Monday, 30 August 2021

Juris North Kelsen 2021 Congress


Juris North Kelsen Congress 2021 (ONLINE)

Global Perspectives on Kelsen”[1]

Friday 24th and Saturday 25th September 2021, 10am-7pm BST

[1] In memory of Prof. Dr María Teresa López (UNLP, Argentina), Prof. Dr John Gardner (Oxford, UK) and Prof. Dr Eugenio Bulygin (UBA, Argentina)


DAY 1: Friday 24th September 2021

Block 1: 10:00am-1:00pm

10:00am Introduction by co-hosts Dr Jorge E. Núñez, Dr Jorge Luis Fabra Zamora and Gonzalo Villa Rosas

10:30am-11:30am Keynote Speaker 1

  • Dr Maris Köpcke Tinturé, University of Barcelona (Spain) and University of Oxford (UK), Kelsen’s Place in the History of Legal Validity

Q&As interactive session between speakers and Zoom attendees.

11:30am-1:00pm Paper Authors 1 and 2

  • Dr Wei Feng, University of Political Science and Law (China), Hans Kelsen on Necessity, Hierarchy, and Content of Law
  • Dr Anna Taitslin, University of Canberra (Australia), Kelsen’s Basic Norm & Hart’s Secondary Rules in Comparative Study of the 20th c. Revolutionary Legal Change in Russia and Germany

Q&As interactive session between speakers and Zoom attendees.

1:00pm-1:30pm Active Break

Block 2: 1:30pm-4:00pm

1:30pm-2:30pm Keynote Speaker 2

  •  Dr Mikhail Antonov, Higher School of Economics (Russia), Hans Kelsen and the Soviet Law

Q&As interactive session between speakers and Zoom attendees.

2:30pm-4:00pm Paper Authors 3 and 4

  • Dr Tomasz Widłak, University of Gdańsk (Poland), Kelsen’s Philosophy of International Law and the Project of Pure Theory of Law
  • Dr Jorge Luis Fabra Zamora, University of Toronto (Canada), Clarifying Kelsenian Monism

4:00pm-4:30pm Active Break

Block 3: 4:30pm-7:00pm

4:30pm-5:30pm Keynote Speaker 3

  •  Dr Andrés Botero Bernal, University of Santander (UIS, Bucaramanga, Colombia), The Kelsen-Hart Debate on Normative Sanction: a Look beyond the Last of the Mohicans

Q&As interactive session between speakers and Zoom attendees.

5:30pm-7:00pm Paper Authors 5 and 6

  • Dr Carlo Garbarino Università Bocconi (Italy) andNYU Law School (United States), Expanding Kelsen’s Concept of Singular Rules and Production of Rules by Rules: Self-applied Rules and Nomo-Dynamic Networks
  • Dr Asya Ostroukh,University of the West Indies (Barbados), Kelsen in the Grenada Court”: Simeon McIntosh’s Contribution to the Understanding of Kelsen’s Theory of Revolutionary Legality

7:00pm Closing remarks – End of day 1

DAY 2: Saturday 25th September 2021

Block 4: 10:00am-1:00pm

10:00am Introduction by co-hosts Dr Jorge E. Núñez, Dr Jorge Luis Fabra Zamora and Gonzalo Villa Rosas

10:30am-11:30am Keynote Speaker 4

  • Dr Lars Vinx, University of Cambridge (UK), Hans Kelsen and the Crisis of Democracy

Q&As interactive session between speakers and Zoom attendees.

11:30am-1:00pm Paper Authors 7 and 8

  • Jingshu Wang, University of Political Science and Law (China), Resolve Norm Conflicts and Uphold International Law:Kelsen’s Legacy in Contemporary Challenges
  • Dr Phil Edwards, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK), Kelsen and ‘Primitive’ International Law: Three Answers and a Question

1:00pm-1:30pm Active Break

Block 5: 1:30pm-4:00pm

1:30pm-2:30pm Keynote Speaker 5

  •  Dr Monika Zalewska, University of Lodz (Poland), Fictionalism in Hans Kelsen’s General Theory of Norms

Q&As interactive session between speakers and Zoom attendees.

