Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld 18791918 was an American jurist' He was the author of the seminal Fundamental

1
??????????

• ??? ??

2
??

• Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld (1879-1918) was an
  American jurist. He was the author of the seminal
  Fundamental Legal Conceptions, As Applied in
  Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays,
  published in 1919.
• During his life, he published only a handful of
  law journal articles. At his death, the material
  forming the basis of Fundamental Legal
  Conceptions was derived from two articles in the
  Yale Law Journal (1913) and (1917) that had been
  partially revised with a view to publication.

3
?????

• Editorial work was undertaken to complete the
  revisions and the book was published with the
  inclusion of the manuscript notes that Hohfeld
  had left, plus seven other essays.
• The work remains a powerful contribution to
  modern understanding of the nature of rights and
  the implications of liberty. To reflect this
  continuing importance, a chair at Yale University
  is named after him, which is currently held by
  Jules Coleman.

4
?????????

• Hohfeld noticed that even respected jurists
  conflate various meanings of the term right,
  sometimes switching senses of the word several
  times in a single sentence. He wrote that such
  imprecision of language indicated a concomitant
  imprecision of thought, and thus also of the
  resulting legal conclusions. In order to both
  facilitate reasoning and clarify rulings, he
  attempted to disambiguate the term rights by
  breaking it into eight distinct concepts. To
  eliminate ambiguity, he defined these terms
  relative to one another, grouping them into four
  pairs of Jural Opposites and four pairs of Jural
  Correlatives.

5
????

• Jural Opposites
• 1. Right/No-Right 2. Privilege/Duty
• 3. Power/Disability 4. Immunity/Liability
• Jural Corelatives
• 1. Right/Duty 2. Privilege/No-Right
• 3. Power/Liability 4. Immunity/Disability

6
???????
7
??????

• Some philosophers and political scientists make a
  distinction between claim rights and liberty
  rights. A claim right is a right which entails
  responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other
  parties regarding the right-holder. In contrast,
  a liberty right is a right which does not entail
  obligations on other parties, but rather only
  freedom or permission for the right-holder.

8
?????

• The other two terms of Hohfeld's analysis, powers
  and immunities, refer to second-order liberties
  and claims, respectively. Powers are liberty
  rights regarding the modification of first-order
  rights, e.g. the U.S. Congress has certain
  positive powers to modify some of U.S. citizens'
  legal rights, inasmuch as it can impose or remove
  legal duties. Immunities, conversely, are claim
  rights regarding the modification of first-order
  rights, e.g. U.S. citizens have, per their
  Constitution, certain negative immunities
  limiting the positive powers of the U.S. Congress
  to modify their legal rights. As such, immunities
  and powers are often subsumed within claims and
  liberties by later authors.

9
????????

• ?????
• ??
• ????(???)
• ???
• ?????(?????????)
• ??????????????
• ?????????
• ?????
• ????????

10
??

• Hohfeld argued that right and duty are corelative
  concepts, i.e. the one must always be matched by
  the other. If A has a right against B, this is
  equivalent to B having a duty to honour A's
  right. If B has no duty, that means that B has
  liberty, i.e. B can do whatever he or she pleases
  because B has no duty to refrain from doing it,
  and A has no right to prohibit B from doing so.
  Each individual is located within a matrix of
  relationships with other individuals.

11
????????

• By summing the rights held and duties owed across
  all these relationships, the analyst can identify
  both the degree of liberty an individual would
  be considered to have perfect liberty if it is
  shown that no-one has a right to prevent the
  given act and whether the concept of liberty is
  comprised by commonly followed practices, thereby
  establishing general moral principles and civil
  rights.

12
??????????

• Hohfeld defines the corelatives in terms of the
  relationships between two individuals. In the
  theory of "in rem rights", there is a direct
  relationship between a person and a thing. Real
  rights are in this respect unlike claim rights or
  "rights in personam", which by nature must be
  exercised against a person the best example
  being when someone is owed money by another.

13
???????

• Hohfeld demonstrates that this way of
  understanding rights in general is wrong. In
  particular, Hohfeld demonstrates that there is no
  such thing as a legal relation between a person
  and a thing, since a legal relation always
  operates between two people. As the legal
  relations between any two people are complex, it
  is helpful to break them down into their simplest
  forms.

14
????????????

• Hohfeld replaces the concept of right in
  personam by paucital right and "right in rem"
  by a compound or aggregate of "multital rights".
  Rights held by a person against one or a few
  definite persons are paucital (or in personam),
  and rights held by a person against a large
  indefinite class of people are multital (or in
  rem). A contract right is paucital (or "in
  personam") because it can only be enforced
  against the specific parties to the contract. A
  property right is multital (or "in rem") because
  a landowner has the right to exclude not only
  specific people from his land but the whole
  world.

15
??????????

• The landowner has many rights, privileges,
  powers, and immunities his multital rights are
  composed of many paucital rights. For example,
  the owner has a right that others do not step on
  his land but there is not just one such right
  against a mass of persons (the community), but
  many separate although usually identical paucital
  rights with this content (as many instances as
  there are people in the community). This is what
  Hohfeld calls "multital rights.

16
?????

• Consider also the definition of liberty. In
  Hohfeldian analysis, liberty is defined by an
  absence both of a duty and of a right. B is free
  because he has no obligation to recognise any of
  A's rights. That does not deny that B might
  decide to do what A wants because that is the
  essence of liberty. Nor does it deny the
  possibility that B might accept a duty to A to
  give a benefit to C. In that situation, C would
  have no right and would have to rely on A to
  enforce the duty.

17
????????

• The truth is that liberty is significant from
  both a legal and a moral point of view because
  only liberty ensures that an individual has
  control over his or her choices on whether and
  how to act. If something interferes with this
  choice, the natural reaction is to resent it and
  to seek a remedy.

18
?????

• The corelative between right and duty inevitably
  describes the way in which two people are limited
  in their choices to act, and the outside observer
  cannot capture the legal and moral implications
  without examining the nature of the right held by
  A. Hence, this relationship is qualitatively
  different. An interference with liberty would be
  considered wrongful without having to ask for
  detailed evidence. Yet whether A's relationship
  with B is morally suspect could only be
  determined by evaluating evidence on precisely
  what B's duty requires B to do or not to do.