ArticlePDF Available

Hans Kelsen and the Austrian Constitutional Court (1918-1929)

Authors:

Abstract

This article intends to examine Hans Kelsen's contribution to the establishing of the first Austrian Constitutional court, analyzing the key differences between Kelsen's model of Constitutional court and that of his German mentor, the Jurist Georg Jellinek, while focusing on the concrete Austrian historical-political background which had an impact on the shaping and even on the collapse of the Constitutional Court. Unlike most of the works dedicated to such topic, this article pays a great attention to the historicalpolitical dimension behind Kelsen's efforts to create a serious system of juridical defense of the Austrian constitution. In this sense, Kelsen's Constitutional Court is analyzed in reference to the problem of protecting the young Austrian democracy - emerged from the ashes of the Habsburg Empire – against its numerous opponents. A problem which is at the core of Kelsen's works on democracy published in the 20s.
... Therefore, there must be an independent body to decide the constitutionality of these laws. 5 ...
... Under Article 58, the Jordanian Constitution entrusts the Constitutional Court the task of overseeing the constitutionality of the applicable laws and regulations and to interpret the provisions of the Constitution. 5 The Constitution also provides for the provisions of the formation of the Constitutional Court, its characteristics, jurisdiction, and mechanism for recourse to the Constitutional Court. ...
... If the court considering the case decides not to refer the plea to the Court of Cassation, its decision may be appealed along with its final resolution issued on the subject of the lawsuit. 5 If the challenge of constitutionality is referred to the Court of Cassation, the Court of Cassation shall be held by a panel of at least 3 members and shall issue its decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. If a decision is taken to refer the request to the Constitutional Court, in such case, it shall inform the parties about this decision. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aims to examine the oversight on the constitutionality of laws in Jordan in the light of the relevant constitutional provisions. The doctrinal approach is used in this study, where the primary data were collected through the provisions of the Jordanian Constitution and laws as well as the ruling of the Jordanian constitutional court. The study addresses the importance of the oversight on the constitutionality of laws, the provisions of the Jordanian Constitution relating to the Constitutional Court, and then the decisions and rulings of the constitutional court.The study concluded that the legal and constitutional provisions relating to the Jordanian Constitutional Court, , together with the Court’s commitment to formal procedures have negatively affected the Court’s role in monitoring the constitutionality of laws and its presumed role in protecting the rights and freedom of Jordanian
... Therefore, there must be an independent body to decide the constitutionality of these laws. 5 ...
... Under Article 58, the Jordanian Constitution entrusts the Constitutional Court the task of overseeing the constitutionality of the applicable laws and regulations and to interpret the provisions of the Constitution. 5 The Constitution also provides for the provisions of the formation of the Constitutional Court, its characteristics, jurisdiction, and mechanism for recourse to the Constitutional Court. ...
... If the court considering the case decides not to refer the plea to the Court of Cassation, its decision may be appealed along with its final resolution issued on the subject of the lawsuit. 5 If the challenge of constitutionality is referred to the Court of Cassation, the Court of Cassation shall be held by a panel of at least 3 members and shall issue its decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. If a decision is taken to refer the request to the Constitutional Court, in such case, it shall inform the parties about this decision. ...
Data
This study aims to examine the oversight on the constitutionality of laws in Jordan in the light of the relevant constitutional provisions. The doctrinal approach is used in this study, where the primary data were collected through the provisions of the Jordanian Constitution and laws as well as the ruling of the Jordanian constitutional court. The study addresses the importance of the oversight on the constitutionality of laws, the provisions of the Jordanian Constitution relating to the Constitutional Court, and then the decisions and rulings of the constitutional court.The study concluded that the legal and constitutional provisions relating to the Jordanian Constitutional Court, , together with the Court's commitment to formal procedures have negatively affected the Court's role in monitoring the constitutionality of laws and its presumed role in protecting the rights and freedom of Jordanians.
... Therefore, there must be an independent body to decide the constitutionality of these laws. 5 ...
... Under Article 58, the Jordanian Constitution entrusts the Constitutional Court the task of overseeing the constitutionality of the applicable laws and regulations and to interpret the provisions of the Constitution. 5 The Constitution also provides for the provisions of the formation of the Constitutional Court, its characteristics, jurisdiction, and mechanism for recourse to the Constitutional Court. ...
... If the court considering the case decides not to refer the plea to the Court of Cassation, its decision may be appealed along with its final resolution issued on the subject of the lawsuit. 5 If the challenge of constitutionality is referred to the Court of Cassation, the Court of Cassation shall be held by a panel of at least 3 members and shall issue its decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. If a decision is taken to refer the request to the Constitutional Court, in such case, it shall inform the parties about this decision. ...
