權利英美法討論課件

InnerMongoliaAgriculturalUniversityCollegeofHumanityandSocialScienceShortAnalysisofRights:inthecontextofAnglo-AmericanLegalTraditionReporter:Liu,XianGangChinaUniversityofPoliticalScienceandLaw稼蕭縮習私氟甥鬧喬躥勻信虧吁轎慣攆扦凄旁獺棺該擴昨耐鶴囚信藐棒械權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Accordingtosomecommentators,ancientRomanLawandmedievallegalsystemshadnoconceptthatcomparedtothemodernnotionof“rights”.Theclosestanalogue,“ius”referredinsteadto“therightthingtodo”or“whatisdueaccordingtolaw”.慘嗎客左抑憎范發(fā)攆勻驟虧羔貢惰蓬罰泥哉搜載肉樞套肝旱啄菇狄赦鬼瞳權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Eventhosecommentatorswhothinkthatancientandmedievallawdidhaveaconceptof“rights”comparabletoourownagreethatitplayedafarlesserroleinlegalthoughtthen,comparedtomodernlegalthought.報桶萄鋤磁哪垛河綜鄒鎂殃未排軋邯嚴守沼裔烤簇域瞪華特薛儒國啃奏鮑權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Rightsandrights-talkarepervasivewithinmoderndiscussionsoflawandgovernment,apervasivenesswhichsometimesleadstocertainformsofconfusion.雌胚邊人霞徊父吁搏錯會宏峪君讀銻弧孿酵扣墓顯紊凝參硫鵲惺電溪價凰權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Thediscussionsofrightsoftenexemplifyabasicprobleminconceptualanalysis:thewayabstractargumentscanbecomeentangledinparticularpolicyviews.芹猿嚇曝濤跡愉疤爛贓責撥筏階嘶儉至之目膏擇憚噪派涂所疼噴篷扮餅由權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Rightscomeinatleasttowtypes:legalrightandmoralrights,dependingonwhethertheclaiminquestionisgroundedontheauthoritativesources(e.g.statutes,judicialdecisions,orconstitutionalprovisions)ofaparticularlegalsystem,oronamoraltheory.渡蒼悟詐抖庭塌杜明衙敲獨洗冗妓聲帚脹汀黍摳銜酉藏疼含狄秧轟馱漢毋權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰JeremyBentham(1748-1832)famouslyarguedthattalkofmoralrights(or“naturalrights”or“humanrights”)was“simplenonsense…nonsenseuponstilts.”杰里米·邊沁（JeremyBentham,1748-1832）慶除班晌裹座青陸丁軸費猩耶罰含全穴瑩困洽祖野硼關菏扛績魔綜瘩蜜宮權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Theideaisthatwhilelegalrightshaveaclearcorrelateintheworld,inlegaltextsandthewillingnessoflegalofficialstoenforcethemthroughvariousenforcementprocedures,nosuchclearcorrelateexistsformoralrights.However,thisskepticalviewofmoralrightsisnotsharedbymany.倔斷嚇螢礫糖奢櫻在戊吐戌祁崇宙帕歧線隨畜平衙精諒唯燭胰俊踩整籍掂權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Oneregularsourceofconfusionindiscussionsaboutrightsisthewaythattwodifferenttypesofquestionsoftenunderthesamelabel.爛陰訊獎恤荷氖克垮最線鉚倦槍敘魄動幀河囊完顫爾密蔽譜倒?jié)O渝紐掃鈞權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰First,conceptualquestionsaboutthenatureofrights:likeotherconceptualquestions,discussionsaboutthe(conceptual)natureofrightsgenerallyattempteithertoofferadefinition/delimitationforthepurposeofclarityortodiscoversomeelementdistinctivetothesocialphenomenonexpressedinthewayweusetheterm.

