The Theory of the State, in the field of Political Science, has undergone moments of crisis, particularly in the passage from the 1980s to the 1990s, when exponents of certain intellectual currents argued that the Nation-State and state institutions were losing their central position as objects of analysis. The present article counters this argument and attempts a comparative analysis of two of the most systematic authors who dealt with the concept of the modern State and its relationship with modern Law: Hans Kelsen and Nicos Poulantzas. Our point of departure is the analogy was established between the two by David Easton, in his article, "The Political System under State Siege", in which he identifies Poulantzas' Marxist work with Kelsen's systemic and normative work on Law and the State. In fact, paradoxically, Poulantzas may be seen as in agreement with many aspects of Kelsen's critique of liberal thought (a school to which the latter is in fact affiliated) as well as with his definition of the State of Law as the antithesis of authoritarian States.. Yet despite this convergence, the differences between Poulantzas and Kelsen are representative of two distinct forms of political and theoretical treatment of the concepts of Law and the State. For Kelsen, the State is impermeable, not riven by internal contradictions or fissures, while for Poulantzas, the State is defined as a strategic field of struggles, permeated by micro-policies and contradictions. The present article consists of an introduction, which is then followed by two sections that present a synthesis of Kelsen's and Poulantzas' positions on the role of the modern State and the Law, and providing a concluding section in which the major points of agreement and disagreement in the work of these authors are pointed out
Nicos Poulantzas; Hans Kelsen; Law; the State; Power