Grozio, Pufendorf e il “Tribunale della Scienza”

Franco Todescan318-344

Abstract: Grotius, Pufendorf and the “Tribunal of Science”.
In the historical context of the birth of the modern State, this essay aims to analytically examine the criticisms made by Kelsen, from the point of view of the pure theory of law, and by Olivecrona, from the point of view of Scandinavian realism, to the natural law doctrines of Grotius and Pufendorf. Kelsen focuses his attention on natural law, while Olvecrona on natural right. The main Kelsenian criticism is that natural-law doctrine confuses the plane of is with that of ought. The main Olivecronian criticism is instead that natural right does not exist ontologically but is a pure residue of ancient magical beliefs. The basic idea of this essay is that such criticisms do not make any sense, because the natural-law doctrine belongs to the field of philosophy of law and not of legal science, and therefore it is absurd to want to judge it from the point of view of science.