论文部分内容阅读
在有关法律、国家与社会间关系的持续争论中,埃利希的法律多元主义和凯尔森的统一法律秩序代表着两种极端立场。埃利希批判了时兴的国家中心主义法律观,提出了“法律的事实”和“活法”等重要概念,而凯尔森则在针对《法社会学原理》的书评中依据区分实然与应然的方法论二元主义回应和反驳了埃利希,并为重新定义法律社会学的真正对象——法律的起源和法律的实效——提供了崭新理论平台,而“活法”要继续存在下去就只能作为国家法的补充而非替代。最后,埃利希与凯尔森的法律观对于解释全球化时代的法律现象可以说各有千秋。
Ehrlich’s legal pluralism and Kelsen’s unified legal order represent two extreme positions in the ongoing debate about law, the relationship between state and society. Ehrlich criticized the fashionable national-centrist legal concept and put forward such important concepts as “legal fact ” and “living law ”, etc., while Kelsen was based on the book review of Principles of Sociology of Law A Methodological Dualism that Differentiates Reality and Response The response to and echoes of Ehrlich and the creation of a new theoretical platform for the redefinition of the real object of legal sociology - the origin of law and the effectiveness of law - Law "to continue to exist only as a supplement to national law instead of. Finally, the legal views of Ehrlich and Kelsen can be said to explain the legal phenomenon in an era of globalization.