对立规范之间的抉择:权利本位法与义务本位法及其社会后果

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW American Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2022-12-08 DOI:10.1093/ajcl/avac037
Benjamin Porat
{"title":"对立规范之间的抉择:权利本位法与义务本位法及其社会后果","authors":"Benjamin Porat","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avac037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The concept of rights stands at the very center of our legal universe. An imaginary alternative legal universe might have similar legal norms to ours, except that they are centered on the concept of duty. Is there any significant difference between these two legal universes? The Hohfeldian assumption of complete correlativity between rights and duties might imply that the difference between these two universes is merely a matter of rhetoric. This Article, however, argues that a rights-based legal world would presumably be significantly different from a legal world based upon duties. For this purpose, the Article examines the way in which contradictory norms are resolved. A rights-based system decides cases of contradictory norms according to a process that is different from that used by a duty-based system. The Article is devoted to examining the roots of this difference, its significance and its social implications. Alongside the discussion of the classical and modern legal sources from the Western legal tradition, the Article contains a comparative discussion of Jewish law sources, which demonstrates a typical example of a duty-based legal system.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"432 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deciding Between Contradicting Norms: Rights-Based Law vs. Duty-Based Law and Their Social Ramifications\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Porat\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajcl/avac037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The concept of rights stands at the very center of our legal universe. An imaginary alternative legal universe might have similar legal norms to ours, except that they are centered on the concept of duty. Is there any significant difference between these two legal universes? The Hohfeldian assumption of complete correlativity between rights and duties might imply that the difference between these two universes is merely a matter of rhetoric. This Article, however, argues that a rights-based legal world would presumably be significantly different from a legal world based upon duties. For this purpose, the Article examines the way in which contradictory norms are resolved. A rights-based system decides cases of contradictory norms according to a process that is different from that used by a duty-based system. The Article is devoted to examining the roots of this difference, its significance and its social implications. Alongside the discussion of the classical and modern legal sources from the Western legal tradition, the Article contains a comparative discussion of Jewish law sources, which demonstrates a typical example of a duty-based legal system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"432 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac037\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac037","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

权利概念是我们法律世界的核心。想象中的另一种法律世界可能与我们的世界有着相似的法律规范,只不过它们以义务概念为中心。这两个法律世界之间有什么显著的区别吗?Hohfeldian关于权利和义务之间完全相关的假设可能意味着这两个世界之间的差异仅仅是一个修辞问题。然而,本文认为,以权利为基础的法律世界可能与以义务为基础的法律世界有很大不同。为此,本文考察了解决矛盾规范的方式。以权利为基础的制度根据不同于以义务为基础的制度所使用的程序来裁决规范相互矛盾的案件。本文致力于研究这种差异的根源,其意义及其社会影响。本文在讨论西方法律传统的古典和现代法律渊源的同时,还对犹太法律渊源进行了比较讨论,这是一个以责任为基础的法律制度的典型例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Deciding Between Contradicting Norms: Rights-Based Law vs. Duty-Based Law and Their Social Ramifications
The concept of rights stands at the very center of our legal universe. An imaginary alternative legal universe might have similar legal norms to ours, except that they are centered on the concept of duty. Is there any significant difference between these two legal universes? The Hohfeldian assumption of complete correlativity between rights and duties might imply that the difference between these two universes is merely a matter of rhetoric. This Article, however, argues that a rights-based legal world would presumably be significantly different from a legal world based upon duties. For this purpose, the Article examines the way in which contradictory norms are resolved. A rights-based system decides cases of contradictory norms according to a process that is different from that used by a duty-based system. The Article is devoted to examining the roots of this difference, its significance and its social implications. Alongside the discussion of the classical and modern legal sources from the Western legal tradition, the Article contains a comparative discussion of Jewish law sources, which demonstrates a typical example of a duty-based legal system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Comparative Law is a scholarly quarterly journal devoted to comparative law, comparing the laws of one or more nations with those of another or discussing one jurisdiction"s law in order for the reader to understand how it might differ from that of the United States or another country. It publishes features articles contributed by major scholars and comments by law student writers. The American Society of Comparative Law, Inc. (ASCL), formerly the American Association for the Comparative Study of Law, Inc., is an organization of institutional and individual members devoted to study, research, and write on foreign and comparative law as well as private international law.
期刊最新文献
Sovereignty, Territoriality, and Private International Law in Classical Muslim International Law Beyond Transplant: A Network Innovation Model of Transnational Regulatory Change The Irony of British Human Rights Exceptionalism, 1948–1998 Are Political “Attacks” on the Judiciary Ever Justifiable? The Relationship Between Unfair Criticism and Public Accountability Is Neutrality Possible? A Critique of the CJEU on Headscarves in the Workplace from a Comparative Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1