The Public International Law Theory of Hans Kelsen: Believing in Universal Law

344 Pages·2010·1.669 MB·English

by  Jochen Von Bernstorff and Thomas Dunlap

This page intentionally left blank
THE PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
THEORY OF HANS KELSEN
ThisanalysisofHansKelsen’sinternationallawtheorytakesintoaccount
thecontextoftheGermaninternationallegaldiscourseinthefirsthalfof
thetwentiethcentury,includingthereactionsofCarlSchmittandother
WeimaropponentsofKelsen.TherelationshipbetweenhisPureTheory
ofLawandhisinternationallawwritingsisexamined,enablingthereader
tounderstandhowKelsentriedtosquarehisownliberalcosmopolitan
projectwithhismethodologicalconvictionsaslaidoutinhisPureTheory
ofLaw.Finally,JochenvonBernstorffdiscussesthelimitsandcontinuing
relevanceofKelsenianformalismforinternationallawunderthetermof
“reflexiveformalism,”andoffersareflectiononKelsen’stheoryofinter-
nationallawagainstthebackgroundofcurrentdebatesoverconstitutio-
nalization, institutionalization, and fragmentation of international law.
The book also includes biographical sketches of Hans Kelsen and his
mainstudentsAlfredVerdrossandJosephL.Kunz.
Jochen von Bernstorff is a senior fellow of the Max Planck
Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in
HeidelbergandalecturerattheUniversityofFrankfurt.Asalegaladviser
intheUNDepartmentoftheGermanFederalForeignOffice,hewasa
memberoftheGermandelegationattheCommissiononHumanRights
inGenevain2004and2005andtheUNHumanRightsCouncilin2006,
as well as a member of the German delegation at the UN General
Assemblyin2003,2004and2005inNewYork.

cambridge studies in international
and comparative law
Established in 1946, this series produces high quality scholarship in
the fields of public and private international law and comparative law.
Although these are distinct legal sub-disciplines, developments since
1946confirmtheirinterrelation.
Comparative law is increasingly used as a tool in the making of
law at national, regional and international levels. Private international
law is now often affected by international conventions, and the issues
facedbyclassicalconflictsrulesarefrequentlydealtwithbysubstantive
harmonisationoflawunderinternationalauspices.Mixedinternational
arbitrations, especially those involving state economic activity, raise
mixedquestionsofpublicandprivateinternationallaw,whileinmany
fields(suchastheprotectionofhumanrightsanddemocraticstandards,
investmentguaranteesandinternationalcriminallaw)internationaland
nationalsystemsinteract.Nationalconstitutionalarrangementsrelating
to‘foreignaffairs’,andtotheimplementationofinternationalnorms,are
afocusofattention.
The Board welcomes works of a theoretical or interdisciplinary
character, and those focusing on the new approaches to international
orcomparativelaworconflictsoflaw.Studiesofparticularinstitutions
or problems are equally welcome, as are translations of the best work
publishedinotherlanguages.
GeneralEditors
JamesCrawfordSCFBA
WhewellProfessorofInternationalLaw,FacultyofLaw,andDirector,Lauterpacht
ResearchCentreforInternationalLaw,UniversityofCambridge
JohnS.BellFBA
ProfessorofLaw,FacultyofLaw,UniversityofCambridge
EditorialBoard
ProfessorHilaryCharlesworth
AustralianNationalUniversity
ProfessorLoriDamrosch
ColumbiaUniversityLawSchool
ProfessorJohnDugard
UniversiteitLeiden
ProfessorMary-AnnGlendon
HarvardLawSchool
ProfessorChristopherGreenwood
LondonSchoolofEconomics
ProfessorDavidJohnston
UniversityofEdinburgh
ProfessorHeinKötz
Max-Planck-Institut,Hamburg
ProfessorDonaldMcRae
UniversityofOttawa
ProfessorOnumaYasuaki
UniversityofTokyo
ProfessorReinhardZimmermann
UniversitätRegensburg
AdvisoryCommittee
ProfessorD.W.BowettQC
JudgeRosalynHigginsQC
ProfessorJ.A.JolowiczQC
ProfessorSirElihuLauterpachtCBEQC
JudgeStephenSchwebel
Alistofbooksintheseriescanbefoundattheendofthisvolume.
THE PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL LAW
THEORY OF HANS KELSEN
Believing in Universal Law
JOCHEN VON BERNSTORFF
and
THOMAS DUNLAP
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore,
São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521516181
© Jochen von Bernstorff 2010
Translated by Thomas Dunlap
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the
provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part
may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2010
ISBN-13 978-0-511-77646-5 eBook (NetLibrary)
ISBN-13 978-0-521-51618-1 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy
of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
CONTENTS
Preface pagexiii
Introduction 1
PART I Thequestforobjectivity:themethodand
constructionofuniversallaw 13
1 Methodandconstructionofinternationallawin
nineteenth-centuryGermanscholarship 15
A Kaltenbornandthe“objectiveprinciple”ofinternational
law 15
I The“subjectiveprinciple”inKantandHegel 17
II Humanityasa“communityoflaw”[Rechtsgemeinwesen]in
Kaltenborn 18
B BergbohmandFricker:“Theproblemofinternational
lawrevisited” 21
C Jellinekassynthesis 26
I Thefreewillofthestateastheformalgroundofalllaw 28
II Theconceptof“self-obligation”[Selbstverpflichtung]and
theobligatorynatureofpubliclaw 30
III Thetheoryoftheguaranteednorm 32
IV Jellinek’s“objectiveinternationallaw” 32
1 The“natureofthething”[NaturderSache]asaprinciple
ofobjectification 32
2 “Sharedinterests”and“purposeofthestate”asthefinal
sociologicalfoundationofobjectiveinternationallaw 35
D HeinrichTriepelandthe“commonwill”[Gemeinwille]
asaprincipleofobjectivization 38
Conclusion 42
vii
viii contents
2 Kelsenianformalismascriticalmethodologyin
internationallaw 44
A Anewmethodologicaltoolkit 44
I Methodologicaldualismasthestartingpoint 45
II Methodologicalcritiquethroughthe“identitythesis” 50
III Theanti-ideologicalthrustofthenew
methodology 54
B Thefunctionofthecriticalmethodology:lawas
auniversalmediumforshapingsociety 56
I Volk,nation,andstateininternationallaw 56
II Lawasauniversalmediumofsocietalchange 60
C Thefundamentalcritiqueoftheconceptualapparatus
ofinternationallaw 61
I Theconceptualuncouplingofthenotionofsovereignty
fromthe“stateasalegalpersonofwill”[willensfähige
Staatsperson] 61
1 Critiqueoftheconceptionofsovereigntyasacorestock
ofstatecompetencies 63
2 Sovereigntyasahierarchy-creating,orderingelement
ofthelegalsystem 64
II Thecritiqueofthedoctrineofself-obligation 67
III Thecritiqueofadualismofstatelawandinternational
law 70
1 Acrititueofthedualityofsources 70
2 Acritiqueofthedualityofregulatoryobjects 71
D Theopponentsofthecriticalmethod:Kelsen’s
abstractconceptualworldasa“radical-logicistic
metaphysics” 73
3 An“objective”architectureofinternationallaw:Kelsen,
Kunz,andVerdross 78
A Constructingaunitarysystem 78
I Systemicunityasanepistemological
postulate 79
II “Delegation”asaunity-creatingstructural
principle 80
III Theideaofunityinthediscourseon
internationallaw 82