2:30pm-4:00pm Paper Authors 9 and 10

  • Dr Rubin Assis da Silveira Souza, Law School of São Paulo, FGV-SP, and. National Council for Scientific and Technological DevelopmentCNPq (Brazil), Kelsen on Kant’s Pure and Practical Reason Contradiction
  • Cristiano de Aguiar Portela Moita, Freie Universität Berlin (Germany), Wittgenstein’s Rule-Following Paradox in Kelsen’s Account of Legal Interpretation

4:00pm-4:30pm Active Break

 Block 6: 4:30pm-6:30pm

4:30pm-5:30pm Keynote Speaker 6

  • Dr Carsten Heidemann, Bordesholm (Kiel Bar Association, Germany), Varieties of Validity

Q&As interactive session between speakers and Zoom attendees.

5:30pm-6:30pm Open Floor Discussion and Closing remarks – End of day 2

Should you want to join us live via Zoom and interact directly with our speakers, please book your free ticket using our Juris North Eventbrite page. Note you’ll have to book separately for each day. 

Day 1 tickets:

Day 2 tickets:

The event will be transmitted live via YouTube and Facebook for those who may not be able to get a ticket (note we have limited availability). 

We’ll be using the following hashtags on social media:


Last but not least, as you know, all our Juris North events are completely free. I’d appreciate if those who book a ticket could send a donation to Fundação Angelica Goulart, which I represent globally.

Details about our Fundação and how to send your donation: 

Monday 30th August 2021

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

Saturday, 7 August 2021

Christ Consciousness. 8: Self-mastery: the battle towards God and inner peace


Self-mastery: the battle towards God and inner peace

The world is in chaos. Truly, because many of us are in chaos within (our inner world) our local, regional and international contexts (the outer world) present ourselves disjointed, broken, unfair. Unsurprisingly, our leaders do not lead. More accurately, our leaders represent our lack of direction. Why? Because many of us have settled for external approval rather than inner truth. Something I have recently read about heroes and superstars says it all:

“Henry Kissinger expressed it unusually well in his book review of Churchill, and I quote: ‘Our age finds it difficult to come to grips with figures like Winston Churchill. The political leaders with whom we are familiar generally aspire to be superstars rather than heroes. The distinction is crucial. Superstars strive for approbation; heroes walk alone. Superstars crave consensus; heroes define themselves by the judgment of a future they see it as their task to bring about. Superstars seek success in a technique for eliciting support; heroes pursue success as the outgrowth of inner values’.” (“Heroes vs. Superstars,” Ziglar, available at ).

Although it seems we lack direction, accurately, we are longing for inner peace. Puzzling as it may sound, however, we seek for the answers beyond ourselves. There are those who delude themselves with quick fixes such as drugs, alcohol, sex and toxic relationships. Yet, there are others who are subtler and appear to have a reasonably balanced life but depend on arguably “healthier” options like constant company and different kinds of compulsions (e.g. sports, religion, nutrition). Able to see past the apparent, the wise Bulleh Shah and Jesus express what in reality happens:

“Yes, yes; you’ve read thousands of books but you’ve never tried to read yourself; you rush into your temples, into your mosques, but you have never tried to enter your own heart; futile are all your battles with the devil for you have never tried to fight your own desires.” (Bulleh Shah)

“…you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition … These people honor me with their lifes, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.” (Matthew 15:6-9 conf. Isaiah 29:13).

