Is and ought as the basis of Bruno Leoni’s criticism to Hans Kelsen
Article Sidebar
Article Details
Authors keep the copyright and accept the publication of the contents in the journal Dos mil tres mil under the license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International. When authors submit their manuscript, it is assumed that they know and accept the terms of open access and the license used, that they allow publication in this journal and the disclosure of the work.
Authors are allowed to re-use published works, ie post-print may be archived for non-publication purposes Commercial, including their deposit in institutional repositories, thematic or personal web pages. Reproduction in other print or electronic media must include an acknowledgement of the authorship of the work and its initial publication in the Journal.
Downloads
Altmetrics
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article aims to present and contrast the theories of law of the jurists Bruno Leoni and Hans Kelsen, who belong to different legal-philosophical trends. In this way, the questions that the first asked the second are collected and systematized. Thus, it addresses the question about the basis of his criticisms and presents the arguments which allow concluding that such foundation is the distinction that Kelsen made between the world of is and ought.
References
Bertolini, D. (2015). The Theory of law ῾As claim’ and the inquiry into the sources of law: Bruno Leoni in Prospect. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 24, 561-606. Recuperado de https://gould.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/25-1-Bertolini.pdf
Calsamiglia, A. (1997). En defensa de Kelsen. Barcelona, España: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Recuperado de https://www.icps.cat/archivos/WorkingPapers/WP_I_129.pdf?noga=1
Iniesta, J. J. (1999). La oposición entre ser entre ῾ser’ y ῾debe ser’ en el análisis de la norma jurídica de Hans Kelsen y Norberto Bobbio. Anales de Derecho, 17, 125-142. Recuperado de https://revistas.um.es/analesderecho/article/view/81141
Kelsen, H. (1949). Teoría general del Derecho y del Estado, 1.ª ed. (E. García Maynez, Trad.). México D.F: Universidad Autónoma de México.
Kelsen, H. (1934). Teoría pura del Derecho, 1.ª ed. Madrid, España: Trotta.
Kelsen, H. (1969). Teoría pura del Derecho. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Eudeba.
Leoni, B. (1961). La libertad y la ley. 3.ª ed. Madrid, España: Unión Editorial.
Leoni, B. (2003). Lecciones de Filosofía del Derecho. Madrid, España: Unión Editorial.
Lottieri, C. (2008). Prefacio. En B. Leoni, Lecciones de filosofía del derecho (J. M. Fuente, Trans.). Madrid, España: Unión Editorial.
Masala, A. (2003). Il liberalismo di Bruno Leoni. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore.
Menocci, S. (2003). L'Antiformalismo di Bruno Leoni nei suoi rapporti con le correnti del Realismo Giuridico. Siena: Dipartamento di Scienze Politiche e Internazionali.
Robles, G. (2011). Presentación. En H. Kelsen, Teoría pura del Derecho (pp.9-32). Madrid, España: Trotta.
Huerta de Soto, J. (2010). Prólogo. En B. Leoni, La libertad y la ley (pp.9-17). Madrid, España: Unión Editorial.
Schmill, U. (2010). Hans Kelsen: Aportaciones teóricas de la Teoría Pura del Derecho. Doxa: Cuadernos de Filosofia del Derecho, 33, 18-36. Recuperado de https://doxa.ua.es/article/view/2010-n33-hanskelsen-aportaciones-teoricas-de-la-teoria-pura-del-derecho
Walter, R. (2011). Hans Kelsen vida y obra.