Maansarovar Law Centre
HANS KELSON (1881-1973)
INTRODUCATION
1. Hans Kelson was another jurist who has the credit of
reviving the original analytical legal thought in 20th
century.
2. He was also the judge of Supreme Constitutional
Court of Austria for ten years during 1920-1930.
3. Thereafter, he came to United States and worked as
Professor of Law in several American Universities
and authored many books. He was Emeritus
Professor of Political Science in the California
University when he expounded his Pure Theory of
Law.
1
CLASS NOTES
MAIN POINTS
1. Kelson‟s theory of pure science of law which is also
known as Theory of interpretation was a reaction
against vicious ideology which was corruption the
legal theory and the jurisprudence of a totalitarian
state. He nomeneclatured his theory as “Pure Science
of Law”.
2. Kelson described law as a „normative science‟ as
distinguished from natural sciences which are based
on cause and effect such as law of gravitation. The
laws of natural science are capable of being
accurately described, determined and discovered in
the form of „is‟ (das sein) which is an essential
characteristic of natural sciences. But the science of
law is knowledge of what law ought to be (das-
sollen). It is the „ought‟ character which provides
normative character of law. For Instance, if „A‟
commits theft he ought to be punished.
3. Kelson‟s pure theory of law is based on pyramidical
structure of hierarchy of norms which derive their
validity from the basic norm which he termed as
„Grundnorm‟. Thus “Grundnorm” or basic norm
determines the content and gives validity to other
norms derived from it. Kelson has no answer to the
question as to wherefrom the Grundnorm or basic
norm derives its validity.
4. Kelson considers legal science as a pyramid of norms
with Grundnorm (basic norm) at the apex. The
subordinate norms are controlled by norms superior
to the hierarchical order. The basic norm which is
otherwise called Grundnorm is however, independent
of any other norm being at apex.
5. According to Kelson law and State are are not
different but they are in fact one and the same.
Likewise, there is no difference between public and
private law. Kelson also denies any legal difference
between natural and juristic personality. For him, all
legal personality is artificial and derives its validity
from grundnorm.
Maansarovar Law Centre CLASS NOTES

BOOKS CRITICISM
1. Austrian Constitution (1920) 1. It excludes all references of social facts and felt needs
2. General Theory of Law and State (1945) of the society, thus, his pure theory of law is without
3. What is Justice (1957) any sociological foundation.
4. Principles of International Law( 1952) 2. Kelson‟s assertion that all the norms excepting the
5. Revised Version of Pure Theory of Law (1960) basic norm are pure, has no logical basis.
6. Pure Theory of Law 3. The theory is found to be based on hypothetical
considerations without any practicability. It is not
possible to divest law from the influence of political
ideology and social needs. He does not consider
justice and morality as essential attributes of law.
4. As Friedmann stated, Kelson‟s theory provides no
solution for the conflicts arising out of ideological
differences. His theory rejects the elements of justice
as a mere emotion which is indeed not true. Law
cannot be completely divorced from ethics or
morality and socially accepted values.
5. Kelson‟s account of legal dynamics is inadequate. It
ignores the purpose of law. For example, while
considering the validity or otherwise of a particular
enactment, the court do not take into account the
prevailing customs or the motives of legislature and
try to co-relate it with social purpose which the Act
seeks to achieve.
6. Kelson‟s pure theory of law also suffers from
methodological short-comings. He ignores the fact
that the action of authority enforcing law to be valid,
has to be in accordance with the procedure and
therefore, it becomes necessary to probe into content
of law. Keslon‟s normative system being one-sided
remains indifferent to the content of norms.