Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula
Статья посвящена анализу термина “формула Радбрух” как способа разрешения конфликта между справедливостью и позитивным правом. Исследуются история развития и особенности реализации формулы Радбруха в правовой практике Германии. Автор проанализировал все способы апробации данной формулы на норматив...
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2004 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Інститут держави і права ім. В.М. Корецького НАН України
2004
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/9658 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Zitieren: | Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula / F. Saliger // Проблеми філософії права. — 2004. — Т. II. — С. 68-70. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-9658 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
Saliger, F. 2010-07-05T13:28:20Z 2010-07-05T13:28:20Z 2004 Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula / F. Saliger // Проблеми філософії права. — 2004. — Т. II. — С. 68-70. — англ. 1818-992X https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/9658 Статья посвящена анализу термина “формула Радбрух” как способа разрешения конфликта между справедливостью и позитивным правом. Исследуются история развития и особенности реализации формулы Радбруха в правовой практике Германии. Автор проанализировал все способы апробации данной формулы на нормативном материале немецкого права. Подчеркнуто, что формула Радбруха рассматривается как основание для возрождения естественного права в Германии. The article is dwells on the analysis of the term “Radbruch’s formula” as the way of solution of the conflict between justice and positive law. The evolution and the peculiarities of realization of Radbruch’s formula in German law practice are under research. The author has analyzed all possible treatments of the formula in German law. It is underlined that “Radbruch’s formula” is considered as the basis of revival of Natural Law in Germany. en Інститут держави і права ім. В.М. Корецького НАН України Класики філософії права: Густав Радбрух Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula Сущность и практическая значимость формулы Радбруха Article published earlier |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| title |
Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula |
| spellingShingle |
Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula Saliger, F. Класики філософії права: Густав Радбрух |
| title_short |
Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula |
| title_full |
Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula |
| title_fullStr |
Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula |
| title_sort |
content and practical significance of radbruch’s formula |
| author |
Saliger, F. |
| author_facet |
Saliger, F. |
| topic |
Класики філософії права: Густав Радбрух |
| topic_facet |
Класики філософії права: Густав Радбрух |
| publishDate |
2004 |
| language |
English |
| publisher |
Інститут держави і права ім. В.М. Корецького НАН України |
| format |
Article |
| title_alt |
Сущность и практическая значимость формулы Радбруха |
| description |
Статья посвящена анализу термина “формула Радбрух” как способа разрешения конфликта между
справедливостью и позитивным правом. Исследуются история развития и особенности реализации формулы Радбруха в правовой практике Германии. Автор проанализировал все способы апробации
данной формулы на нормативном материале немецкого права. Подчеркнуто, что формула Радбруха рассматривается как основание для возрождения естественного права в Германии.
The article is dwells on the analysis of the term “Radbruch’s formula” as the way of solution of the conflict
between justice and positive law. The evolution and the peculiarities of realization of Radbruch’s formula
in German law practice are under research. The author has analyzed all possible treatments of the formula
in German law. It is underlined that “Radbruch’s formula” is considered as the basis of revival of Natural
Law in Germany.
|
| issn |
1818-992X |
| url |
https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/9658 |
| citation_txt |
Content and practical significance of Radbruch’s formula / F. Saliger // Проблеми філософії права. — 2004. — Т. II. — С. 68-70. — англ. |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT saligerf contentandpracticalsignificanceofradbruchsformula AT saligerf suŝnostʹipraktičeskaâznačimostʹformulyradbruha |
| first_indexed |
2025-11-25T04:11:05Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-11-25T04:11:05Z |
| _version_ |
1850505943175921664 |
| fulltext |
КЛАСИКИ ФІЛОСОФІЇ ПРАВА: ГУСТАВ РАДБРУХ
68 Проблеми філософії права. – 2004. – Том II.