How do we gain inner peace? you may ask. How do we avoid these addictions and dependency on the external, whether a situation, a person, an object, and action or omission? The answer is as simple as hard to achieve. The answer is (has always been) within. It is high time we stop blaming God, Allah, the Universe, the Source, the Eternal, the One, the Many (like in every post, the name we use here is irrelevant. It is just a man-made label for communication. Therefore, I use them interchangeably). In a similar vein, it is time to stop pointing the finger at our Mum, Dad, neighbour, president, prime minister, etc. Inner peace and, consequently, outer peace, starts in, with and through ourselves. St. Benedict and Rumi give us a clue:

“The ladder erected is our life on earth, and if we humble our hearts the Lord will raise it to heaven. We may call our body and soul the sides of the ladder, into which our divine vocation has fitted the various steps of humility and discipline as we ascend (The Rule of St. Benedict, Chapter 7:8-9).

“At times the holy warrior feels expansion, at other times pain, torment, contraction. Our earthly bodies try with all their might denying and then stealing our soul’s light.” (Rumi, The MasnaviBook Two, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 173).

Indeed, it takes our own self to attain inner peace. Firstly, to own the fact it is our choice and it is within our grasp (the “no excuses” motto applies here). Secondly, to set the intention to work for it. Thirdly, to bring that intention to reality: to actually do the work (aka less preaching, more doing). Finally, to stay consistent. Every change requires time and effort. The bigger the challenge, the more discipline will need. A proviso: it is a daily battle within, I must caution you. Hence, do not rely on motivation.  

Mmm, it sounds like hard work, I am certain at this point many may think. You are completely right. But, if you are not willing to work hard for yourself and for your inner peace, at least be content in acknowledging that you accepted willingly the chaos within and without. After all, the world cannot give the gift of peace (conf. John 14:27).

For those who want to join the change, both inner and, as a result outer, I leave you with St. Paul and Buddha and their wisdom about the mastery of our body and our mind.

“Do you not realize that in a race everyone runs, but only one person gets the prize? So run to win! All athletes are disciplined in their training. They do it to win a prize that will fade away, but we do it for an eternal prize. So I run with purpose in every step. I am not just shadowboxing. I discipline my body like an athlete, training it to do what it should. Otherwise, I fear that after preaching to others I myself be disqualified.” (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).

“A man’s mind makes him a Buddha, or it may make him a beast. Misled by error, one becomes a demon; enlightened, one becomes a Buddha. Therefore, control your mind and do not let it deviate from the right path.” (The Teaching of Buddha, Tokyo, Japan: Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai, 2012, 12).

Previous post:

Christ Consciousness. 7: The solitary hero and the false prophets

Available at:

Saturday 07th July 2021

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

Thursday, 1 July 2021

Academic Research II [video]


Academic Research II

Research background.

Planning the research proposal structure.

Wednesday 30th June 2021

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

Tuesday, 29 June 2021

Law as multidimensional phenomena [Post 24]


Validity and efficacy

Alchourrón and Bulygin state that in legal science there are empirical as well as logical issues.[1] It may seem that law as validity belongs only to the world of rules (where “logical” issues are to be found), and law as efficacy belongs only in the world of facts (where “empirical” issues are concerned). In any case, the relationship between validity and efficacy in the idea of law is “synergetic.” This is to say that although these attributes of “law” are meaningful individually, they capture more about what law is when taken together.

To summarize what has been said already, what law is might appear to be either:

  • Rules that are valid, whether or not they are effective; or
  • Rules that regulate behavior, whether supposed “valid” or otherwise.

A situation in which valid laws existed but were ineffective, can be described as a state of law having “broken down;” that here laws were only “theoretical”, or were “fictitious.” In this case, the law exists, but does not rule. The full meaning of “law” has clearly not been realized in such a situation.

A situation fitting the opposite description can also be imagined. Here, conduct is effectively commanded, forbidden, and regulated etc., but the governing “rules” are not recognized as “valid.” The possible criteria of validity are of course many, but on whatever chosen grounds, it is imaginable that these rules may not (for example) have been made by way of legitimate process, or they may command the immoral, forbid the legitimate, or regulate that which should not be regulated. Here, again, the full meaning of “law” has not been realized: the arbitrary word of a dictator “is law.”

