This article is an English summary of the plenary paper Methodologische Klarheit oder gegenständliche Reinheit des Rechts. Anmerkungen zur Diskussion Kelsen-Pitamic presented at the 25th Congress of the IVR, which was held in Frankfurt am Main in August 2011.
Methodological Clarity or the Substantial Purity of Law? Notes on the Discussion between Kelsen and Pitamic†
Article first published online: 19 MAY 2014
© 2014 The Author. Ratio Juris © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Volume 27, Issue 2, pages 176–189, June 2014
How to Cite
Pavčnik, M. (2014), Methodological Clarity or the Substantial Purity of Law? Notes on the Discussion between Kelsen and Pitamic. Ratio Juris, 27: 176–189. doi: 10.1111/raju.12045
- Issue published online: 19 MAY 2014
- Article first published online: 19 MAY 2014
Leonid Pitamic was convinced that law could not be understood and explored by a single method aiming at a pure object of enquiry. He argued that it was necessary to employ other methods besides the normative one (especially the sociological and axiological methods), which, however, should not be confounded. Methodological syncretism can be avoided by clearly distinguishing between different aspects of law and by allowing the methods to support each other. By following this guideline, and by arguing according to a clear method, we can also open up a space for dialogue and for the juxtaposition of contrasting points of view.