Definitions

Sorry, no definitions found.

Etymologies

Sorry, no etymologies found.

Examples

  • But it does not seem to follow automatically that an entity which does not, or which is physically or mentally incapable of bringing a legal action, is not thereby a right-holder.

    Legal Rights

  • Given then, that all these entities may be protected by law, and that someone can bring some kind of legal action to ensure that those duties are enforced, when would we say that the entity itself is a right-holder and when not?

    Legal Rights

  • Waldron and Raz argue that it is an important feature of rights that they entitle the right-holder to do not only that which is right, but also (within bounds) that which is wrong.

    Legal Rights

  • Since X has a choice in each case that explains why he is referred to as being a right-holder.

    Legal Rights

  • X is a right-holder because he is the beneficiary, or intended beneficiary, of another's duty, or perhaps of the absence of a duty on him which the law might otherwise have imposed.

    Legal Rights

  • According to the theory, Z must (conceptually) be a legal right-holder.

    Legal Rights

  • According to them, to say that X is a right-holder is to say that his interests, or an aspect of them, are sufficient reason for imposing duties on others either not to interfere with X in the performance of some action, or to secure him in something.

    Legal Rights

  • Corresponding pretty much to the general dispute about the very nature of rights, some have argued that any entity which would benefit from the performance by others of legal duties can be a right-holder; others that it has to be an entity which has interests; others that it has to be a entity capable of exercising some kind of control over the relevant legal machinery.

    Legal Rights

  • This they regard as best explained by seeing rights as imposing only duties of non-interference on others, not as granting the right-holder a permission.

    Legal Rights

  • The “group” in “group right” describes the nature of the right-holder; it does not describe the mere fact that the right is confined to the members of a group rather than possessed by all members of a society or by humanity at large.

    Group Rights

Comments

Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.