Kelsen’s monism and the structure of global law: on the relevance of a Kelsenian account for the polycentric international law

Tomasz Widłak

Abstract

In contrast to Gunther Teubner’s and Andreas Fischer-Lescano’s view, this article argues for the continued relevance of a Kelsenian approach in the face of the structural problems of modern international legal system. Legal scholars often take their own discipline’s terminological and explanatory shortcomings in explaining ‘global law’ phenomena for granted and fall back for methodological guidance on sociological approaches, like the systems theory. This article argues that Kelsen’s and Merkl’s conceptual tools, including the Stufenbaulehre, remain relevant for descriptive and explanatory purposes in relation to transformations of the international legal system, including its inherent polycentrism, heterarchy or the emergence of transnational private regulatory regimes.
Author Tomasz Widłak (FLA / DTPLS)
Tomasz Widłak,,
- Department of Theory and Philosophy of Law and State
Pages275-290
Publication size in sheets0.75
Book Jestaedt Matthias, Poscher Ralf, Kammerhofer Jörg (eds.): Die Reine Rechtslehre auf dem Prüfstand: Hans Kelsen's pure theory of law: conceptions and misconceptions: Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Vereinigung für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie vom 27.-29. September 2018 in Freiburg im Breisgau, Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie / Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, no. 163, 2020, Franz Steiner Verlag, ISBN 978-3-515-12568-0, 427 p.
Keywords in PolishHans Kelsen, prawo międzynarodowe, prawo globalne, multicentryzm, porządek prawny, stopniowa budowa porządków prawnych
Keywords in EnglishHans Kelsen, international law, global law, polycentric, Stufenbaulehre, Stufenbau
ASJC Classification3308 Law; 1211 Philosophy
Languageen angielski
File
Widlak_Tomasz_Kelsens_Monism_an_ the_Structure_of_Global_Law_2020.pdf 2.63 MB
Score (nominal)75
Score correctionScore increased (at least one author (N) declares Humanities, Social sciences or Theological science)
Score sourcepublisherList
ScoreMinisterial score = 75.0, 17-04-2020, ChapterFromConference
Publication indicators Scopus SNIP (Source Normalised Impact per Paper): 2018 = 0.132
Citation count*
Cite
Share Share

Get link to the record


* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.
Back
Confirmation
Are you sure?