克莱默对法律权利的划界检验

Q2 Social Sciences American Journal of Jurisprudence Pub Date : 2017-12-01 DOI:10.1093/AJJ/AUX019
David Frydrych
{"title":"克莱默对法律权利的划界检验","authors":"David Frydrych","doi":"10.1093/AJJ/AUX019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Professor Matthew Kramer offers a delimiting criterion or test for his Interest Theory of legal claim-rights. The ‘Minimum Sufficiency’ test is thought necessary because the Interest Theory is charged with being over-inclusive: it purportedly counts certain agents and entities as legal right-holders even though the law itself does not recognize them as such. This paper nonetheless argues that Kramer’s test is inadequate and unnecessary. It proceeds as follows. Section II offers a brief explanation of the Interest and Will Theories of rights. Section III outlines the over-inclusiveness charge levied against the Interest Theory. Section IV explains Kramer’s test and how it aims to resolve the matter, while Section V shows why the test does not do the job. Section VI, however, provides Kramer and other rights theorists with a superior alternative.","PeriodicalId":39920,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Jurisprudence","volume":"62 1","pages":"197-207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/AJJ/AUX019","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kramer's Delimiting Test for Legal Rights\",\"authors\":\"David Frydrych\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/AJJ/AUX019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Professor Matthew Kramer offers a delimiting criterion or test for his Interest Theory of legal claim-rights. The ‘Minimum Sufficiency’ test is thought necessary because the Interest Theory is charged with being over-inclusive: it purportedly counts certain agents and entities as legal right-holders even though the law itself does not recognize them as such. This paper nonetheless argues that Kramer’s test is inadequate and unnecessary. It proceeds as follows. Section II offers a brief explanation of the Interest and Will Theories of rights. Section III outlines the over-inclusiveness charge levied against the Interest Theory. Section IV explains Kramer’s test and how it aims to resolve the matter, while Section V shows why the test does not do the job. Section VI, however, provides Kramer and other rights theorists with a superior alternative.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Jurisprudence\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"197-207\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/AJJ/AUX019\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Jurisprudence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/AJJ/AUX019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/AJJ/AUX019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

克莱默教授为其法律请求权的利益理论提供了一个界定标准或检验标准。“最低充分性”测试被认为是必要的,因为利益理论被指控过于包容:据称,它将某些代理人和实体视为合法权利持有人,尽管法律本身并不承认他们是合法权利持有人。尽管如此,本文还是认为克莱默的测试是不充分和不必要的。其进展如下。第二节简要介绍了权利的利益意志理论。第三节概述了针对利益理论征收的过度包容性费用。第四节解释了克莱默的测试以及它旨在如何解决问题,而第五节则说明了为什么测试不起作用。然而,第六节为克莱默和其他权利理论家提供了一个更好的选择。
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
Kramer's Delimiting Test for Legal Rights
Professor Matthew Kramer offers a delimiting criterion or test for his Interest Theory of legal claim-rights. The ‘Minimum Sufficiency’ test is thought necessary because the Interest Theory is charged with being over-inclusive: it purportedly counts certain agents and entities as legal right-holders even though the law itself does not recognize them as such. This paper nonetheless argues that Kramer’s test is inadequate and unnecessary. It proceeds as follows. Section II offers a brief explanation of the Interest and Will Theories of rights. Section III outlines the over-inclusiveness charge levied against the Interest Theory. Section IV explains Kramer’s test and how it aims to resolve the matter, while Section V shows why the test does not do the job. Section VI, however, provides Kramer and other rights theorists with a superior alternative.
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
American Journal of Jurisprudence
American Journal of Jurisprudence Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Practical Reason and Private Law: Some Sketches Specifying Interpersonal Responsibilities in Private Law: Property Perspectives Public-Private Drift and the Shattering Polity NDAs: A Study in Rights, Wrongs, and Civil Recourse Poverty and Private Law: Beyond Distributive Justice
×
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