经济法外文.docx
- 文档编号:17835814
- 上传时间:2023-08-04
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:21
- 大小:34.45KB
经济法外文.docx
《经济法外文.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《经济法外文.docx(21页珍藏版)》请在冰点文库上搜索。
经济法外文
KELSEN,HAYEK,ANDTHEECONOMIC
ANALYSISOFLAW
RichardA.Posner
WhilecastingaboutforasuitabletopicforthislecturethatIhadbeeninvitedtogiveatanannualmeetingoftheEuropeanlawandeconomicsassociationandthatwastobeheldinVienna,Iwastoldthateconomicanalysisoflawhadn’tmademuchheadwayinAustria,becausetheAustrianacademiclegalprofessionremainedundertheswayofAustria’s(andContinentalEurope’s)mostdistinguishedtwentiethcenturylegalphilosopher,HansKelsen.IhadneverreadKelsen,buthisreputationasaKantian,andthetitleofhismostfamousbook,PureTheoryofLaw,madeitindeedplausiblethatfollowersofKelsenwouldbeunsympathetictotheapplicationofeconomicstolaw.ButIrememberedthatanotherfamoustwentieth-centuryAustrianintellectual—indeedonemorefamousthanKelsen—namelyFriedrichHayek,hadbeenadistinguishedeconomistwhohadstudiedlawaswellaseconomicsincollegeandhadwrittenextensivelyaboutlaw—hadwritteninfactatrilogyentitledLaw,LegislationandLiberty.AlthoughIhadreadlittleofHayek’swork,IwasconfidentthathecouldbeplacedinoppositiontoKelsenasamodelfortheintegrationoflawandeconomics.WiththatinmindIsetabouttoreadKelsenandHayek.IshortlymadethesurprisingdiscoverythatKelsen’sphilosophyoflawopensaspaceforeconomicanalysis,andinparticularfortheuseofeconomicsbyjudgesinawiderangeofcasesthatcomebeforethem,butthatHayek’sphilosophyoflawclosesthatspace,forbidsjudgestohaveanythingtodowitheconomics.
Hisgeneralapproachispragmatic,asis(I’llargue)Kelsen’s,butHayekbelievesthatpragmatismrequiresjudgestobeformalists.Kelsen’sphilosophyoflawdeniesthis,andinsodoingitcreatesaspacefornneconomicsinlawandalsoforgesaninterestinglinkbetweenlegalpragmatismandlegalpositivism.IbeginwithKelsen,specificallywithPureTheoryofLaw,theclassicstatementofhisposition.KnowingthatKelsenconsideredhimselfaKantian,reactingtotheconnotationsoftheword“pure,”andsupposingthatitisKantianethicsratherthanepistemologythatapuretheoryoflawwoulddrawupon,oneexpectstoencounterinKelsen’sbookamoralisticconceptionoflawfarremovedfrompragmaticconsiderations.Thatisnotwhatoneencounters.Theintellectualstyle,themethod,ofPureTheoryofLawisclosertothatoftheViennaCircle,andhencetologicalpositivism,thantothatofKant;andlogicalpositivismhasaffinitieswithpragmatism.Logicalpositivismalsotakesscienceasthemodelofobjectiveinquiry,andeconomicspridesitselfonbeingscientific,atleastinmethodandaspiration,whichsuggeststhat
pragmatismandeconomicsmightgohandinhandtoo.
The“pure”ofKelsen’spuretheoryoflawhasnothingtodowithidealismorwithhostilitytothesocialsciences.Ithastodowithhisaimofofferingauniversaldefinitionoflaw.Hewantstodiscoverwhatalllawhasincommon.HisinquiryisparalleltothatofNewton’sstudyofgravitation.Newtonasked(orcanbeimaginedasasking)whatacannonball,theocean’ssurface,afeather,aplanet,andallotherphysicalobjectshaveincommonandansweringthattheyallbehaveinconformitywiththesamelaw(thatis,regularity)ofgravitation.Newton’sinquirywasofcoursepositiveratherthannormative;hewastryingtodiscover,notchange,universal“laws”ofnature.
ButKelsentooisengagedinpositive,notnormative,analysis.Heistryingtodiscoverwhatalllawhasincommon.Heisseekingapositivetheoryofasocialratherthananaturalphenomenonandtheparticularphenomenonthathe’sinterestedinisnormative,buthisinterestisstrictlypositive.Inthatsensehisinquiryis,ashesays,scientific,notjustsystematic.Wemightcallitsociologicalorevenlinguistic,inthesenseoftheOxfordordinary-languagephilosophers;heisexcavatingthemeaning,thewayweuse,theword“law.”Law,hissubject,isnormative,buthisanalysisisnotnormative.
True,itismoredifficulttodeviseacleanempiricaltestofhistheorythanofNewton’s,simplybecause“law”ismoredifficultto“measure”thandistance,mass,velocity,andacceleration.Ifsomeonelocatedasocietywhosemembersclaimedtohave“law”butits“law”didnotmeetKelsen’sdefinition,hemightbetemptedtotrytosavehisconceptfromempiricalfalsificationbysayingthatwhatthesocietyinquestioncalled“law”wasn’treally“law.”Butthesedodgesoccurinsciencetoo.Forexample,ifpartofthedefinitionof“swan”isthatit’swhite,yetsomeonediscoversabirdthathaseveryattributeofaswanexceptwhiteness,scientistshaveachoicebetweentreatingthediscoveryasfalsifyingthedefinitionordeclaringthebirdnotaswanbecauseitdoesn’tsatisfythedefinition.
