The current dissertation aims at investigating the limits of scientific objectivity of Law, as positivist science, on the theoretical referential of the Pure Theory of Law of Hans Kelsen. The method is deductive-descriptive in bibliographical research. The scientific objectivity of modern science (cartesian) through the isolation of the cognitive object and the use of rigorous method as condition of the truth made fortune in all branches of knowledge and also in Law; which was re-created in the ambit of the res extensa as positive law science on the concept of civil law of Hobbes anchored in renunciation of part of freedom as a natural law. Kelsen employed this way of thinking the knowledge in Law aiming to give it scientificity; isolating its object that, for him, is the positive norm totally isolated from the moral and nature. Kelsen denies the natural law or the inherent freedoms of the human being as law, and he also denies that moral can provide a necessary condition of validity of the positive law. The scientific principle of Law as normative science is the imputation. The method of his theory is the linking of higher norm on the norm, that is born on presupposed basic norm devoid of any moral, political and/or religious content, that only meets reality at the time of application; embarrassing with effectiveness. Interpreting the norm law, for Kelsen, is to apply the norm law, which has two functions: the knowledge of the legal system that goes to the outer limits of the frame and the creative function of the judge to fill the frame, rejecting the thesis of the correct decision. At this creative step, the judge may know the spurious elements contained or not in pure norm, which are the moral, policy and/or religion as a way to mitigate the subjectivity; so subjectivity is an ideal that rejects solipsism, but it does not reach the scientific objectivity. The current dissertation reached the following classification: the decision is binding when the frame limits are narrow; the decision is discretionary when the frame is large and contains several possibilities; the decision is illegal when it is out of the frame; the decision is arbitrary when there is no frame; judicial activism occurs on the constitutional frame in the implementation of fundamental laws by the judiciary. The dissertation is concluded by affirming that the mobilization of spurious elements – in other words, the renegades by the purity of law - is the only possibility to mitigate the subjectivity and that the scientific objectivity of law science as a normative science, reaches only the outer limits of the frame.
|
