I read this book as part of my "update". along with other books about Kelsen, first in Italian (as I needed to pick up quotes in Italian), but currently I found and I going to re-read the English version (as, anyway, the Italian version is based upon the English version)

Actually, the motivation was that in a Yale course available online that I followed in the early 2010s, Kelsen was quoted, along with Schmitt and others (I shared in the past my reviews on other books on the same theme).

Why now?

Because currently I am living in Italy, and as the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 resulted eventually in a re-arrangement of the country that still has to be settled (the so-called "Seconda Repubblica"), this unsettled status after the re-assuring cocoon of the Cold War is being again questioned.

Reasons? While many in Italy live the Brexit debate as something not directly affecting Italy or, at the other extreme, as a business opportunity (as Italy weren't part of the EU), in reality Brexit is yet another instance of those opportunities to apply the "Monnet" and jump forward or, at least, radically restructure, within the EU integration.

The Italian issue is that, by adopting an inward-looking approach, we risk being "neither"- neither outside, nor inside, simply "in between", and considered at best an opportunistic ally and market to use.

Rethinking the structure and cohesive elements of the State implies also rethinking the concept of law in a country where it seems that creating a new law or regulation, and associated bureaucratic infrastructure, is always the solution.

Only to discover, somewhat later, that that resulted in yet another "self-regulated bureaucratic tribe" that does as it pleases, notably cutting corners whenever feels that it is either right or useful to do so.

Tinkering with a Constitution is never wise, but tinkering by simply "taking loans" from those of others is irresponsible- unless somebody is so detached from reality to assume that a country can be a bit German on this, a bit French on that, a bit British on that, while having or refusing to "harmonize" any behavior that contradicts those cultural frameworks.

Being Italian, I use Italy as a discussion point- but due to its influence, and, as I said, the current rethinking of Europe as well as international institutions, instead of looking at writing laws and treaties, considering the underlying philosophy and "teleology" matters.

Moreover, when, as some already started doing, there are proposal to offload tribunals by "automating" some lower impacts (i.e. higher volume, lower per-unit-value) cases.

Which, incidentally, as the cases that define the "spirit" of social cohesion and civility. ( )

This book is really a unique of example of clear theoretical analysis. The author has an exceptional ability of expressing abstract ideas without resorting to vague and unclear language. Nothing he says seems superfluous, yet nothing relevant is disregarded. I do not really have any background in legal theory, but I could still follow the argument quite well. It's not easy reading by any means, but certainly accessible if you're used to theoretical arguments.

The first part of the book is a general theory of law and the second a juristic theory of the state. The former was good, but I had much more personal interest in the latter. Kelsen's thesis of law being the essence of the state is probably the most interesting general state theory I've come across. Few political theorists seem to incorporate legal theory to their work in a useful way. That's a shame, since much new ground could be gained just by following up on the ideas presented in this book.

All in all this is a fantastic book. In terms of style it sets a great example of how to express new ideas in clear and precise language. I wish all theorists, whatever they theorize, would emulate Kelsen in that regard. The unique and interesting argument he builds makes this one of the best books in 20th century social theory.