Sowhatisitthatalllawhasincommon?
Kelsenanswersthatitisnothingthathasanythingtodowiththecontentoflegalprinciples.Thecontentofthelawvariesgreatlyacrosssocietiesandovertime.Thatrulesoutanypossibilityofdefininglawbyreferencetonaturallaw(orto“justice”),whichistosaytosomesetofuniversalprinciplesfoundinstantiatedineverysociety’slegalsystem.Kelsendeniesthat“certaintraitsofmanhaveappearedsocompellingbothfactuallyandmorallythattotransgressthemwouldrenderpositivelawsatonceunjustandineffective.”Andhemeansit:
makingclear—thisJewishrefugeefromHitler(KelsenwasteachingataGermanuniversitywhenHitlercametopower,andhewasfiredforthwithandleftGermanywithinafewmonths)—thatNazilaws,includingtheracialandretroactivelaws,werelawwithinthemeaningofhistheory.Afewprinciplesmayseemuniversalintherelevantsense;everylegalsystemforbidsmurder,forexample.Butthisturnsouttobeatautology.Murderisdefinedasunjustifiedkilling,sotheimportantquestioniswhatcountsasjustification,andtheanswersvaryfromsocietytosociety.Aconceptoflawbasedonsubstantiveoverlapsamongdifferentlegalsystemswouldexplainonlyasmallfractionoflaw.Itwouldbelikeagravitationaltheorythatexplainedtherateoffallonlyofsafetypillsandcantalopes.Sonaturallawisoutasapositivetheoryoflawandwithitanypossibilityofequatinglawtoeconomics.
Butnoonehasevertriedtogoquitethatfarinintegratingthedisciplinesandwe’llseethatKelsen’sconceptoflawleavesplentyofroomforeconomicprinciplestoinformlaw—thoughforotherprinciplesaswell,forIamnotsuggestingthatKelsenwascarryingtheflagforeconomics.WhatKelsenfindsthatalllegalsystemshaveincommonandthuswhatbecomeshisconceptoflawisthepropertyofbeinganormativesystembackedbyacrediblethreatofusingphysicalforceagainstaviolatorofthenorms.Moralsandetiquettearealsonormativesystemsbutdifferinnotrelyingonphysicalforcetosecurecompliance.Propaganda,persuasion,indoctrination,evenbrainwashing—yes,butnotphysicalforce(atleastifweexceptparentalbeatings!
).Acriminalgangmayalsobeanormativesystem—prohibiting,forexample,defectingorinforming—andmayusephysicalforcetoenforceitsnorms.Butthissystemlackscredibility(or,Kelsen’spreferredterm,effectiveness)“ifthecoerciveorderregardedasthelegalorderismoreeffectivethanthecoerciveorderconstitutingthegang.”Thismayseematenuousdistinction,butitwillbecomeclearerandmorepersuasivewhenweconsidertheimportanceoftheinternational-lawconceptofrecognitiontoKelsen’stheory.Asfortheobjectionthatmuchlawisfacilitativeratherthanpunitive,forexamplelawsthatauthorizethemakingofcontracts,Kelsenpointsoutthatcontractlawisreallyadelegationtoprivatepersonsofauthoritytocreateasystemofnormsbackedbyacrediblethreatofusingphysicalforceagainsttheviolator.
SoifAandBmakeacontract,andBbreaksit,AcansueBandifhewinsajudgmentcanenlisttheforceofthestatetoseizeB’spropertytosatisfyit.Noticethatonthisviewthereisnointerestingdifferencebetweenrightandduty—theholderofarightissimplysomeoneauthorizedtoinvokethesanctioningpowerofthestate—orbetweenpubliclaw(lawenforcedbyoragainstthestate)andprivatelaw,sincebothcreateorauthorizethecreationoflegalnorms,thatis,normsbackedbyaneffectivethreatofphysicalforceiftheyaredisobeyed.Butnoteverythinganauthorizedcreatoroflegalnorms,suchasalegislatureoracourt,doesisnormcreating.Kelsengivestheexampleofalegislature’sresolutioncongratulatingaforeignheadofstateontheanniversaryofhisaccessiontopower.Thisisavalidenactment,butnotavalidlegalnorm;itisnotprescriptiveorbackedbyathreatofphysicalforceifdisobeyed—notbeingprescriptive,itcan’tbedisobeyed.Andnoticehowincollapsingrightintoduty(“right”ismerelythe“reflex”of“obligation”),Kelsenjettisonsasuperfluousconcept.Thisisaconsistentfeatureofhistheory,andlendsitanattractivespareness.Hesaysforexamplethatajudicialdeterminationthatastatuteisunconstitutionalissimplyanalternativemodeofrepealtotheenactmentofarepealingstatute.Andasforwhether“freewill”isapresuppositionofmakingapersonlegallyresponsibleforhisviolationsofthelaw,Kelsenanswersthatwecandoquitenicelywithoutanyconceptoffreewill;itisenoughthatthethreatofsanctionsentersintothecausalchainthatdeterminesaperson’sbehavior.OrconsiderKelsen’streatmentofthecorporation.LikeJohnDewey,hewillhavenotruckwiththeconceptofajuristicperson,orotherpersonifications:
“thelawdoesnotcreatepersons.”Acorporation’srightsandliabilitiesaremerelythecollec
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- 经济法 外文