abstracts from contrary reasons fails, just as his previous attempts of defining principles as optimisation requirements or as requirements to be optimized. The key to understanding an ideal ought is - so I will argue - the relation between the reasons for balancing judgments and these judgments themselves. This justificatory relation cannot be inferential, but must be understood as normative, that is, the justification consists in that one is doing what one ought to do. In this line, reasons for balancing judgments can be defined as normative arguments that do not have the structure of propositions, but that of reiterated requirements of validity. The reiteration thesis as well as the non-propositionality thesis will be explained and defended against some objections.

Autonomy is the central idea of modern practical philosophy. Understood as self-legislation, autonomy seems to require that the validity of norms depends on recognition, namely, that their addressees, being autonomous agents, recognise these norms to be valid. But how can one be bound by norms whose validity depends on their being recognised as valid by their addressees? The questions of how autonomous morality and, on this basis, the authoritative character of law can be understood, present persistent puzzles that have been widely discussed, but still await a satisfactory solution. This book presents an analysis of the idea of autonomy as self-legislation and its consequences for law and morality. It links the idea of autonomy with the idea of the balancing of normative arguments, develops a notion of normative arguments as distinct from normative judgements and statements and explains claims to correctness and objectivity that are found in normative discourse. Thus, a 'logic of autonomy' emerges, and it is pervasive in normative reasoning. It connects theses regarding the logic of norms, the structure of balancing, human and fundamental rights, legal validity, legal interpretation, and the relations among legal systems, offering a theory of central elements of normative argumentation, a theory that is undergirded by the mutual relations that exist between and among its parts as well as through the relations that it bears to other theories. Moreover, it offers an alternative to Kantian notions of autonomy and provides solutions to problems that other theories have failed to master.

It will be argued, firstly, that there is a link between the legal validity of a norm and the rational justifiability of a requirement that judges should apply this norm, based on a normative conception of legal validity and the postulate that judges should act as rational persons; secondly, that rational justifiability of legal norms requires the construction of a legal system in a model of principles that differs from theories, e.g., of Kelsen, Hart, Dworkin and Alexy, which are not fully adequate for a normative conception of law

Una concepción tradicional de la argumentación jurídica considera que se debe resolver casos jurídicos a través de subsunción y deducción. Hugo Zuleta disputa esta posición, rechazando así la "concepción puente" de las normas, la que fue defendida en particular por Carlos Alchourrón y Eugenio Bulygin. Según la "concepción puente" la norma condicional incluye una modalidad deóntica solo en su consecuencia, mientras su antecedente consiste en un enunciado descriptivo. En cambio, Zuleta propone la "concepción insular", que pone la modalidad deóntica adelante del condicional ). Discutiré estas concepciones, evaluando su adecuación en distintos ámbitos de aplicación. En particular, defenderé la tesis de que la crítica a la "concepción puente" tiene razón en cuanto se trata de conflictos normativos. Así, la "concepción insular" puede tener una aplicación importante en la teoría de los principios, que trata justamente del análisis de normas en conflicto. The traditional conception of legal argumentation is that legal cases are resolved by means of subsumption and deduction. Hugo Zuleta disputes this position, rejecting the "bridge conception" of norms, which was defended in particular by Carlos Alchourrón and Eugenio Bulygin. According to the "bridge conception", the conditional norm includes a deontic modality only in its consequence, whilst the antecedent consists of a descriptive sentence. By contrast, Zuleta defends the "isle conception", which puts the deontic modality in front of the conditional ). I will discuss these conceptions, assessing their adequacy in distinct fields of application. In particular, I will defend the thesis that the critique of the "bridge conception" is correct in the case of norm conflicts. Thus, the "isle conception" can have an important application in the theory of principles and the analysis of norm conflicts