It seems clear, then, that the true answer to what law is has to be more closely approximated in a situation in which law is both effective and valid. The meaning of “law”, though not of course exhausted by these two concepts, is nevertheless more deficient when one of them is missing.

But is the relationship between these two conceptual components simply one of co-presence in the concept “law”? Or do they in some sense interact, modifying each other? Alexy presents two possible accounts of this relationship, one “restricted” and one “comprehensive”:

According to the restricted view, what the law is depends exclusively on what has actually been issued and is socially efficacious. It is a matter of social fact. According to the comprehensive view, what the law is depends on what it is correctly taken to be. This view constitutes the participant’s perspective.”[2]

The “restricted” view, that validity depends only on efficacy, implies that socially effective norms may be valid even if they are severely unjust. Only “intolerable” injustice makes an effective norm lose its validity, because in order to be designated “intolerable” it would be clear that the populace was not tolerating it, and that its efficacy was thereby reduced.[3] Such an account of validity Bobbio describes as “reductionistic”[4]—since validity is reduced to efficacy. But on the more “comprehensive” view of validity that Alexy describes, value judgments of another kind are involved.

For Joseph Raz too, the validity of law is not achieved by its efficacy alone.[5]

Bulygin[6] mentions three different ways in which “facts” and “norms” may have a particular relationship: (1) in the case of issuing a norm; (2) in the case of derogating a norm; and (3) (he writes) “[a]nother necessary condition for the validity […] of a norm is according to Kelsen the efficacy of the legal order to which this norm belongs […].”

Previous post:

Next theme:

Validity and efficacy: synergy (available from September 2021).

Author of:

Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty. International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020).

Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017).

Tuesday 29th June 2021

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

[1] C.E. Alchourrón and E. Bulygin, Normative Systems (Library of Exact Philosophy, Springer-Verlag Wien,1971), 53.

[2] R. Alexy, “On the Concept and the Nature of Law,” Ratio Juris 21:3 (2008): 281-299, 297 (emphasis added).

[3] Ibid., 282.

[4] N. Bobbio, Teoria Generale del Diritto (Torino: G. Giappichelli Editore, 1993), 31.

[5] J. Raz, “The Identity of Legal Systems,” California Law Review 59:3 (1971): 795-815, 801.

[6] Eugenio Bulygin, “An Antinomy in Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law,” Ratio Juris 3:1 (1990): 29-45.

Monday, 28 June 2021

Christ Consciousness. 7: The solitary hero and the false prophets


The solitary hero and the false prophets

“Alone” and “lonely” sound similar but they are not. “Alone” means to be in fact on your own (i.e. physically, empirically there is nobody but you in a given time and space). “Lonely,” however, implies feeling you are on your own even though you may be with people. While solitude has to do with the outer world, loneliness refers to our inner core.

A simple truth is applicable to both: “as within so without.” You do not attract what you want but who you are. “Friends,” the TV series, is the epitome of a world that glorifies the annihilation of the self by the dependence on others. Yet, despite all that noise around, these characters (like many of us) cannot fill the void inside. Hence, they are not in mutually enriching interdependence but in a situation of need. What do they need from each other? Validation.

It is not strange that the wise agree on this point. On the day of the festival of the unleavened bread, a Jesus surrounded by people told his disciples “all of you will desert me.” (Matthew 26:31; Mark 14:27 NLT). Similarly, Rumi tells us “each single prophet who served God alone stood firm against the whole world on his own.” (Rumi, The MasnaviBook Two, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 23).

There are different kinds of love. Romantic love is but a single example. For instance, Disney has started exploring with films like Frozen the love between brothers, sisters, siblings. With time, in particular in the West, it has lost its essence and it has been disguised as the necessary requisite to be defined as a person: if and only if somebody else loves us, we are worth it—the “I” defined by the “other.”

