Understanding of Rights as Liberties And/or Immunities.

Critical Evaluation of Hohfelds StatementAccording to Hohfeld, a duty correlates with a right. For instance, in case of a right invasion, there is a duty violation as well. Legal obligation refers to that which ought to be done or that which ought not to be done.

In addition, Hohfeld proposes various legal relations. There is no-right correlating with any kind of privilege. Hohfeld rights as duties work in hand. For example, a person named P has a legal right to execute activity A if only another person named Q has a legal duty that empowers him or her to allow or permit party P in doing activity A.

Hohfeld therefore defines a right as an individuals affirmative claim that is against another persons claim.

A privilege refers to an individual freedom derived from the legal rights not forgetting another individuals claims. On the other hand, a no-right describes a situation whereby an individual named P does not have legal right to execute a certain activity named A, if another external party named Q do not have the legal duty that allows or permits person named P to undertake activity A. Moreover, Hohfeld defines power as an individuals affirmative control that allows them to oversee various legal relations among different parties (Hohfeld1913-sflc: 55).

Power is known to regulate actions that are meant to make changes in social relations. Hohfeld is also concerned with the so called disability immunity. Immunity explains an individuals freedom that separates them from the existing legal controls that are imposed by other legal parties in legal relations. Legal relations should keenly take in to consideration the various legal rights as well as duties in the effort of minimizing the number of conflicts and disagreements among different parties (MORSS, 2009).

The fundamental concepts Hohfeld uses in this particular statement are the key elementary particles of legal discourse. Duty is term that is popularly used in diverse ways. Hohfeld did not clearly understand these diverse ways. For instance, in the statement, the way this term is used it does not have the same meaning as to when a guardian means when they tell their siblings, Jackson, it is your duty to keep the environment clean. In addition, the meaning of duty in this contest is different from what moralist uses it to mean.

For example, moralist say,

It is the duty of all individuals to treat all individuals the way they expect to be treated. Indeed, it is quite easy to see and take note of different meanings of duty as it used in different contests. Additionally, Hohfeld is actually interested in legal duties. However, there exist different types of these legal duties, which aligns and corresponds to varying views that explains law. In fact, many law professionals tend to be legal positivists. They consider law as a body that is made up of rules. In addition, the law professionals have a strong feeling that law in tied up in the societys social policies. Hohfeld legal duty is therefore a product of societal goals not what is good for the general public (“Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning by Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld,” 2001).

According to Hohfeld, social policy is the mother of right included in his statement. For instance, Hohfeld terms a right to be positive law that spells out various remedies. It should therefore provide for recognizable remedies. The term duty as used by Hohfeld has a common feature that is popularly agreed on many law professionals. For instance, Hohfeld insinuates that bad events and other things are likely to occur when there is a breach of a duty. He is closely comparing the duty as displayed in his mind with moralist duty. Hohfeld sees positive law to be the key factor that contributes to a duty that ensures conformity to the so called imperative conducts.

Hohfeld proposes that, in case positive law fails to give rise or provide a distinctive duty, a duty can be assumed in conditions where its breach conditions are unrealistically available. In accordance to the Hohfelds statement, individuals have legal duties to execute various activities when various rules included in positive law would make them accountable as well as liable for failing to do such activities. The word right as it is used in the Hohfeld statement means right-duty relation. This relation is actually seen by one party that engages in a relation. This right includes two views from the two parties involved in a relation. For instance, Hohfelds right describes a shorthand term that stipulates what liabilities prescribed by the law for both parties involved in the right-duty relation for executing or neglecting an activity. In addition, Hohfeld uses the term right to give a distinction between right to engage in an activity as well as right not to engage in an activity (Fiorito & Vatiero, 2009).

Moreover, an individual may misunderstand the term right as it is used by Hohfeld in his statement, he or she may end referring the term as legally insignificant. This statement corresponds to various rules of legal laws that are meant to both permit and forbid. Various critics see the term privilege-right that Hohfeld uses in his statements as misleading. Sometimes individuals may be tempted to use this term to put more emphasis on various issues. Some courts law description of the word right aligns to what Hohfeld.

Hohfeld is majorly considering the so called claim right. He suggests that claim rights to be strictly correlative to legal duties. Hohfeld is actually correct in his claim rights. Does it mean that when individuals are undertaking various duties some other people have corresponding rights regarding such work relations? It is possible for individuals to execute various duties without people having legal rights that governs their performance. The Hohfelds statements and analysis are greatly criticized by philosophers and law bodies. Indeed, the analysis of his statement is accompanied by relatively many problems. For instance, he does not utilize law concepts. In addition, the statement does not offer an adequate clarifications on legal relations. The statements are not found on any profound legal concepts. In furtherance, the role played by legal concepts are not stipulated.

The examples tabled on by Hohfeld regarding his statements emanates from Private Law. The concept of duty is not well adequately treated. Hohfeld is actually correct when he states that each and every other right implies aligns to correlative duty, however, it is not true that all duties implies some corrective right. Duties that are non-correlative in nature do not secure place in the popular Hohfeld scheme.

Did you like this example?

592

31