Article
This study aims to examine the oversight on the constitutionality of laws in Jordan in the light of the relevant constitutional provisions. The doctrinal approach is used in this study, where the primary data were collected through the provisions of the Jordanian Constitution and laws as well as the ruling of the Jordanian constitutional court. The study addresses the importance of the oversight on the constitutionality of laws, the provisions of the Jordanian Constitution relating to the Constitutional Court, and then the decisions and rulings of the constitutional court.The study concluded that the legal and constitutional provisions relating to the Jordanian Constitutional Court, , together with the Court's commitment to formal procedures have negatively affected the Court's role in monitoring the constitutionality of laws and its presumed role in protecting the rights and freedom of Jordanians.
... As a fore mentioned, the Republic of Macedonia was a republic and a federal unit within Yugoslavia in the period of 1945to 1991. In 2012 Contradictions in the decisions of the Court concerning the same Law are obvious. Given the fact that the Venice Commission already had already given an opinion on this Law, the decision not to start the assessment of the challenged articles directly contradicted the prior practice of the Court. An absurdity of the Law concerned the det ...
Article
Full-text available
The demo Christian political party VMRO-DPMNE had a long period of ruling of the Republic of Macedonia, (2006-2016). During that period many cases of political pressure on the state institutions have occurred. The Constitutional Court wasn’t an excepted of that political pressure. Starting from the process of appointment of new judges, through the shocking decisions upon official citizens’ complaints and human rights appeals, to a complete reflection of the political interference and pressure through the dissenting opinions written and published by some constitutional judges. The former government has used all the tools, legal and non-legal, to put under control the Constitutional Court. If we put aside the political interference into the appointment of new and incompetent judges, one of the most used tools as a form of resistance was the dissenting opinion. This legal tool is present in the Book of Rules of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia, but also in the legal systems in the Eastern Europe, Germany, Spain, Greece and all other states whose legal systems are created by the German legal system. It gives space and chance for one or several constitutional judges to express disagreement upon a decision brought by the majority in the court. This tool was frequently used by several judges from the Constitutional Court in the Republic Macedonia in the given period through which we can see strong political influence on their work. Therefore, the research questions are as follows: What were the “models” of political influence that were used on the Constitutional Court during the period of 2012-2015? How were they used and what are the dissenting opinions reflecting? To answer the said questions, the model of qualitative research will be used together with several dissenting opinions as case studies. The aim of this approach is to explain the different aspects of political influence on the work of the Constitutional Court within the given period. The findings of this research can be used for further development of the interest for researching of the work and role of the Constitutional Court in the Republic of Macedonia.
Article
The third amendment of Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution, conducted in 2001, had significant implications for the nation’s judiciary. It transformed the judiciary from a single to a dual structure. Consequently, there are two apexes of the judiciary: the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, the establishment of the Constitutional Court divided judicial review authority between the two apex courts. The Constitutional Court can review laws against the Constitution, while the Supreme Court has the power to review whether regulations, made under laws, contradict such laws. Although the Indonesian Constitution provides explicit delineations over the absolute competence of judicial review, the division of judicial review has often triggered tension between the two courts. The Constitution allows the Supreme Court to have additional authorities granted by laws. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court has the power to review any law against the Constitution, including laws related to the Supreme Court. This article seeks to answer the important question of whether the Constitutional Court could influence or intervene in the Supreme Court through judicial review. The authors argue that the duality of judicial review authority unintentionally causes an imbalance in the functional relationship between the two apexes of the judiciary. The main reason is that the Constitutional Court can influence or intervene in the Supreme Court through constitutional review authority. The authors examine two essential aspects of this: (1) the functional implications of duality of judicial review authority; and (2) the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s authority in reviewing laws, especially those closely related to the Supreme Court’s authorities. Various cases are examined to illustrate how the Constitutional Court could directly or indirectly influence the Supreme Courts’ authorities. The Constitutional Court, however, often seems to ‘play safe’ to maintain the judiciary’s imbalanced relationship caused by the dualism of judicial review authority.
Article
Full-text available
This paper aims to provide an analysis of two important things: First, the conception and use of the preamble to the constitution can be a constitutional touchstone. Second, the use of the preamble to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia as a constitutional touchstone in practice in Indonesia. This normative juridical research uses statutory approach, conceptual approach and case approach. The result is that as a constitutional touchstone, not only the values in the preamble to the constitution are reflected in every constitutional provision, but are also used as a basis for constitutional interpretation, as well as a tool to test the validity of the law in resolving conflicting norms. Furthermore, in Indonesia the use of the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution as a constitutional touchstone is related to the legal position and status of the Preamble to the 1945 NRI Constitution as an integral part of the constitution as well as a foundation in establishing a constitution. The preamble to the 1945 Constitution is often used as a source of constitutional rights in the practice of judicial review at the Constitutional Court, as well as a tool in testing the legal validity of a statute.
