Analysis Of Legal Rights Research Articles

Utility, Predictability, and Rights: Bentham’s Utilitarianism and Constitutional Entitlements

AbstractInUtility, Publicity, and Law, Postema reconstructs Bentham’s attack on the concept of constitutional and fundamental rights, seen as conditions of legal validity to be employed in the judicial review of legislation. From his viewpoint, the main reason for this attack was Bentham’s endorsement of a “demonstrability thesis,” according to which the indeterminacy of constitutional rights hindered their publicity as standards for evaluating judicial decisions. This article contends that, regarding the grounds of judicial decisions, Bentham’s main concern was with legal certainty and predictability rather than publicity per se. Moreover, it reveals that although constitutional entitlements may not comply with Bentham’s analysis of legal rights, they can fulfill functions that meet the basic requirements of his utilitarianism. Finally, a puzzling aspect of Bentham’s theory of rights, which regards his rejection of moral entitlements even when it comes to positive morality, will be disclosed.

Legal Rights and the Limits of Conceptual Analysis: A Case Study

AbstractLegal philosophers divide over whether it is possible to analyze legal concepts without engaging in normative argument. The influential analysis of legal rights advanced by Jules Coleman and Jody Kraus some years ago serves as a useful case study to consider this issue because even some legal philosophers who are generally skeptical of the neutrality claims of conceptual analysts have concluded that Coleman and Kraus's analysis manages to maintain such neutrality. But that analysis does depend in subtle but important ways on normative claims. Their argument assumes not only a positivist concept of law, but also that it counts in favor of an analysis of legal rights that it increases the number of options available to legal decisionmakers. Thus, whether Coleman and Kraus's analysis is right in the end depends on whether those normative assumptions are justified. If even their analysis, which makes the thinnest of conceptual claims, depends on normative premises, that fact serves as strong evidence of the difficulty of analyzing legal concepts while remaining agnostic on moral and political questions.

Legal Rights and the Limits of Conceptual Analysis: A Case Study

Legal philosophers divide over whether it is possible to analyze legal concepts without engaging in normative argument. The influential analysis of legal rights advanced by Jules Coleman and Jody Kraus some years ago serves as a useful case study to consider this issue because even some legal philosophers who are generally skeptical of the neutrality claims of conceptual analysts have concluded that Coleman and Kraus’s analysis manages to maintain such neutrality. But that analysis does depend in subtle but important ways on normative claims. Their argument assumes not only a positivist concept of law, but also that it counts in favor of an analysis of legal rights that it increases the number of options available to legal decisionmakers. Thus, whether Coleman and Kraus’s analysis is right in the end depends on whether those normative assumptions are justified. If even their analysis, which makes the thinnest of conceptual claims, depends on normative premises, that fact serves as strong evidence of the difficulty of analyzing legal concepts while remaining agnostic on moral and political questions.

Legal Analysis of Rights Against the Protection of ‘Bio-Medical Waste’ and Judicial Reflections in India

This article attempted to cover the environmental jurisprudence and its correlation with the ‘right to health’ and ‘right to safe environment’. It gives specific emphasis upon the need of the mechanism for safe handling and management of bio-medical waste which have created the greatest to these rights enshrine in the Constitution of India u/Art 21. It further analyses the handling and managements of bio-medical waste from the point of view of International standards, lack of national policy and a pathetic situation in India. It further analyses the legal liabilities clauses developed and discussed in various judicial pronouncements, and emphasis upon the bio-medical waste management will also need to take on priority so that both environmental safeguard from bio-medical waste and public health due to the infectious and contagious effect may be safeguards. Ultimately it stresses the need of comprehensive national policy, renovation of existing machineries and a fresh looks towards the existing framework to making objectives into reality with respect to bio-medical waste management and give due regards to right to health and safe environment of the citizenries.

Shareholders, Unicorns and Stilts: An Analysis of Shareholder Property Rights

Shareholders' rights advocates argue that shareholders have the right to control the corporation. This article examines the basis for the claims. It begins with an analysis of rights, then moves to an analysis of legal rights, which is followed by an analysis of property rights as a species of legal rights. The article then examines the historical context, rationale and development of shareholder rights which leads to the analysis of current shareholders' rights. It concludes with some comments and suggestions concerning future development of corporate governance thinking.

Confronting Judicial Supremacy: A Defence of Judicial Activism and the Supreme Court of Cananda's Legal Rights Jurisprudence

RésuméCet article étudie la relation entre le contrôle constitutionnel exercé par la Cour Suprême du Canada et la démocratie en analysant la jurisprudence portant sur les droits garantis par la Charte. Plus précisément, l'article vise à engager le débat avec un groupe influent d'universitaires, les interprétivistes canadiens, illustrés par les contributions scientifiques de F. L. Morton, Rainer Knopff et Christopher P. Manfredi. Contrairement aux interprétivistes qui concluent que l'activisme judiciaire de la Cour Suprême du Canada a compromis le constitutionnalisme libéral, cet article suggère qu'il a plutôt renforcé la suprématie de la Constitution. Cet argument est développé en deux parties. Dans la première, les limites théoriques de la compréhension de l'intention du législateur historique sont explorées pour illustrer les difficultés conceptuelles auxquelles font face les interprétivistes canadiens dans leur tentative de démontrer que le pouvoir judiciaire au Canada est sans contrainte. Nous soutenons que la construction de la compréhension historique est une entreprise hautement subjective qui a crée le mythe de la suprématie judiciaire. Dans la deuxième partie, les limites empiriques de ce mythe sont discutées en identifiant le paradoxe de l'activisme judiciaire: comment il varie, ainsi que son effet, selon l'acteur étatique qui se trouve au centre du recours à la Charte. Grâce à une analyse de cas d'un ensemble de décisions portant sur les droits garantis, l'article confronte ce mythe en démontrant que l'activisme judiciaire contre la police ne renforce point la suprématie judiciaire mais bien celle de la Constitution. En redéfinissant la relation entre les citoyens et l'État par une jurisprudence activiste des droits, la Cour suprême du Canada a effectivement contrôlé des abus de pouvoir par les agents de police. Cet activisme sert bien l'avancement de la suprématie constitutionnelle, quoi qu'en disent les interprétivistes canadiens‥

A note on Feinberg's analysis of legal rights in terms of the activity of claiming

A note on Feinberg's analysis of legal rights in terms of the activity of claiming