As explained before, Grundnorm can be defined as basic or fundamental norm. The term

grundnorm was coined by Hans Kelsen to refer to the core basis of a law.1 Hans Kelsen once said

that after a successful revolution the grundnorm changes.2

In addition, The Penguin Webster handy college dictionary defined revolution as a total change

of conditions, specifically, a radical social or political change.3

On the other hand, Merriam-Webster dictionary defined revolution as;4

the usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a

new one

a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc.

a fundamental change in political organization; especially:  the overthrow or renunciation

of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed

Thus, in order to see the effect of successful revolution on the Grundnorm, the case that will be

used to illustrate the effect is the case of, Stella Madzimbamuto and Desmond William Lardner-

Burke and Frederick Phillip George5

This is a case that happened in Southern Rhodesia, the brief fact of the case is as follows,

Southern Rhodesia was annexed by the Crown in 1923, by virtue of an edict in Council coming

into action on 12th September 1923, being given the rank of a colony.

In 1948 Southern Rhodesian citizenship was created by the British Nationality Act 1948. In

addition, in 1961 the colony was granted a Constitution where among other things, its legislature

had authority to make laws for the peace, order and good administration of Southern Rhodesia.

The Constitution delivered that the law to be directed was the law in force in the Cape of Good

Hope in June 1891 that is, Roman-Dutch law and it restricted “Declaration of Rights" intended to

secure the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.1 Grundnorm law & legal definition, US Legal, <http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/grundnorm/> accessed 4 June 2016.2 Riddal, JG. Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press 2006) p 132.3 Morehead, AH., Morehead, L., et al. The Penguin Webster handy college dictionary. (Penguin Books New York 2003) p 575.4 ‘Revolution’, Merriam-Webster. < http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolution> accessed 7 June 2016.5 [1969] 1 A.C. 645

On 5th November 1965, a state of emergency in Southern Rhodesia was validly proclaimed by

the Governor and emergency regulations were made, which, on the next day, the Minister of

Justice, lawfully made an order for the detention of Madzimbamuto on the ground that he was

likely to commit acts in Rhodesia which is likely to endanger the public safety, interrupt or

impede with public order or hinder with the maintenance of any indispensable service.

On 11th November 1965, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and his associates issued a

"Declaration of Independence" alleging to declare that Southern Rhodesia was no longer a

Crown colony but was an independent sovereign state.

On the same day, in a message to citizens of Rhodesia, the Governor informed them that the

Declaration of Independence was unconstitutional, and that the Prime Minister and his

colleagues had stopped to hold office. His message called upon the citizens to abstain from

illegal acts furthering the objects of the illegal régime. This is the fact that happen

chronologically for this case.

The court held that, since full Sovereignty over Southern Rhodesia was acquired when the

territory was annexed by the Crown in 1923, and had not been diminished either by the limited

grant of self-government then made or by United Kingdom legislation passed since that date,

The Queen in the United Kingdom Parliament was still Sovereign in Southern Rhodesia in 1965

and that, accordingly.

The Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965, and the Southern Rhodesia (Constitution) Order in Council,

1965, were of full legal effect in Southern Rhodesia; that nothing either in the British Nationality

Act or in the 1961 Constitution wrought to confer even limited sovereignty upon Southern

Rhodesia

Additionally, the convention under which the Parliament of the United Kingdom did not legislate

without the consent of the Government of Southern Rhodesia on matters within the competence

of the Legislative Assembly, though politically important as a convention, had no legal effect in

limiting the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament.

It is to be noted that in this case, when the case first goes through the court of the first instance

and also went the case go through the Appellate Division of High Court of Rhodesia, the court

held that the revolution was not successful as it is at that time. However, on various grounds, the

court found that partial recognition could be given to the legislative and administrative acts of

the rebel regime.

However, eight months later, the court found that the revolution is successful and all the regime

laws had internal validity.

This is a famous case which clearly illustrates the effect of a revolution and its impact on the

grundnorm. Based on this case, once an existing regime has been replaced by a new regime. An

instant believes shows that no other decision can rationally be held.

In conclusion, based on all the cases observed, it can be concluded that the moral value of a legal

system and the validity of the value as a law in separate matters. Thus, as a consequence, validity

is in no way concerned with content.