When we go back to the Scriptures, the “love” Jesus talks about is the prime example of what I call Love. The very well-known phrase “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39 NLT) is usually interpreted as giving pre-eminence to the “other” part of the equation. However, paraphrasing RuPaul here “How can you love somebody else if you cannot love yourself?” It all starts with you. Note I do not refer here to the love to God, Allah, the Universe, the Source, the Eternal, the One, the Many (like in every post, the name we use here is irrelevant. It is just a man-made label for communication. Therefore, I use them interchangeably).

Why does it start with you? There is just one reason. Because we cannot give what we do not have, at least not freely. Unsurprisingly, there is what we have nowadays, conditional love, pseudo love or fake love—it just has the appearance of love. Hence, the previous reference to “Friends.”

We are living challenging times. Often, challenging times bring problems as well as opportunities. In chaos, there is as much darkness as there is light. Undoubtedly, there is a proliferation of “false prophets.” Disguised as empaths, gurus, motivational speakers and others, in most cases these people prey on the vulnerable and good-hearted. More than ever we are being asked to trust our connection between our inner core and God, Allah, the Universe, the Source, the Eternal, the One, the Many.

Whoever wants to help you should seek your best even if it means to leave you walking your path alone. If there is any condition attached to their care and help, there is a clear indication they are not acting out of love. Evidently, the condition may be financial. However, there may be more sophisticated and refined ways for these false prophets. Remember your time, attention, company and energy are too precious.

If someone or something is jeopardizing your peace of mind because there is a condition for them to stay with you (in whatever capacity), that is not love. Love has nothing to do with fear because “… perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not experienced […] perfect love.” (1 John 4:18 NLT) It is as simple as profound: “only from the heart can you touch the sky.” (Rumi)

As hard as it may seem, sometimes walking alone the path is not as taxing as walking with someone who appears to be sharing our load but, in reality, they are the load itself. Sometimes you have to be the solitary hero in your own story.

Previous post:

Christ Consciousness. 6: Vision, leadership and peace

Available at:

Monday 28th June 2021

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

Pluralism of pluralisms [Post 36]


Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty, different contexts and realms

“Cosmopolitanism” and “sovereignty” are complex concepts. Part of that complexity has to do with the multi-contextual nature and plurality of realms in which the phenomena they refer are present.

To recapitulate, by “context” this blog series means the physical space in which agents (individuals, communities and state) interact with each other. The nature of these interactions may me legal, political, factual or of any other kind. Spatially, there are three contexts: local or domestic, regional and international.

Because “sovereignty” and “cosmopolitanism” are conceptual constructions, like any concept, they may refer to the phenomena of reference in different ways; for example, actual facts or ideal elements with or without empirical existence. Any definition of sovereignty includes the idea of the highest, supreme, absolute authority in a territory and over a population. Within a territory, it means that lawmakers—i.e. the government—have the exclusive prerogative to create laws for these people. Externally, any other agent has the obligation not to interfere. From this very brief characterization, it is self-evident that sovereignty refers to normative elements such as national legal order and international legal agreements as well as factual ones such as territory and population. In the same vein, unsurprisingly, scholarly literature uses the word “cosmopolitanism” very loosely. Therein, we find epistemological, economic or commercial, legal, moral, ethico-theological, political and cultural cosmopolitanism.

As the rest of this blog series about the pluralism of pluralisms present in both sovereignty and cosmopolitanism, we will refer to territorial disputes in order to illustrate what “contexts” and “realms” mean, to characterize them and to comprehend their relevance.

There are several issues at stake in any territorial dispute and some are constant or, arguably, more relevant than others depending on each case and the context of reference—i.e. domestic, regional and international. They may center on any of the elements that characterize a political community—i.e.  territory, population, government and law. Indeed, territorial disputes may be characterized by reference to territorial sub-elements such as strategic location, territorial integrity and natural resources, to name a few. Yet, territorial disputes may be as well based on population—e.g. bordering minorities, refugee’s crisis, common ethnicity, etc. —government and law—e.g. political unification, leader’s prestige, legal entitlement.

