Who decides whether legal rulings are actually lawful and with what consequences? This question, which can be stylised as the problem of »unlawful law«, divided minds within the Vienna School of Jurisprudence around Hans Kelsen and formed the core of a bitter controversy between two of his most gifted students, Adolf Julius Merkl and Fritz Sander. This polemic (ca. 1918-1930), in its idea-historical and legal-theoretical facets, is the subject of the present work, which sees itself as a polemography.
Who decides whether legal rulings are actually lawful and with what consequences? This question, which can be stylised as the problem of »unlawful law«, divided minds within the Vienna School of Jurisprudence around Hans Kelsen and formed the core of a bitter controversy between two of his most gifted students, Adolf Julius Merkl and Fritz Sander. This polemic (ca. 1918-1930), in its idea-historical and legal-theoretical facets, is the subject of the present work, which sees itself as a polemography.
Table of contents:
Einleitung
Erster Teil: Entwicklung - Die Reine Rechtslehre im (Binnen-)Kontext der Wiener Schule
Kapitel I: Die Wiener Schule der Rechtstheorie
Kapitel II: Kelsens frühe Lehre der 'fehlerhaften Staatsakte'
Kapitel III: Merkls und Sanders Querwege: Zwischen Devotion und Rebellion
Zwischenfazit des Ersten Teils
Zweiter Teil: Einwicklung-
Die Merkl-Sander-KontroverseKapitel IV: Die Rechtstheorie Adolf Julius Merkls
Kapitel V: Die Rechts(verfahrens)theorie Fritz Sanders
Kapitel VI: Das Problem des 'rechtswidrigen Rechts'
Zwischenfazit des Zweiten Teils
Dritter Teil: Auswirkung und Abwicklung - Aftermath: Nachtrag zur Merkl-Sander-Kontroverse
Kap. VII: Die Alternativermächtigung
Kap. VIII: Reine Rechtslehre(n)? Die Hintergründe der schulimmanenten Divergenzen
Kap. IX: Errata: Eine Therapie der Debatte
Zwischenfazit des Dritten Teils
Epilog
