Meaning and Characteristics of Legal Rights

  • Beitrags-Autor:
  • Beitrags-Kategorie:Allgemein

Although Mills does not necessarily share the view that all rights are linked to the foundations of well-being, many contemporary authors (e.g., Raz 1984a, 1984b; Wellman 1985, 1995) agree that the basic concept of a law is something common to law and morality, although some have argued that legal authors, particularly Hohfeld, provide a better and clearer starting point for general analysis than previous authors in moral philosophy. The view that the basic concept is common to both seems consistent with the assertion that legal claims concerning justification in practical reasoning should nevertheless be based on moral claims. Property rights include a person`s estate and property in various forms. It has a certain monetary value and is an element of wealth. For example, the right to debt, land, houses, goodwill rights, etc. On the other hand, personal rights are elements of well-being that have no monetary value. For example, the right to reputation, personal liberty, the right to bodily harm, etc. Other rights may be conferred by ordinary law or by customary law (i.e. the tradition of judicial law). An interesting point is that many legal rights are arguably not conferred by a positive law, but simply stem from the absence of a contrary law. That said, it is probably necessary in practice for every legal system to have an unwritten „closing rule“ stating that anything that is not prohibited is allowed. If certain types of rights are essentially permissions, then many of those rights appear that way.

In most jurisdictions, for example, my right to cross the street is like that. Probably no positive law will say that I can do it, and perhaps no more general law will imply it. The totalitarian vision completely denies the existence of any legal rights. According to this view, there are no distinct rights and an individual does not have a distinct existence of his own. Rights are granted by the States of which they are nationals, and individuals do not have independent legal rights as such. Little importance should be given to the individual, since the state is the only real thing. This theory has been rejected because it is far from the reality of the modern society of democratic welfare states, where rights are very important. Negative rights prevent a person from doing an action, that is, it corresponds to a negative duty. Example: The right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a negative right because it prevents one person from killing another person. One of the most controversial areas in recent years has been whether young children, the seriously mentally ill, non-human animals, endangered landscapes, etc. can legitimately be considered legitimate rights holders.

It is clear that anyone entitled to take legal action must have certain rights within the system. However, it does not automatically follow that an entity that fails to do so or that is physically or mentally incapable of bringing an action is not thereby a rights holder. The intention of the system may be that the interests of that body be represented by another person. Given that all of these entities can be protected by law and someone can take legal action to ensure that these obligations are met, when would we say that the company itself owns rights and when is not? If you think you are being discriminated against because of your age or disability, you can contact a lawyer to protect your legal rights. There are also federal, state, and private agencies and organizations that can help you for free. 11. Public and private rights – Public rights are in the hands of the state. While private rights are exercised by individuals for their own benefit. 13. Serviente and dominant rights – Serviente rights are encumbered, while dominant rights are exercised by the dominant owner. 10. Primary and secondary rights – primary rights are independent rights; These are ipso facto.

Secondary rights are rights related to primary rights. Many of the related issues are not limited to rights, but are shared with duties and powers, so only a brief overview is given. Property rights are alienable, while personality rights are not alienable. There is an inheritance factor in property rights that does not exist in the latter. Property rights are more static than personal rights. Of the four basic types of rights that Hohfeld purported to identify, immunities pose problems, albeit somewhat different. Immunity arises when Y is not entitled to change X`s legal position. But is immunity itself a right or is it simply a means of protecting a right, that is: by making it immune to abduction or alteration? As with the powers, views diverged. 14. Municipal and international rights – Municipal rights are conferred by the law of a particular country. International rights are conferred by international law. There are two different versions of the theory of interest, which correspond to the above-mentioned issue of the rule of rights.