Article
Full-text available
This study is a normative legal research which aims at discovering answers of two fundamental questions, namely, first, how is the status of the decisions of the Indonesia’s Constitutional Court according to the country’s constitutional system; secondly, what legal remedies may be pursued by the Indonesian citizens who are followers of indigenous beliefs whose constitutional rights to embrace such beliefs remain infringed despite there has been the decision of the Indonesia’s Constitutional Court Number 97/PUU-XIV/2016 which confirms the constitutional guarantee of such beliefs. With respect to the first issue, the study found that the status of the Court’s decision was equal to Law because it was the product of a negative legislator. In addition, because the Court was also the interpreter of the Constitution (UUD 1945), then its decision was the Court’s constitutional interpretation concerning the issue at hand. As to the second issue, the study found that the followers of indigenous beliefs could file several legal remedies, namely citizen suit; class action; individual law suit; and submitting a formal complaint to the president, as the highest chief administrative officer, asking the president to reprimand its subordinates and to instruct them to observe the Court decision. Kajian ini adalah sebuah penelitian hukum normatif yang bermaksud menemukan jawaban atas dua pertanyaan mendasar yaitu, pertama, bagaimana kedudukan dari putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi menurut sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia; kedua, jalan hukum apa yang dapat ditempuh oleh warga negara Indonesia penghayat kepercayaan yang hak konstitusionalnya untuk menganut keyakinan tersebut tetap dirugikan meskipun telah ada Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 97/PUU-XIV/2016 yang menegaskan jaminan konstitusi terhadap hak tersebut. Terhadap isu pertama, kajian ini menemukan jawaban bahwa kedudukan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi adalah setara dengan undang-undang karena merupakan produk dari negative legislator. Sebagai tambahan, oleh karena Mahkamah Konstitusi juga merupakan penafsir Konstitusi (UUD 1945), maka putusannya adalah penafsiran konstitusional Mahkamah terhadap masalah yang sedang ditanganinya. Terhadap isu kedua, kajian ini menemukan jawaban bahwa penghayat kepercayaan dapat mengajukan beberapa upaya hukum, yaitu gugatan warga negara, gugatan kelompok, gugatan individual, dan membuat pengaduan resmi kepada presiden, selaku kepala pemerintahan tertinggi, dan meminta agar presiden memperingatkan bawahannya serta memerintahkan mereka untuk mematuhi putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.
Article
Full-text available
Georg Jellinek es concebido, por lo general, como uno de los representantes más destacados del positivismo jurídico alemán. En este artículo, lo observo no solo como un teórico del derecho, sino también como un pensador político de inspiración liberal. En ese sentido, busco demostrar algunas continuidades y conexiones clave entre los aspectos fundamentales de su teoría jurídica positivista, su visión política de inspiración liberal, así como su estancia en Viena y migración posterior hacia Alemania.
Article
Full-text available
Through the momentum of the third amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which was passed in 2001, Indonesia has officially adopted a dualistic judicial review system. Under such system, the authority to conduct judicial review is divided/spread to the two judicial organs, each with its own scope of review; namely, the Supreme Court/Mahkamah Agung reviews regulations below the level of Law (Undang-undang), while the Constitutional Court/Mahkamah Konstitusi reviews the same against the Constitution (constitutional review). Seen from the theoretical and practical perspective adhered to by states which adopt the formation of the Constitutional Court (centered judicial review model), the system adopted by Indonesia is uncommon, and moreover it could be considered as an error in designing the judicial review system. This is in view of the fact that in states which have a Constitutional Court, the authority to conduct judicial review is concentrated / centered upon the Constitutional Court. Such division of authority under the two review regime (legal review and constitutional review) as practiced by Indonesia is not known (except for South Korea), neither in states which use the centralized judicial review model nor in those which use the distribution judicial review model. Such distribution is bound to disrupt the judicial review itself, as the authority to review is implemented by two different institutions with different review standard. Accordingly, in the final part of this research the author puts forward the proposition to centralize the authority to conduct judicial review in the Constitutional Court thus putting an end to the practice of dualistic judicial review which has been proven to be problematic and ensuring that the judicial review system in Indonesia can be reconstructed and placed upon the correct theoretical and practical basis.
