In everyday language, we often talk about „standards“ without giving much thought to what this actually means.

The term „norm“ refers to an „order to do something“ (see 4th knowledge carving written by Stefanie Bardach). Shoulds are sentences such as „You should do something!“ or „You should not do something!“ (whereby it is irrelevant in terms of norm theory whether an injunction is formulated negatively or positively: The sentences „Thou shalt not lie!“ and „Thou shalt tell the truth!“ are formulated differently, but their normative content is the same).

Every human being is surrounded by countless norms: „Thou shalt not jaywalk!“, „Thou shalt greet your neighbour kindly!“, „Thou shalt not commit adultery!“, „Thou shalt eat with a knife and fork!“, „Thou shalt not lie!“ etc.

Lawyers can't do much per se: think a little, write a little, talk a little. But what many lawyers have in common is the urge to create order. Knowing that everyone is surrounded by a disorganised jumble of standards is therefore disturbing for a lawyer. For this reason, they try to bring order to this jumble of norms by categorising the individual rules into different norm systems.

A distinction is generally made between three systems of norms: morality, custom and law. The assignment of the individual commandment to the respective norm system is based on the intended sanction. The question is therefore, what kind of punishment is threatened in the event of non-compliance with the injunction? If it is a religious sanction, then one speaks of a „norm of morality“. If the sanction is of a social nature, it is a „norm of custom“. If there is a threat of „state-organised coercion“ in the event of non-compliance with the order, this is a „norm of law“ - i.e. a legal norm. The sum of all legal norms of a state forms its legal system; this legal system (and only this legal system!) is the object of cognition of jurisprudence.

It is important to understand that it is only the type of sanction that distinguishes one type of norm from another, not whether a sanction is threatened at all. All types of norms are subject to sanctions: if a norm of morality is violated, there is a threat of religious coercion (e.g. purgatory, excommunication, interdict). If a norm of morality is violated, there is a threat of social coercion (Those who do not greet others will at some point no longer be greeted themselves. Those who do not eat with a knife and fork will no longer be invited). But „state-organised coercion“ only threatens if legal norms are violated.

Speaking of „threatens“: For a mandatory order to qualify as a legal norm, it is sufficient that state-organised coercion „threatens“ - it therefore does not have to actually be imposed in every case. If you are not caught jaywalking and therefore the penalty provided for in Section 99 (3) (a) StVO cannot be imposed, this does not change the fact that you have violated a legal norm; the threat of state coercion is sufficient.

Finally, the commandments or prohibitions contained in the respective commandments can also be contained in several norm systems: for example, the norm „Thou shalt not kill“ is both a norm of morality (5th commandment of the Ten Commandments) and a norm of law (§ 75 StGB „Murder“). The norm „Thou shalt not lie“ is even a norm in all three systems of norms (morality: 8th commandment of the Ten Commandments; custom: „He who lies once is not believed, even if he then speaks the truth“; law: § 288 StGB „False evidence“). And: there can be norms that can be eliminated from a system of norms: For a long time, adultery was punishable by law in Austria (§ 194 StGB); since 1977, this offence has been abolished - and therefore removed from this Standards system eliminated ....