It seems, that positive law is used (again) to prevent instead to guarantee peace. Thomas Hobbes said, it is (morally) legal to kill a tyrant and Rudolf von Ihering spoke in his popular speach in Vienna (1872 - it was published later in the book The Struggle for Right in several languages) about the task of each citizen to protect the law for peace purpose. As far as I understand, Immanuel Kant said you have to accept even a tyrant. Ihering (and later his scholar Jellinek) spoke about the purpose of law and that it is only used for the purpose to protect interests. This was the beginning of the Positivism (in law), which led also to the events under Hitler, but later to make a step back to Natural law (e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). But the last decades I found there is again a step back to Positivism. Why I am talking about this: Is there no higher institution (an external one) than the Constitutional Court to prove such things? There are such institution in the economic field ( e.g. International Arbitration tribunal in Stockholm). And if it is only to win time...
Posted on: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:25:18 +0000