Law or Politics? The Controversy between Kelsen and Schmitt on Constitutional Adjudication and the Current State of Affairs While it is no longer contested that a state goes hand in hand with a constitution, it is less clear whether a constitution entails a constitutional court. In a paradigmatic way, this question was discussed among two of the most eminent jurists of the first half of the 20th century, Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. Kelsen regarded constitutional adjudication as a logical consequence of constitutionalism. Schmitt rejected it because he had a different guardian of the constitution in mind. In the second half of the 20th century, Kelsen's view prevailed. Constitutional courts were established all over the world. In the beginning of the 21st century, criticism of judicial review gains ground. Ultimately, it is always about the relationship between law and politics, so as well in this essay.

Autorentext

Dieter Grimm lehrt Öffentliches Recht an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Von 2002 bis 2017 unterrichtete er ebenfalls an der Yale Law School. Er ist Permanent Fellow des Wissenschaftskollegs zu Berlin, dessen Rektor er von 2001 bis 2007 war. Von 1987 bis 1999 war er Richter des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Er ist Mitglied der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, der Academia Europaea, der British Academy und der American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Inhalt
I. Die historische Kontroverse II. Die heutige Lage