Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:57:11.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Theory in the Collapse of Weimar: Contemporary Lessons?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

David Dyzenhaus
David Dyzenhaus*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Weimar Republic is frequently invoked in political theory as an example when the issue is the appropriate response of liberal democracies to internal, fundamental challenges. I explore that example through the lens of a 1932 court case that tested the legality of the federal government's “coup” against Prussia. In my analysis of the court's judgment and of the arguments of three political and public law theorists, Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen, and Hermann Heller, I argue for Heller's democratic vision of the rule of law. In my conclusion, I compare problems in Kelsen's position with problems in the recently articulated position of John Rawls in order to suggest what lessons Weimar may have for contemporary political theory.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 91 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 121 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bracher, Karl Dietrich. 1984. Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik [The dissolution of the Weimar Republic]. 5th ed. Dusseldorf: Droste Verlag.Google Scholar
Brecht, Arnold. [1944] 1968. Prelude to Silence: The End of the German Republic. New York: Howard Fertig.Google Scholar
Dyzenhaus, David. N.d. Truth's Revenge: Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen, and Hermann Heller in Weimar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Eyck, Erich. 1967. A History of the Weimar Republic, vol. 2. Trans. Hanson, Harlan P. and Waite, Robert G.L.. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Finn, John E. 1991. Constitutions in Crisis: Political Violence and the Rule of Law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grimm, Dieter. 1992. “Verfassungserfüllung—Verfassungsbewahrung—Verfassungsauflösung: Positionen der Staatsrechtslehre in der Staatskrise der Weimarer Republik” [Constitutional fulfilment—constitutional preservation—constitutional dissolution: The positions of public lawyers in the state crisis of the Weimar Republic]. In Die Deutsche Staatskrise 1930–33: Handlungsspielräume und Alternativen [The German state crisis 1930–33: Room for free play and alternatives], ed. Winkler, Heinrich August. Munich: R. Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
Grund, Henning. 1976. “Preussenschlag” und Staatsgerichtshof im Jahre 1932 [The “strike against Prussia” and the court in 1932]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facticity and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. Rehg, William. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1983. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heller, Hermann. 1992. 3 vols. Gesammelte Schriften [Collected writings], 2d ed., Müller, Christoph. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar
Vol. 2. Recht, Staat, Macht [Law, state, power].Google Scholar
[1926] 1992. “Die Krisis der Staatslehre” [The crisis of state theory.Google Scholar
[1927] 1992. Die Souveränität: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie des Staatsund Völkerrechts [Sovereignty: A contribution toward the theory of state and international law].Google Scholar
[1928] 1992. “Politische Demokratie und Soziale Homogenität” [Political democracy and social homogeneity].Google Scholar
[1929] 1992. “Rechtsstaat oder Diktatur” [Rule of law or dictatorship].Google Scholar
[1931] 1992. Europa und der Fascismus [Europe and fascism].Google Scholar
[1932] 1992a. “Ist das Reich Verfassungsmässig vorgegangen?” [Did the Reich act in accordance with the constitution?].Google Scholar
[1932] 1992b. “Bürger und Bourgeois” [Citizen and bourgeois].Google Scholar
Vol. 3. Staatslehre als politische Wissenschaft [Theory of the state as political science].Google Scholar
[1934] 1992. Staatslehre [Theory of the state].Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. 1930–1931. “Wer soll der Hüter der Verfassung sein?” [Who should be the guardian of the constitution?] Die Justiz 6 (11/12):576–628.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. 1932–1933. “Das Urteil des Staatsgerichtshof vom 25. Oktober 1932” [The court's judgment of 25 10 1932]. Die Justiz 8 (2/3):65–91.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. [1928] 1981. Der soziologische und der juristische Staatsbegriff [The sociological and juristic concepts of state], 2d ed. Tübingen: Scientia Verlag Aalen.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. [1929] 1981. Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie [The nature and value of democracy], 2d ed. Tübingen: Scientia Verlag Aalen.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. [1934] 1992. Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. Trans. Paulson, Bonnie Litschewski and Paulson, Stanley. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Ellen. 1984. “The Politics of Toleration in Late Weimar: Hermann Heller's Analysis of Fascism and Political Culture.” History of Political Thought 5 (Spring):109–27.Google Scholar
Kolb, Eberhard. 1988. The Weimar Republic. Trans. Falla, P.S.. London: Unwin Hyman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lustick, Ian. 1996. “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 90 (09):605–18.Google Scholar
Mommsen, Hans. 1996. The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy. Trans. Forster, Elborg and Jones, Larry Eugene. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Ingo. 1991. Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich. Trans. Schneider, Deborah Lucas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Niemeyer, Gerhart. 1941. Law without Force: The Function of Politics in International Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Preussen. [1933] 1976. Preussen contra Reich vor dem Staatsgerichtsthof: Stenogrammbericht der Verhandlungen vor dem Staatsgerichstshofin Leipzig vom 10. bis. 14 und vom 17. Oktober 1932 [Prussia v. Reich before the court: Stenographic report of the proceedings before the court in Leipzig, 10 to 14 and 17 October 1932]. Glashütten im Taunus: Verlag Detlev Auvermann Kg. Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1983. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1994. “Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence.” In Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1991. “The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy.” In Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers Volume 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rossiter, Clinton L. 1948. Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in Modern Democracies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rüthers, Berndt. 1989. Entaretes Recht: Rechtslehren und Kronjuristen im Dritten Reich [Degenerate law: Law professors and state law officers in the Third Reich], 2d ed. Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William E. 1994. Between the Norm and the Exception: The Frankfurt School and the Rule of Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schlink, Bernhard. 1994. “German Constitutional Culture in Transition”. In Constitutionalism, Identity, Difference, and Legitimacy: Theoretical Perspectives, ed. Rosenfeld, Michel. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Schluchter, Wolfgang. 1983. Entscheidung für den sozialen Rechtsstaat: Hermann Heller und die staatstheoretische Diskussion in der Weimarer Republik [Decision for the social rule of law: Hermann Heller and the discussion of state theory in the Weimar Republic], 2d ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. 1932. “Die Verfassungsmässigkeit der Bestellung eines Reichskommissars für das Land Preussen” [The constitutionality of the appointment of a commissioner for the Reich in Prussia]. Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung 15 (41):954–8.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. [1932] 1976. The Concept of the Political. Trans. Schwab, George. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. [1922] 1988. Political Theology. Trans. Schwab, George. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. [1932] 1988. Legalität und Legitimität [Legality and legitimacy], 5th ed. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. [1922] 1989. Die Diktatur [Dictatorship]. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. [1928] 1989. Verfassungslehre [Constitutional theory]. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Smend, Rudolf. 1995. Staatsrechtliche Abhandlungen und andere Aufsätze [Essays on public law and other articles], 3d ed. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.