© 2004 F. Saliger
Law Faculty of J. W. Goethe Frankfurt University; Law Faculty of Saarland University
CONTENT AND PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
OF RADBRUCH’S FORMULA
1. The term “Radbruch’s formula” commonly
referres to Gustav Radbruch’s 1946 article Geset-
zliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht (“Sta-
tutory Non-Law and Suprastatutory Law”)∗. In this
article, Radbruch says:
“Preference [in solving the conflict of legal cer-
tainty and justice, by Author] is given to the duly
enacted law and secured by state power as it is, even
when it is unjust and fails to benefit the people,
unless its conflict with justice reaches so intolerable
a level that statute becomes, in effect ’false law’ [un-
richtiges Recht] and must therefore yield to justice”.
(Translated by Stanley L. Paulson)∗∗
Radbruch’s formula in fact comprises two for-
mulae. In addition to the aforementioned first for-
mula – the socalled Unerträglichkeitsthese (“intoler-
ability thesis”) – Radbruch had developed another
differentiation, the socalled Verleugnungsthese (“di-
savowal thesis”). Radbruch continues:
“Where there is not even an attempt at justice,
where equality, the core of justice, is deliberately
betrayed in the assurance of positive law, than the
statute is not merely ’false law’ [unrichtiges Recht],
it lacks completely the very nature of law”. (Transl.
by St. L. Paulson)∗∗∗
Both formulae make prescriptive assumptions
about statutebased law. The socalled “intolerability
thesis” faces the problem of legal validity (Geltung
des Rechts), distinguishing statutory law, which is
unjust but valid, from statute law, that has lost its
∗ Gustav Radbruch, Gesetzliches Unrecht und
übergesetzliches Recht, in: Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung
1946, pp 105-108; reprinted in a fine new German edition
of Radbruch’s famous Philosophy of law (1932), inclu-
ding editorial notes, done by Ralf Dreier & Stanley
L. Paulson, eds., Gustav Radbruch, Rechtsphilosophie,
Studienausgabe, 2nd. ed., Heidelberg: C.F. Müller 2003.
– English Translation in accordance with Stanley
L. Paulson, Lon. L. Fuller, Gustav Radbruch and the
“Positivist Theses“, in: 13 Law and Philosophy, pp. 313-
359 (1994).
∗∗ Radbruch, Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzli-
ches Recht, (supra note 1), at 107.
∗∗∗ Id.
validity in this regard. The “disavowal thesis” in
contrast deals with the concept of law (Begriff des
Rechts), separating law from non-law (scil. statute
law lacking the very nature of law). Despite the dif-
ference in subject, but with regard to both formu-
lae’s reference to justice, one can regard the “dis-
avowal thesis” as a concretion of the “intolerability
thesis”****.
2. The formula’s statement in fact is threefold:
First of all that the conflict of justice and legal cer-
tainty (Rechtssicherheit) could not be solved abso-
lutely, thus allowing only a conditional priority. Sec-
ondly, that this conditional priority operates in favor
of legal certainty; thirdly, that the primacy of legal
certainty is revoked, when injustice becomes
intolerable (unerträglicher Gerechtigkeitsverstoß).
All three statements can be identified with cru-
cial ideas in Radbruch’s philosophy of law. The first
thesis, which refuses concepts of absolute priority in
dissolving the contradiction of legal certainty and
justice, makes Radbruch’s legal philosophy an op-
tion beyond concepts of legal positivism and natural
law theory. This is because traditional natural law
theory gives justice absolute priority, while legal
positivism in contrast asserts absolute priority in
favor of legal certainty, claiming legal validity of
statutory law separate from its moral quality. With
the second thesis, which interpretes conditional pri-
ority in favor of legal certainty, Radbruch takes the
changes of the law in modern time into account: The
problem of finding absolute justice, the triumph of
statute law in democratic constitutional state, and the
separation of law and morality. The third thesis, set-
ting a boundary when unjust statute law loses its
validity, must be interpreted as a result of the Nazi
experience 1933-1945. In this time, Radbruch is
forced to realize that even a statute based legal system
had to be limited, especially by utilizing justice to de-
tect and delegitimze extreme unjustice and in order to
keep the legal system in close connection to morality.
**** For further details see Frank Saliger,
Radbruchsche Formel und Rechtsstaat, 1995.
