“Unlawful Law”: The Debate between Merkl and Sander within the Vienna School of Jurisprudence

每天，法律的官员的决定都受到公众和专业界的批评，他们被宣布为“错误”或“错误”。这通常意味着，受到批评的法律的决定是非法作出的。在汉斯·凯尔森（Hans Kelsen，1881-1973）周围的维也纳法学院传统中，正是在“非法法”问题上，意见分歧最大。这个问题的概念化形成了他的两个学生之间的争论的核心：阿道夫·朱利叶斯·梅克尔（Adolf Julius Merkl，1890-1970）和弗里茨·桑德（Fritz Sander，1889-1939）。这场争论对法律作为一种人造工具的不可靠性提出了质疑，并在1918年至1930年期间动员了整个维也纳学派，对“Reine Rechtslehre”的最终形成做出了重大贡献。这里所涉及的正是由谁来决定一项法律的决定的合法性以及由此产生的后果的问题，虽然梅克尔认为法理学具有首要地位，但桑德坚持认为法律的程序或法律的实践具有首要地位。因此，他们标记了光谱的极端点，学校其他成员的观点也可以定位。我的作品涉及这一迄今未被探索、几乎无人知晓的争论;它旨在提供一种论战志--一种对一场由思想史和思想史所告知的、学校式的辩论的法律理论重建。它部分基于以前未探索的档案材料，并声称产生以下知识收益：1。一般而言，论战学被视为研究法律的理论的一种策略，因为通过观察碰撞模式中的竞争模型可以更准确地把握方法。文本还提供了一个维也纳学派的跨学科历史，首次将这个研究网络的结构和话语动力的各个方面的片段纳入一个连贯的叙述中。梅克尔和桑德的法律的理论第一次以原始的形式独立地提出。桑德的法律的过程理论被（重新）发现。然而，以下情况应该适用：如果不考虑默克尔和桑德的贡献，纯粹法理论就不能在必要的深度上得到理解。方法的多元性和多样性表现在揭示了维也纳学派内部根本不同的观点：从同一个前提出发，可以在不离开纯粹法学基础的情况下获得完全不同的结果。通过重新发现“非法法”这一日常问题的替代方法，我的著作使纯粹法理论更容易为今天的法学理论讨论所用;法学的首要地位以及法律的程序的首要地位可以作为超越纯粹法理论传统的进一步法学理论研究的概念框架。

Every day, decisions of legal officials are criticised both in public and in professional circles, where they are declared to be ‘erroneous’ or ‘wrong’. This often means nothing other than that the criticised legal decisions were made unlawfully. It was precisely on the problem of ‘unlawful law’ that opinions were most widely divided in the tradition of the Vienna School of Jurisprudence around Hans Kelsen (1881–1973). The conceptualisation of this question formed the core of a controversy between two of his students: Adolf Julius Merkl (1890–1970) and Fritz Sander (1889–1939). This controversy, which took issue with the fallibility of law as a man-made tool and mobilised the entire Vienna School in the period from 1918 to 1930, contributed significantly to making the ‘Reine Rechtslehre’ what it eventually became. What was at stake was nothing less than the question of who decides on the lawfulness of a legal decision and what follows from it. While Merkl ascribed primacy to jurisprudence, Sander insisted on the primacy of legal procedure or legal practice. They thus marked the extreme points of a spectrum in which the perspectives of other members of the school can also be located. My work deals with this hitherto unexplored and virtually unknown controversy; it aims to offer a polemography – a legal-theoretical reconstruction of a school-immanent debate informed by the history of ideas and the intellectual history. It is based in part on previously unexplored archival material and claims to yield the following gains of knowledge:1. The polemography is rehashed as a strategy for the study of legal theories in general, as approaches can be more accurately grasped by observing competing models in collision mode.2. The text also offers an interactional history of the Vienna School, bringing fragments of the structure and facets of the discourse dynamics of this research network into a coherent narrative for the first time.3. The legal theories of Merkl and Sander are presented independently for the first time in an original form. Sander’s legal process theory, which has fallen into oblivion, is (re)discovered. Henceforth, the following shall apply: Without taking into account the contributions of Merkl and Sander, the Pure Theory of Law cannot be understood in the requisite depth.4. The plurality and diversity of approaches is expressed in the uncovering of fundamentally different views within the Vienna School: Starting from the same premises, quite different results can be achieved without leaving the ground of a Pure Theory of Law.5. By rediscovering alternative approaches to the daily problem of ‘unlawful law’, my work makes the Pure Theory of Law more accessible for today's legal-theoretical discussion; the primacy of jurisprudence as well as that of legal procedure are made usable as aconceptual scheme for further legal-theoretical research beyond the tradition of the Pure Theory of Law.