Article
Hans Kelsen is considered to be one of the founding fathers of modern legal philosophy. But despite Kelsen's prominence as a legal theorist, his political theory has been mostly overlooked. This book argues that Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law needs to be read in the context of Kelsen's political theory. It offers the first comprehensive interpretation of the Pure Theory that makes systematic use of Kelsen's conception of the rule of law, his theory of democracy, his defense of constitutional review, and his views on international law. Once it is read in the context of Kelsen's political works, Kelsen's conception of legality provides the basis for a notion of political legitimacy that is distinct from any comprehensive and contestable theory of justice. It shows how members of pluralist societies can reasonably acknowledge the binding nature of law, even where its content does not fully accord with their own substantive views of the requirements of justice, provided it is created in accordance with an ideal of fair arbitration amongst social groups. This result leads to a fundamental re-evaluation of the Pure Theory of Law. The theory is best understood as an attempt to find a middle ground between natural law and legal positivism. Later positivist legal theorists inspired by Kelsen's work failed to appreciate the political-theoretical context of the Pure Theory and turned to a narrow instrumentalism about the functions of law. The perspective on Kelsen offered in this book aims to reconnect positivist legal thought with normative political theory.
Article
Abstract Constitutional review was the most original idea stemming from the Austrian Federal Constitution of 1920. It is argued that the politician Karl Renner gave birth to the idea of a constitutional court. Hans Kelsen played the predominant role in the drafting of constitutional provisions. The new Constitutional Court provided for a centralized system of review, with an eye to a number of politically important issues. Owing to the pressure that stemmed from various discussions between and among the politicians of the national state and the Lnder, Kelsen was obliged to depart from the German model of the federal state and to develop in its place a new theory.
La giustizia costituzionale, Milano: Giuffrè [trad. it de Kelsen, Hans, 1928, La garantie jurisdictionelle de la Constitution
  • Hans Kelsen
Kelsen, Hans, 1981, La giustizia costituzionale, Milano: Giuffrè [trad. it de Kelsen, Hans, 1928, La garantie jurisdictionelle de la Constitution, in: Revue de droit publique et science politique, XXXV, Paris].
Lo Stato di diritto. Storia, teoria, critica, Milano: Feltrinelli
  • Zolo Costa
Costa, Zolo, 2002, Lo Stato di diritto. Storia, teoria, critica, Milano: Feltrinelli.
Giuristi e costituzione politica dell'800 tedesco
  • Maurizio Fioravanti
Fioravanti, Maurizio, 1978, Giuristi e costituzione politica dell'800 tedesco, Milano: Giuffrè.
Milano: Giuffrè Fioravanti, Maurizio, 2002, Lo Stato moderno in Europa
  • Maurizio Fioravanti
Fioravanti, Maurizio, 2001, La scienza del diritto pubblico. Dottrine dello Stato e della costituzione tra Ottocento e Novecento, vol I, Milano: Giuffrè Fioravanti, Maurizio, 2002, Lo Stato moderno in Europa. Istituzioni e diritto, Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Der Vorentwurf der österreichischen Verfassung
  • Hans Kelsen
Kelsen, Hans, 1920 (Februar 11, 12, 14), "Der Vorentwurf der österreichischen Verfassung", in: Neue Freie Presse, Vienna.
La giurisdizione costituzionale e amministrativa al servizio dello Stato federale, secondo la nuova costituzione austriaca del 1 Ottobre
  • Hans Kelsen
Kelsen, Hans, 1981, La giurisdizione costituzionale e amministrativa al servizio dello Stato federale, secondo la nuova costituzione austriaca del 1 Ottobre 1920, Milano: Giuffrè [trad. it. de Kelsen, Hans, 1923-1924, Verfassungs und Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit im Dienste des Bundesstaates, nach der neuen österreichischen Bundesverfassungsreform vom I Oktober 1920, in: Zeitschrift für schweiz. Recht, XLII].
La spinta per la riforma costituzionale, Milano: Giuffrè [trad. it de Kelsen, Hans, 1929, Oktober 6
  • Hans Kelsen
Kelsen, Hans, 1981, La spinta per la riforma costituzionale, Milano: Giuffrè [trad. it de Kelsen, Hans, 1929, Oktober 6, "Der Drang zur Verfassungsreform", in: Neue Freie Presse, Vienna].
Die Grundzuege der Verfassungsreform In
  • Hans Kelsen
Kelsen, Hans, 1981, Le linee fondamentali della riforma costituzionale, Milano: Giuffrè [trad. it de Kelsen, Hans, 1929, Oktober 20, Die Grundzuege der Verfassungsreform In: "Neue Freie Presse", Vienna].