F. Saliger
Проблеми філософії права. – 2004. – Том II. 69
Through all of his life, Gustav Radbruch (1878-
1949) had struggled for the solution of the conflict
between justice and legal certainty∗. In respect to
Radbruch’s changing collision theorems, his legal
philosophy shows close contact with changing po-
litical conditions. In 1914, before World War I, but
still under the secure conditions of the German Em-
pire, Radbruch holds a relativistic solution for the
antagonism of justice and legal certainty: that is to
say, the solution is dependent on the choice of dif-
ferent ideas of the state, the law and the world,
which in the end can be called freedom, power or
culture∗∗. In 1932, at the end of the Weimar Repub-
lic, Radbruch is advocating a subjective solution,
delegating the decision on legal validity to the indi-
vidual’s conscience∗∗∗. In 1946, after the end of the
Nazi regime, Radbruch formulates an objective an-
tithesis between Statutory Non-Law (Gesetzliches
Unrecht) and Suprastatutory Law (übergesetzliches
Recht). In the course of “materialisation” (Material-
isierung) of his concept of justice, Radbruch explic-
itly rejects the validity of those statutory legal provi-
sions (as being Statutory Non-Law or Non-Law) that
treat humans as inferior people as well as for acts
unbalancely enacting punishment (in many cases
death penalty), or in cases of complete denial of hu-
man rights.
3. Radbruch’s formula is not only the core thesis
in Gustav Radbruch’s legal philosophy; it had also
affected the German law practice deeply. Because of
this, Radbruch’s formula can be called the most ef-
fective thesis in legal philosophy in the 20th century.
Radbruch himself was in no doubt about the
practical application of his “intolerability thesis”, for
he had formulated his formula in close connection to
the legal processing of the Nazi regime’s criminal
legality. Radbruch wants to give post-World War II
jurisdiction a valuation standard for the validity of
Nazi law, conciliating between either maintaining or
denying validity of unjust laws****.
∗ Cf. Stanley L. Paulson, Radbruch on Unjust Laws:
Competing Earlier and Later Views, in: 15 Oxford Jour-
nal of Legal Studies, pp. 489 ff. (1995).
∗∗ Radbruch, Grundzüge der Rechtsphilosophie (=
Basic concepts of Philosophy of Law), 1914, pp. 176 ff.
(at 179).
∗∗∗ Radbruch, Rechtsphilosophie (= Philosophy of
Law), 3rd. ed. 1932, § 10.
**** In detail, see Björn Schumacher, Rezeption und
Kritik der Radbruchschen Formel, Doctoral thesis,
Göttingen University 1985.
Insofar Radbruch’s formula is considered as the
moving spirit of the so-called “Revival of Natural
Law” (Naturrechtsrenaissance) in Germany after
World War II. Recently, Radbruch’s formula has
experienced a revival in the context of the criminal
processing of the East Germany regime after
1990*****. The Federal Court of Justice (Bundes-
gerichtshof) referres in several decisions to the “in-
tolerability thesis”, especially in the trials against the
so-called “Mauerschützen” (Border guards at the
former border of the German Democratic Republic
accused of shooting and killing East German refu-
gees)******. Even the Federal Constitutional Court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht) has tied up to Rad-
bruch’s formula*******.
In criminal law terms, the Radbruch’s formula is
said to be a violation of the ban against retroactivity
(Rückwirkungsverbot) derived from the fundamental
principle of legality (Gesetzlichkeitsprinzip) and in
Criminal law clarified by the Latin maxim “nulla
poena sine lege” (no punishment without a pre-
existing law). As far as Radbruch’s formula is de-
priving unjust regimes of criminal justification, it is
questioned, whether a criminalizing act is conform-
able with the ban against ex post facto law making.
Positivistic scholars deny this question, because
valid law has to remain valid law*. Non-positivists
in contrast, consent the formula’s delegitimisation
effect, because by the use of the formula it is possi-
ble to restrict validity of unjust statutory law, at least
in extreme cases**. In fact, Radbruch’s formula
***** See Ulfrid Neumann, Rechtspositivismus,
Rechtsrealismus und Rechtsmoralismus in der Diskussion
um die strafrechtliche Bewältigung politischer
Systemwechsel, in: Festschrift für Klaus Lüderssen zum
70. Geburtstag, C. Prittwitz et al., eds., Baden-Baden:
Nomos 2002, pp. 109-126.
