There is almost no lawyer nor philosopher focusing on the intellectual engagement of Kelsen-Spinoza in legal theory. Even though Antonio Negri and Norberto Bobbio asserted that studying this engagement would have quite productive results, they remained content with this. However, referring to Spinoza’s immanentism in his book The Essence and Value of Democracy, Hans Kelsen showed that his thoughts on democracy were also compatible with the philosopher’s pantheist thinking, and therefore, interpreting him as a Neo-Kantian would lead to misconceptions. In this context, the article offers a connection between Kelsen’s structuralism and naturalism, which determine the Pure Theory of Law, and Spinoza’s immanentism, within an intellectual line extending from Epicurus and Lucretius to Saussure’s linguistic studies, and the Vienna School. Thus, the article aims to explain how the legal theorist remains far distant from the legal cliches attributed to him on issues such as democracy, state, law, contract, sovereignty, representation, the question of migration, the rejection of subject and its free will, and autonomy...