As any academic classification, legal and political theories present, conceptualize and consider these issues at stake independently. In the real world, any given territorial dispute is a combination of two or more of these issues. Similarly, legal and political sciences explore these disputes by reference to the either the domestic, regional or international contexts. However, it is when the study about a territorial dispute embraces all the issues at stake and takes into account the several contexts involved that a more accurate view results. Consequently, it is important to think of territorial disputes as multilayer and multi-contextual phenomena with different reasons behind them that have to do with cultural, legal, historical, sociological, geographical, financial, and many other elements present locally, regionally and internationally.

In law, there are empirical as well as logical issues. In political sciences, there are ideal and noni-ideal issues.[1] Current studies in legal and political sciences about territorial disputes center only on the logical (law) and ideal (politics) side or on the empirical (law) and non-ideal (politics) side. However, it is because these studies are partial to purely conceptual analysis or factual exploration of a segment of the respective territorial dispute under analysis—i.e. either territory, population, government or law—in a particular context—i.e. domestic, regional or international—that these studies are incomplete.

Any territorial dispute is a combination of several issues at stake—i.e. in terms of territory, population, government and law—in different contexts—i.e. domestic, regional and international. These issues work in synergy for the initiation and continuation of territorial disputes and may escalate into conflict or settle in a peaceful and permanent agreement. That is to say, synergy implies a particular relationship amongst the members, components or objects of the given whole entity. The individual members, components or objects can work better when working together towards a common goal. Contrarily, the individual members, components or objects can work individually or together against the whole.   In other words, the individual components of the whole can exist on their own, autonomously and independently; however, working together in a synergetic manner may improve their performance in terms of the whole entity (positive synergy) or may work against it (negative synergy).

That is exactly the situation in territorial disputes. Issues at stake can be assessed in their individuality or together, in one or several contexts. However, it is only when a territorial dispute is explored in synergy that it becomes meaningful. To be more precise, the traditional scholarly studies in legal and political sciences center on the same question, the question of territorial disputes. However, legal and political sciences fasten on only one aspect of legal or political reality: on the existential; or an idealistic legal or political aspect, on the essential. The former views only the certainty, the factual power; the latter sees territorial disputes only from the angle of justice and fairness.

It is not that one view or segment in these views is more important than the others. Different studies have simply suppressed one member of the relation in favor of the other. Instead, a more comprehensive analysis should think of an ideal or non-ideal, and empirical or theoretical view of territorial disputes as neither antagonistic nor identifiable, but somehow related as different individual members, components or objects of that whole that may stand in a fruitful exchange with one another provided they are assessed in positive synergy.

Previous post:

Next theme:

Dimensions, views, time and space(available from September 2021).

Author of:

Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty. International Law and Politics (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020).

Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2017).

Monday 28th June 2021

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World

[1] In law, Alchourrón and Bulygin clearly state that in legal science there are empirical as well as logical issues. In political science, there is an existent and evolving tension between ideal and non-ideal theory. See C. E. Alchourrón and E. Bulygin, Normative Systems, Library of Exact Philosophy, Springer-Verlag Wien., 1971, 53; A. John Simmons, “Ideal and Nonideal Theory,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 38:1 (2010): 5-36.

Saturday, 26 June 2021

“The Stufenbau Yields Legal Powers. Aspects of Hans Kelsen’s Norm Theory” by Dr Stanley Paulson [video]


“The Stufenbau Yields Legal Powers. Aspects of Hans Kelsen’s Norm Theory.”

Dr Stanley Paulson

Professor, Co-director Kelsen Research Center Kiel, Hermann Kantorowicz Institute (HKI), Faculty of Law, University of Kiel, Germany.

Juris North 2021 Kelsen’s Roundtables

Roundtable 3:3

Friday 25th June 2021

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

Twitter: @DrJorge_World