First, should rights be analyzed only in terms of duties to others (with another condition), or should we also include other concepts such as permission, power, and immunity? Hohfeld believed that, strictly speaking, something was a legal claim only if it was consistent with an obligation to others, but he argued that the use of the law was often confusing because the reference really referred to one of the other terms. Thus, the law also sometimes said that X had a right if (1) he had A`s permission, (2) he had A`s legal authority, (3) Y had no legal authority to influence him. ➢ Right in rem and right in persona: The right in rem is a right that is accessible to society as a whole. The right in persona refers to the rights that individuals can use. An example of breach of contract: If there is a breach of contract, the plaintiff sues. Rights in persona are temporary and can become correct in rem. The right material is permanent. Rudolf von Jhering explained that legal law is the legally protected interest. He emphasized the interests of the people and not the will of the people. The main objective is to protect the interests of individuals and avoid conflict between individual interests. 1. Owner of the right: Also referred to as the object of the right or person of the inheritance.
There must be a person who owns the right. A legal claim always belongs to a person. There can be no legal claim without the subject or owner. Sanctioning rights are resulting rights. They support the right to primary rights. You are right in persona, which is the result of bad behavior. Example: It occurs when there is a violation of primary rights. When we study the theory of will, the theory of will is examined by dividing it into two points of view.
In the first part, Austin, Holland and Pollock and in the second part Hegal, Kant and Holmes are housed. These two groups of jurists give their own different options for legal theory, but they also support each other. Instead, most authors argued that rights should be analyzed in other, more fundamental terms, primarily duty, permission, and power, perhaps with the addition of other criteria. This means that not all rights will be of great importance. Their importance depends on the strength of the reasons of duty, permission, or power. Before examining these reports more closely, it is worth mentioning another point. Theorists are divided between those who believe that rights are, so to speak, the “reflex” of duty, permission, or power, and those who believe that the law takes precedence over them. The question is whether duty, etc. establishes the right or whether the law establishes duty.
Most older authors (e.g. Bentham, Austin, Hohfeld, Kelsen) seem to have adhered to the first view, while more recent authors (e.g. MacCormick, Raz, Wellman) adopt the second view. The second view implies that the force of a right is not necessarily exhausted by an existing set of duties, etc., that flow from it, but may be a reason for the creation of new obligations as circumstances change. The latter view, at least, seems to be more consistent with the operation of constitutional legal claims. Imperfect rights are rights that are not recognized or protected by law. Example: If the loan expires, it can get its money back, but it cannot be enforced by law. A perfect right is a right that corresponds to a perfect duty. A perfect duty is one that the law not only recognizes but also enforces.
In a fully developed legal system, there are rights and obligations that, although recognized by law, are not perfect. Both are important, but we do not have to do anything to implement them. Rights are not the monopoly of a single individual. Everyone gets them too. This means that “others have the same rights as I do, and it is my duty to ensure that others also enjoy theirs.” Laski rightly said that a person`s right is also his duty. It is my duty to respect the rights of others, as well as the duty to use my rights in the interest of society. The position of many important authors on legal rights is difficult to determine on this point because it has not been addressed directly. Hohfeld (1919), for example, limited his discussion entirely to legal rights and never mentioned moral rights. Hart wrote about moral rights (1955, 1979) and legal rights (1973, 1994), but not in a way that allows for direct comparison. Bentham (1970 [1782]) wrote extensively on the analysis of legal rights, but famously thought that the idea of natural moral rights was conceptual nonsense.
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. Conditional rights are conditional and incomplete rights. Conditional rights depend on the occurrence or non-occurrence of certain events, which may or may not occur. Salmond gives an illustration to explain these essential elements of legal rights. If A buys land from B, A is the object or owner of the required right. The person bound by the corresponding duty is a person in general, because the law of this kind applies to the whole world.
The content of the right consists in the non-interference in the exclusive use of the property by the buyer. The object or object of the right is the transfer by which it was acquired from the previous holders. Each right implies a triple relationship from the owner`s point of view: ➢ Physical and intangible rights: Both rights are protected by law. Corporeal rights are rights in tangible or material property. These rights refer to rights to objects that can be viewed or touched. Intangible rights are rights to objects that cannot be seen or touched. Example: the right to reputation. Many legal rights must be accompanied by a condition of possession or exercise. This in itself does not distinguish legal rights from many moral rights. Just as you are only entitled to legal compensation for bodily injury if you have been attacked, you are only entitled to an excuse to be offended if you have been offended.
But legal rights can lead to more complicated situations that rarely occur in morality. It is up to the law to confer certain powers on the individual or to grant certain freedoms in the form of legal rights. According to Holland, a legal claim is “the ability that resides in a man, with the consent and support of the state, to control the actions of others. that the interests are not protected by the State. In order to confer a legal claim, it is important to protect interests and be recognized by the state. He criticized the theory of interest on the grounds that interest was not protected by the state. In order to confer a legal claim, it is essential that the interests be protected and recognized by the state. Depending on the type of co-relative obligation, rights are divided into positive and negative rights.
As the name suggests, with positive rights, a person is obliged to do or do something because he is bound by duty. The satisfaction of positive rights leads to the improvement of the position of the owner, whereas in negative law people are prevented from doing anything, they have negative duties that correspond to them, and enjoyment is complete without interference. Rights and obligations are closely linked, and the two are inextricably linked. The two exist side by side. It can be said that law and duty are two sides of the same coin. When a legal system gives its citizen the right to life, it also obliges him not to expose his life to trouble and to respect the life and comfort of others. Therefore, a strong legal system consists of legal rights and legal obligations such as its two inseparable parts.