Austin, Bentham, and Kelsen were all based their ideas on positivism. His two books, "pure theory of
law," which came out in German in 1934 and "General theory of law and state" in 1945, contain most of
his work. He named his idea a "pure theory of law" because it only looked at things that are "strictly
legal." It didn't look at things that aren't legal, like moral, social, ethical, political, etc. That is, like other
positivists, Kelsen only cared about the question of "is," not "ought." For Kelsen, the question "what is
law?" is more important than "what it should be." Kelsen says that his idea is based on the "science of
law, not the politics of law." However, George Pavlakos points out that Kelsen's positivism is different
from H.L.A. Hart's conventionalist view, which says that law is "the result of social convention that
makes law exist." Pavlakos writes that Kelsen thinks that law should be studied as a separate legal
science, similar to how science studies the natural world. Even though Kelsen's theory is based on
coercion, it is different from the coercive command theories of Bentham and Austin. Bentham and
Austin see law as commands (duties) from the sovereign to the people, while Kelsen sees laws as norms
that tell officials how to punish people. This person also says that legal rules give government people
duties or powers but not duties to citizens. This doesn't make sense because Kelsen says that when a
citizen does something bad, or "Delict," he doesn't break the rule; he just met the requirement that
officials "ought to apply sanctions." This is clear from what Kelsen said: "Law is the main rule that sets
the punishment, and the subject's fault does not contradict this rule; instead, it is the specific condition of
the punishment." He also came up with a step-by-step way to check the truth of laws. One of the main
ideas behind this step-base framework, which Michael Hartney called "Stufenbau," comes from
Immanuel Kant's idea of "A priori." So, According to Kelsen's rule, there is an order of norms, and each
norm gets its strength from the norms that come before it. The most basic norm is called the
"grundnorm." For the most part, Kelsen's Grundorm is an assumption that supports the state's law and,
by extension, the whole judicial system. This whole structure that Kelsen described can be better
understood by looking at the example that George Pavlakos gave: "So, for example, a court order tells law
enforcement to punish someone who has broken the law. According to Kelsen's pure theory, the action of
law enforcement is valid because of a court order, which is valid because of the law," Now the question is
where the constitution's authority comes from. Kelsen says that the law and, by extension, the whole
legal system is based on a concept called "Grundnorm" or "basic norm."
Furthermore, Kelsen believed that effectiveness, which can be measured by "objectively ascertainable
facts," was very important. He said, "Effectiveness is not sufficient for validity of legal order, but it is a
necessary condition; had it been a sufficient condition, then norm would be reduced to fact." Because of
this, some critics question the purity of Kelsen's theory, since Penner said that the current law in a
country is decided by how well it is used.However, Penner wrote in his book "McCoubrey and White on
Jurisprudence" that "the Grundnorm in Kelsenians' modal cannot be considered as truly "pure" as
effectiveness in the end rests on all moral, ethical, political, and sociological factors." However, a lot of
people disagree with Kelsen's idea of grundnorm because it is built on assumptions, and they say that it's
not good to base the whole law system on assumptions. This is also wrong according to Hart's rules of
recognition, and Hart doesn't agree with presupposing validity, since Hart based his test of validity on the
rule of recognition being real. Hart also says that "facts" and "norms" should be kept separate because it
is important to keep law and morals separate. Also, Kelsen norms are meant for officials, so it has been
said that they don't take into account the laws that give power to citizens. It has also been said that
Kelsen's theory doesn't make a distinction between civil and criminal behaviour, or between delinquent
and non-delinquent behaviour, so there won't be a difference between tax violations and failure to report
income as required by law. In the Kelsenian plan, the change is also a big deal. According to his theory,
when there is a revolution, the chain of legitimacy is broken, but the revolution produces a new
