Abstract
This article explores the possibility of reconstructing Hans Kelsen’s neo-Kantian theory of the basic norm (Grundnorm) with the help of the theory of (metaphysical) grounding. First, we outline Kelsen’s theory of the basic norm as an integral part of his neo-Kantian transcendental idealism and give a sketch of grounding theory; we then try to fit these theories together. As it turns out, grounding theory has some internal flaws. More importantly, several of the features of a metaphysical ground are not compatible with the roles which Kelsen ascribes to the basic norm – its roles as a keystone of the legal hierarchy and as a transcendental-logical condition of legal cognition. Finally, an alternative conception is examined, according to which the legal system is grounded not by the basic norm but by social facts, with the basic norm serving as a bridging principle. However, this alternative is flawed as well; its main problem seems to be that it violates the dualism of ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’. The argument is relevant for the concept of personhood, because Kelsen treats the term ‘person’ in law as a mere expression for the unity of a specific set of legal norms, so that the identity of persons is ultimately dependent on the identity and function of the basic norm of the legal system.