Kelsen uses sanctions to emphasize the coercive aspect of the law. Because it brings a psychological aspect to a legal theory, Kelsen rejects Austin`s interpretation of sanction, which she sees as a mandate from the sovereign. Therefore, it favours the fundamental norm that confers legitimacy on legislation. Its authoritarian character lends credibility to any legal system. The sanctioning power of the basic standard makes it applicable to all other laws. According to Kelsen`s study of the sanctioned view of the law, legal norms are articulated in the form that if a person does not comply with a certain prohibition, the courts must impose a penalty, whether criminal or civil. As far as efficacy is concerned, there is no such criterion for determining minimum efficacy. The idea is not viable under revolutionary conditions, critics say. There are no criteria for assessing the minimum effectiveness of a legal system, and the effectiveness of a legal system cannot be quantified by theory. He left out the social issues of morality and fairness, both of which play a role in effectiveness.

Hans Kelsen (1881-1973) was an Austrian jurist and philosopher and began his career as a legal theorist in the early 20th century. From 1920 to 1930 he was a judge of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Austria. His notable works are Principles of International Law and Pure Theory of Law. Hans Kelsen first proposed his theory in 1934 and expanded it in 1960. Kelson`s pure legal theory is also known as normative theory. Hans Kelsen calls it pure theory of law because it speaks of pure law and excludes other factors that influence the definition of law, such as morality, ethics, economics, sociology, etc. Kelsen`s theory is at the same level and has a similar meaning to Austin`s theory. Kelsen believes in the concept that law should be pure from any sociological, political, historical, logical, etc.

inquiry. The law does not cover all disadvantaged, connected or mixed parties. Thus, according to Kelsen, “the law will stand on its own.” First, it would be “pure” in a sense analogous to Kant`s Metaphysical Foundations of Science. It constitutes a priori a `pure part` of the case-law, consisting of a framework of basic concepts. Then, this framework would be applied in an empirical part of the jurisprudence to empirical (sociological, historical, etc.). Material applied to understand this material as a “law”. [11] Friedmann`s objection is that Kelsen`s pure jurisprudence is inadequate in terms of legal theory. Law now overlaps with fields previously assigned to other social disciplines such as economics, psychology and sociology. Critics also argue that a single theory cannot rule over all the world`s legal systems. Since each legal system has its own laws and norms, pure theory cannot be applied to all legal systems.

Another problem is that an abstract and artificial theory cannot determine the legal implications of sudden change. Due to its limited scope, it cannot cope with changing conditions and scenarios of legislation. Law is a “normative science,” according to Kelsen, but legal norms can be separated from scientific norms. “Science,” according to Kelsen, is a form of knowledge organized around logical principles. According to Kelsen, a norm is a rule that prescribes a certain behavior. It distinguishes between legal and moral rules. He said a moral standard only says “what a person should or should not do,” but a legal standard states that if a person violates the norm, they will be punished by the state. According to him, law is distinct from politics, sociology, philosophy and any other non-jurisprudence.

According to Kelsen, an appropriate legal theory must be pure, i.e. logically autonomous and therefore not dependent on extra-legal values, natural law or other external sources (such as the sociological, political, economic or historical influence of law). Austin`s theory of command is not accepted by Kelsen because it incorporates a psychological aspect into the concept of law, which Kelsen rejects. Kelsen suggests calling the law a depsycholized order. Kelsen considers “sanction” to be an important part of the law, but prefers to call it the “norm.” Kelsen`s philosophy of law is free from ideals or ethical or political judgments. Pure legal theory is a theory of positive law, not of a particular legal system, but of law in general. It is a general theory of law. As such, it is the most consistent version of this school of law called legal positivism because it considers only positive law as “law” and refuses to recognize any other normative social order as law, even if it is called “law” in language, as the so-called “natural law.” 1. Law is a normative science: According to Kelsen, law is a “normative science,” but legal norms can be distinguished from scientific norms. Kelsen defines “science” as a system of knowledge organized according to logical principles. According to Kelsen, a norm is a rule that prescribes a certain behavior.

It distinguishes between legal and moral norms. He said the moral norm only says “what a person should or should not do,” but the legal norm says that if a person acts against the norm, then he will be punished by the state. Kelsen does not accept Austin`s theory of command, as it introduces a psychological element into the definition of the law that Kelsen avoids. Kelsen believes the law should be defined as a depsycholized commandment. Kelsen also sees “sanction” as an essential part of the law, but prefers to call it a “standard.” Kelsen`s legal theory is an analysis free from any ethical and political judgment or value. Kelsen`s argument is that if natural law contains aspects of politics, sociology, or other factors, it is not necessary to explain it.