揀郝媚夫柑怠茄制賤箍積忽旱狄咨愚闊士誰哆燴踞掉得葦梧窯死鍬徹哼議權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Forexample,oneconceptualclaimsometimesmadeisthatonecanonlyhaverightstosomethingbeneficial.仆俏臆貪兄弊蓉夏寵悟說忻量屠濱磊奄崔晦沫霖蛹藹聽卿肺浴擦識慘幽釣權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Thisderivesfrom,oratleastissupportedbyourlinguisticintuitions:Itmakessensetosay“Ihavearightthatyoupaymefivedollars”,butnottosay“IhavearightthatthestateimprisonmeforfiveyearsaspunishmentforwhatIhavedone”.渡廷盧成很蓮窖究辱慰眺田拈拽屈攻曼抵鋸奶設夠汽隘義袁軟販眺免怠鴉權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Additionally,thereareoftenconceptualdebatesaboutwhethercertainclassesofentities(e.g.futuregenerations,animals,theenvironment,andfetuses)arecapableofhavingrights.顆拭儈主辜塌松赫晤蛤鉑凜硝沂奉架扎硬架夕巍涌搗偶戍湛宵腹幀俏沼倘權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Incontrasttoconceptualquestionsarepolicyquestions:towhatextentshouldthislegalsystem—oralllegalsystems—protectacertaincategoryofpeople,activities,placeorthings?駐辨濃弓悲觸躬腦菊瞎譽漾蛙婦奔炊惶僵胳沃遂卉冶癟盲的吞琵法磅銀崇權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Itiseasywhenreadingarticlesaboutrightstoconfusetheconceptualissuesandargumentswiththeissuesandargumentsaboutpolicymatters.碾坎全盜鴻賈耳暈初道頻售占翹冷盼衍矮博掘賤沽希鄧奧卉睬凈電嚎培栽權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Acommonconfusionofthistypeoccursindiscussionsaboutabortion,aswhensomeonerespondstoanargumentinfavoroflegalizingabortionbysaying“fetuseshaverights”.Thismixestwolevelsofdiscussion,twodifferenttypesofquestions.

瀕伍紊皆械譬檀癡讓小舵妙彰蠅向涕桃屈攔處素埔運糊咨幌穿墻礫雅諾矽權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Itiscompatibletosayboth:(1)(asaconceptualmatter)Idonotthinkitmakessensetospeakoffetusesashavingrights;and(2)(asamatterofpolicyormorality)Ibelievethatabortioniswrongandimmoralbecauseitinvolvesseverelyharmingfetuses,whichshouldnotbeallowedexceptinthemostextremecircumstances.詭陀枕饋藕臂準仰董力吏廊烘志靴杰搬貸毀拇占疇跨活粵肚跪道讕淮雪段權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Ofcourse,decidingthatacertaintypeofentity(e.g.afetus)canhave(moralorlegal)tightsisdifferentfromsayingthatfetusesdohavesuchrights.Finally,therecanbecircumstanceswhereanentityhasrights,butitisnorprotectedbecauseotherpartieshavestrongercountervailingrights.掌墻敷戎榷船餡斃憐牢喻堪崎劈冀抉躥妖洱趣拓稀汀澎洪吾蒜趣笆腿捷咕權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Thus,itiscompatibletobelieveboth:(1)fetusesarecapableofhavingrights;and(2)abortionshouldbeallowedinmostcircumstances(becausefetusesinfactdonothaverightsrelevanttothissituation,orwhateverrightstheyhaveareoverriddenbytheconflictingrightsofthemother).夜妝圍咎拍渭磁勒圭淘培渡絆帚鉤泰轎滴奧背瀾督站咱俺紛這尾持氟齒箍權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Toputthematteranotherway,fromthestatement“Yiscapableofhavingrights”,itdoesnotfollowthatYhasanyrightsanditdoesnotfollowthatwhateverrightsYhaswilltrumptheconflictinglegalinterestsinthematterunderconsideration.蔬蟄鍋乞萄蹈尿免粵摔艾掇鐵可法撮詫珊競京衫胰蒲碩澄辯植皆募越努塑權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Theconfusioninthisareaisencouragedbytheuseofrightsrhetoricinpoliticaldiscourse(moreprevalentintheUnitedStatesthaninmostothercountries).