The Federal Constitution of Malaysia: A Kelsenian Perspective

Q3 Social Sciences Asian Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2022-10-03 DOI:10.1017/asjcl.2022.20
Stephanie Chng
{"title":"The Federal Constitution of Malaysia: A Kelsenian Perspective","authors":"Stephanie Chng","doi":"10.1017/asjcl.2022.20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the Federal Constitution of Malaysia through the lens of Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law. It first demonstrates the utility of the Grundnorm in explaining the supremacy of the Federal Constitution within the Malaysian legal system. In particular, this article establishes that despite Malaysia's colonial past, the Federal Constitution is the Kelsenian ‘historically first constitution’ of the present Malaysian legal system because of the Kelsenian ‘revolution’ that had occurred when the Federation of Malaya attained independence from the British in 1957, as well as the absence of a Kelsenian ‘revolution’ during the formation of Malaysia in 1963. The Grundnorm of the Malaysian legal system can thus be expressed as ‘one ought to obey the prescriptions of the Federal Constitution’. However, this article also argues, using the example of the basic structure doctrine controversy in Malaysia, that while the Pure Theory succeeds in elucidating a measure of legal validity for legal norms, it fails to provide any helpful insight when a constitutional dispute relates to the content of a norm rather than the interaction between hierarchically distinct norms.","PeriodicalId":39405,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2022.20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article examines the Federal Constitution of Malaysia through the lens of Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law. It first demonstrates the utility of the Grundnorm in explaining the supremacy of the Federal Constitution within the Malaysian legal system. In particular, this article establishes that despite Malaysia's colonial past, the Federal Constitution is the Kelsenian ‘historically first constitution’ of the present Malaysian legal system because of the Kelsenian ‘revolution’ that had occurred when the Federation of Malaya attained independence from the British in 1957, as well as the absence of a Kelsenian ‘revolution’ during the formation of Malaysia in 1963. The Grundnorm of the Malaysian legal system can thus be expressed as ‘one ought to obey the prescriptions of the Federal Constitution’. However, this article also argues, using the example of the basic structure doctrine controversy in Malaysia, that while the Pure Theory succeeds in elucidating a measure of legal validity for legal norms, it fails to provide any helpful insight when a constitutional dispute relates to the content of a norm rather than the interaction between hierarchically distinct norms.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
马来西亚联邦宪法:Kelsenian视角
摘要本文以汉森的纯粹法律理论为视角,对马来西亚联邦宪法进行了考察。它首先展示了Grundnorm在解释联邦宪法在马来西亚法律体系中的至高无上地位方面的效用。特别是,该条规定,尽管马来西亚有殖民历史,但由于1957年马来亚联邦从英国独立时发生的凯尔塞尼亚“革命”,《联邦宪法》是马来西亚现行法律体系的凯尔塞尼亚“历史上第一部宪法”,以及1963年马来西亚成立期间没有发生凯尔塞尼安“革命”。因此,马来西亚法律体系的Grundnorm可以表达为“一个人应该遵守联邦宪法的规定”。然而,本文也以马来西亚的基本结构学说争议为例,认为虽然纯粹理论成功地阐明了法律规范的法律效力,但当宪法争议涉及规范的内容而不是等级分明的规范之间的相互作用时,它并没有提供任何有用的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Asian Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Comparative Law (AsJCL) is the leading forum for research and discussion of the law and legal systems of Asia. It embraces work that is theoretical, empirical, socio-legal, doctrinal or comparative that relates to one or more Asian legal systems, as well as work that compares one or more Asian legal systems with non-Asian systems. The Journal seeks articles which display an intimate knowledge of Asian legal systems, and thus provide a window into the way they work in practice. The AsJCL is an initiative of the Asian Law Institute (ASLI), an association established by thirteen leading law schools in Asia and with a rapidly expanding membership base across Asia and in other regions around the world.
期刊最新文献
International Sanctions and the Rule of Law How Can Malaysian Courts Consistently Perform Meaningful Constitutional Rights Review? Lessons from Past Cases and the Way Forward Confused Purposes and Inconsistent Adjudication: An Assessment of Bail Decisions in Delhi's Courts Soviet Legacy of Vietnam's Intellectual Property Law: Big Brother is (No Longer) Watching You – CORRIGENDUM Conceptualising State-Centric Mediation: An Analysis of China's Foreign Investment Complaints Mechanism – ERRATUM
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1