| dc.identifier.citation | Bulygin, Eugenion. 1990. „An Antinomy in Kelsen‟s Pure Theory of Law.‟ Ratio Juris Journal. Vol. 3. Hlm. 29-45. Mikhail Antonov. 2011. History of Schism: the Debates between Hans Kelsen and Eugen Ehrlich. Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law (ICL-Journal). Vol 5. issue 1 Austria: Vienna University of Economics and Business. Delacroix, Sylvie. 2004. Hart's and Kelsen's Concepts of Normativity Contrasted. Ratio Juris Journal. Volume 17. Issue 4. December 2004. Italy : University of Bologna. Ebenstein, William Ebenstein. 2013. What Is Justice? Justice. Law by Hans Kelsen. Journals American Political Science Review . Volume 52. Issue 02. Published online by Cambridge University Press 02 Sep 2013. Frew, Kendra. 2013. Hans Kelsen‟s Theory and The Key to His Normativist Dimension. The Western Australian Jurist. Vol. 4. Australia: School of Law - Murdoch University. García, Mónica and Salmones Rovir. 2013. The Politics Of Interest In International Law. New York University School of Law: The Jean Monnet Center for international and Regional Economic Law and Justice. This article can be found at: www.JeanMonnetProgram.org. Hanna, Robert. Kant In The Twentieth Century. see http://spot.colorado.edu/~rhanna/ kant_in_the_twentieth_century_proofs_ dec07.pdf Kammerhofer, Jörg and Friedrich-Alexander Universität. Erlangen-Nürnberg . The Benefits of the Pure theory of law for International lawyers. or: What use is Kelsenian theory. InternatIonal legal theory. Volume 12 Fall 2006. American Society of international law. United State: University of Baltimore. Kelsen, Hans. 1949. Preface General Theory of Law and State. Cambridge Massachusets: Harvard University Press. 20 Th Century Legal Philoshopy Series Vo.-I. ___________. 1967. Pure Theory of Law. Berkerley and Los Angeles California Cambridge: University of California Press. ___________. 1996. Introduction to the Problem o Legal Theory. Oxford : Clarendon Press. ___________. 2007. Pure Theory of Law : Legality and Legitimacy. transltaed by Lars Vinx. New York: Oxford University Press ___________. 2008. Introduction to the Problem of Legal Theory. a translation of the Reine Rechtslehre or Pure Theory of Law by Bonnie Litschewski Paulson and Stanley L. Paulson. re-printed. Oxford University Press : Clarendon Press. ___________. 2011. General Theory of Law and State. Appendix: The Epistemological (Metaphysical) and Psychological Foundation. Translated by Anders Wedberg. United States: Imprint. Lawbook Exchange. Kletzer, Christoph. 2013. Absolute Positivism. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy. Aflevering 2-2013. tersedia di http://www.bjutijdschriften.nl/tijdschrift/ rechtsfilosofieentheorie/2013/2/NJLP_2213-0713_2013_042_002_002. Kundu, Subrata Kumar. 2011. Re-Visiting The Viability Of „The Rule Of Recognition‟ And „The Basic Norm‟ In Modern Legal Context. Social Science Research Network (electric Journal). This article can be found at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1866863. Manullang, E. Fernando M.. 2007. Menggapai Hukum Berkeadilan : Tinjauan Hukum Kodrat dan Antinomi Nilai. Jakarta: Buku Kompas. Milosavljević, Boris. 2013. An Early Critique Of Kelsen`S Pure Theory Of Law: Slobodan Jovanović On The Basic Norm And Primacy Of Inetrnational Law. Belgrade Law Review. Year LXI. 2013. No. 3. Serbia: Faculty of Law - University of Belgrade. Paulson, Stanley L. 2005. The Neo-Kantian Dimension of Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 12. No. 3. (Autumn. 2005). ____________. 2010. Kedudukan Hans Kelsen dalam Yurisprudensi. Kata pangantar dalam buku Hans Kelsen Introduction to The Problem of Legal Theory. diterjemhakan oleh Siwi Purwandari. Cet. Ke-III. Pengantar Teori Hukum. Bandung : Penerbut Nusa Media ____________. 2010. On The Implication of Kelsen‟s Doctrine of Hierarchical Structure. The Liverpool Law Review. Vol. XXV. Springer Netherlands. This article can be found at: http://www.springer.com/law/journal/ ____________2011. Hans Kelsen‟s Earliest Legal Theory. The Modern Law Review Journal. Volume 59. Issue 6. London: London School of Economics and Political Science Article first published online: 18 JAN 2011DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.1996.tb02695.x. the article can basis epistemologi found at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.14682230.1996.tb02695.x/. ___________ 2013. How Merkl’s Stufenbaulehre Informs Kelsen’s Concept. Revus. journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law. Vo. 21. Document available online on: http://revus.revues.org/2727. Klub Revus : Center za raziskovanje evropske ustavnosti in demokracije Hlm 29-45 ___________. Spring 1988. Four Phases in Hans Kelsen‟s Legal Theory? Reflections on a Periodization”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Vo. 18 No. 1 Popovic, Milijan. 2002. Methodological Models of The General Theory of Law. facta Universitates. series: Law and Politics Jurnal. Vol. 1. No. 6. Putra, Heddy Shri Ahimsa. 2008. Paradigma dan Revolusi Ilmu dalam Antropologi Budaya : Sketsa Beberapa Episode. Naskah Pidato Pengukuhan Guru Besar Pada Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Universitas Gadjah Mada Yogyakata. Tanpa Penerbit. ___________. 2009. Paradigma Ilmu Sosial-Budaya: Sebuah Pandangan. Makalah disampaikan pada Kuliah Umum “Paradigma Penelitian Ilmu-ilmu Humaniora“ diselenggarakan oleh Program Studi Linguistik. Sekolah Pascasarjana. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. di Bandung. 7 Desember 2009. ___________. 2011. Paradigma Profetik: Mungkinkah? Perlukah?. Makalah disampaikan dalam “Sarasehan Profetik 2011”. diselenggarakan oleh Sekolah Pascasarjana UGM. di Yogyakarta. 10 Februari 2011. ___________. 2011. Paradigma. Epistemologi dan Etnografi dalam Antropologi. Makalah disampaikan dalam ceramah “Perkembangan Teori dan Metode Antropologi”. diselenggarakan oleh Departemen Antropologi. Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik. Universitas Airlangga. di Surabaya. 6-7 Mei 2011. ___________. 2012. FENOMENOLOGI AGAMA: Pendekatan Fenomenologi untuk Memahami Agama. Walisongo Walisongo; Jurnal penelitian sosial keagamaan. Volume 20. Nomor 2. November 2012. Semarang: Lembaga Penelitian (LEMLIT) IAIN Walisongo Semarang. Zamroni. 2000. Paradigma Pendidikan Masa Depan. Yogyakarta: PT Bayu Indra Grafika. | in_ID |
| dc.description.abstract | Melalui pure theory of law, Hans Kelsen berupaya menyelesaikan persoalan anitinomi
yurisprudensi dan dualisme metafisik-religius dalam ilmu hukum. Dengan mengkonstruksi
basis epistemologi dari teori yang dibangunnya, ia menawarkan unsur-unsur ontologi,
epistemologi dan aksiologi yang berbeda dengan aliran filsafat hukum alam (natural law
theory), dan aliran filsafat hukum empiris–positivistik (empirico-positivist theory of law),
sehingga ilmu hukum memiliki obyek, tujuan dan ruang lingkup serta metodologi sendiri,
yang berbeda dengan ilmu lainnya. | in_ID |
