Abstract

The author discusses Kelsenian identification of validity, existence, and binding force of legal norms. He argues that identifying validity and existence has a number of highly disputable consequences, such as (i) ascribing validity to whatever actually promulgated norm, (ii) confusing norms of behaviour and power conferring norms. Identifying existence and binding force, in turn, entails, inter alia, that (i) binding force is a definitional property of any norm whatsover, (ii) normative propositions are deontic sentences identical to the norms they supposedly describe, (iii) logical principles can be indirectly applied to norms, (iv) any legal system is necessary gapless.