****** Above all: Federal Court of Justice, Decisions of
the Federal Court of Justice, Criminal cases, Official
collection, vol. 39 pp. 1 ff. (at 15 f.) and vol. 41 pp. 101
ff. (at 105 ff.). See also Saliger, (supra note 4), at 33 ff.;
Arthur Kaufmann, Die Radbruchsche Formel vom
gesetzlichen Unrecht und vom übergesetzlichen Recht in
der Diskussion um das im Namen der DDR begangene
Unrecht, in: 48 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, pp. 81-
86 (1995); Horst Dreier, Gustav Radbruch und die
Mauerschützen, in: 52 Juristenzeitung, pp. 421-434, at
426 (1997); Henning Rosenau, Tödliche Schüsse im
staatlichen Auftrag, 2nd. ed., Baden-Baden: Nomos,
1998.
******* Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, in:
50 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, pp. 929-933 (at 931)
(1997).
Content and Practical Significance of Radbruch’s Formula
70 Проблеми філософії права. – 2004. – Том II.
doesn’t violate the ban against ex post facto law
making, but rather the principle of legal certainty
(Bestimmtheitsgebot) deriving from the rule of law
(Rechtsstaatsprinzip), demanding the offence to be
clearly defined in statute. This is because Rad-
bruch’s formula makes clear that unjust grounds of
justification already lack validity at the time of of-
fence, so there is no need for penalizing retroac-
tively. This exception from the principle of legal
certainty is legitimated by the rationale of the prin-
ciple of legality which is to protect the citizen. It
would be a perversion of the principle of legality to
protect criminal regimes after their felonious system
has collapsed, as it is consequently argued by strict
positivism. In view of intolerable injustice and extreme
acts against human rights, there is no reliable trust.
Beyond practical relevance, Radbruch’s formula
is a normative (prescriptive) thesis for those legal
problems, which are based on the conflict of legal
certainty and justice. For example the problem of
incorrect judgments that have already taken legal
effect and the retrial in cases of intolerable viola-
tions of law, the doctrine of the null and void judg-
ment [Lehre vom nichtigen Strafurteil], and the
question of limitation in criminal matters***.
(Translated by Sascha Ziemann,
Research Assistant at Frankfrut am Main University).
Ф. Салигер
СУЩНОСТЬ И ПРАКТИЧЕСКАЯ ЗНАЧИМОСТЬ
ФОРМУЛЫ РАДБРУХА
Статья посвящена анализу термина “формула Радбрух” как способа разрешения конфликта между
справедливостью и позитивным правом. Исследуются история развития и особенности реализации
формулы Радбруха в правовой практике Германии. Автор проанализировал все способы апробации
данной формулы на нормативном материале немецкого права. Подчеркнуто, что формула Радбруха
рассматривается как основание для возрождения естественного права в Германии.
F. Saliger
CONTENT AND PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
OF RADBRUCH’S FORMULA
The article is dwells on the analysis of the term “Radbruch’s formula” as the way of solution of the con-
flict between justice and positive law. The evolution and the peculiarities of realization of Radbruch’s for-
mula in German law practice are under research. The author has analyzed all possible treatments of the for-
mula in German law. It is underlined that “Radbruch’s formula” is considered as the basis of revival of Natu-
ral Law in Germany.
_____________________________
* See, e.g., Günther Jakobs, Untaten des Staates –
Unrecht im Staat. Strafe für die Tötungen an der Grenze
der ehemaligen DDR? In: Goltdammers Archiv für
Strafrecht, pp. 1-19 (1994). For a critical treatment of
Radbruch’s formula as an illegitimate abbreviation of
natural law, see Wolfgang Naucke, Die strafjuristische
Privilegierung staatsverstärkter Kriminalität, Frankfurt
am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1996.
∗∗ Cf., inter alia, Robert Alexy, Mauerschützen. Zum
Verhältnis von Recht, Moral und Strafbarkeit,
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
∗∗∗ Further details by Saliger, (supra note 4), at 54 ff.
|