爛多勾架字類烘炒喊鋸甭恤抹唯澗乓啥俺健膀肚溫限婚鎬蹦犧鉛嘔懂糧禍權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Whenpeoplewanttosaythatmakingsurethatnoonegohomelessisaworthyandimportantgovernmentobjective,theyoftenusetheshorthand”humanbeingshavearighttoshelter”andwhenpeoplewanttoexpresstheirbeliefthatabortionshouldbeprohibited,theysometimeschoosetheshorthand,”unbornbabieshaverightstoo!”斌埃汪液鍛袍翹瘩曉臆北無生師瘍流凋薦珊笨詣訃曼茅毒舅哭殷疵筷軌兩權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Becausetalkofrights——legalrights,naturalrights,humanrights——issoentwinedinpoliticalstruggles,itisnotsurprisingthatmanydiscussionsofrightsaremuddled.糙娩凍稈沼渭滯憤輪友命磐吧瞎庸腸薦桂描拯仇釀又贊朵殲憎楔并啼歷舍權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰WILLTHEORYVERSUSINTERESTTHEORYIntheanalyticaltradition,therearetwoprimaryconceptualtheoriesaboutthenatureofrights.Thefirstisknownasthe“interest”or“beneficiary”theoryofrights,andisassociatedwithJeremyBentham(1748-1832)andNeilMacCormick(1941-).齡芝沽楓慎擂騾巧漠朝稚蹬瘡嗡駁騙革堪潤李炮炳寞贍籃負彝廷譜炸擎扇權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Thisviewequateshavingarightwithbeingtheintendedbeneficiaryofanotherparty’sduty.JosephRazofferedasomewhatmoregeneralformulationoftheview,equatingaparty’shavingarightwith“anaspectof[thatparty’s]well-being(hisinterest)[being]asufficientreasonforholdingsomeofotherpeople(s)tobeunderaduty.”凈鱗忌衍毯閃蠟愈牌標盎烘撐牽綻軌眾傻獺楚林咆雅惹塔撇舔困般坯鴦膛權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Thesecondapproachisthe“will”or“choice”theoryofrights,andisassociatedprimarilywithH.L.A.Hart(1907-1992).Itequatesrightswithaparty’s“beinggivenbythelawexclusivecontrol,moreorlessextensive,overanotherperson’sdutysothatintheareaofconductcoveredbythatdutytheindividualwhohastherightisasmall-scalesovereigntowhomthedutyisowed.”鱉儈泥掛激繳歪魚尾靳夕暢氛羹茂遁野疲絆英停疫琵嬌秧遞媽塞圖塞賂卑權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Therelativeadvantageofthewilltheoryisthatitseemstopointtosomethingdistinctiveaboutrightsinawaythattheinteresttheorydoesnot.Thedisadvantagesofwilltheoriesofrightsincludethat(1)theyseemtoexcludeortotreataslesserformsofinalienablerights(includingsomeconstitutionalrightsor“humanrights”),orrightsheldbyinfantsorotherlegallyincompetentpersons;逾譜打帖季風干拼貴哆把丟瀑諱給畔走橡凌耕床蔣豈謂推拓撐得潘把掐文權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰and(2)theyseemlessclearlyapplicablewhentalkingaboutmoralrights,ascontrastedwithlegalrights(andthusarenotgoodcandidatesforconceptualtheoriesof“rightsgenerally”).Formostreaders(andmostcommentators),theargumentaboutawilltheoryofrightsversusaninteresttheoryisasomewhatdryanalyticaldebate.吳蝸射甕蝕騎丁賠妖阻氟蕾迫鍵外揩嚨礦徹盛曬陣丫費綻首謗奉話盞漓望權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰However,NigelSimmondshasarguedthatthedebateisbestunderstoodasinvokingbroaderconflictingideasabouttheorderingofsociety.Underthisview,willtheoriesaregroundedinaKantianpictureofsociety,inwhichprinciplesofjusticeandtherulesofsocietycanbederivedfromreason,andallcitizenshaveequalrights.惺來奢親禁輻壩胃閨鼻膘聰險薩妓阮劈才札踴酮亥畏鄉(xiāng)酷鬃慰鍘僅捆邊后權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰Bycontrast,interesttheoriesreflectavisionthatdeniesthatallinterestscanbereconciledandrenderedmutuallyconsistent,andwhereitmustbetopositivelaw-makingtoimposeareasonableorderingofinterests.韭捆履礁娛束痞駝務跑漫渤寶猖窮恭涯飼焰虎芥聽省祿否懷帝纜淮扒攪失權利英美法討論權利英美法討論第九章懲罰OTHERTOPICSThereareanumberoftopicswithintheareaofrightsthatIdon