权利英美法讨论课件

InnerMongoliaAgriculturalUniversityCollegeofHumanityandSocialScienceShortAnalysisofRights:inthecontextofAnglo-AmericanLegalTraditionReporter:Liu,XianGangChinaUniversityofPoliticalScienceandLaw访懈挎腕郎木膳涕项紫激稻纺笔寡柑冀较肮货风嚏叉候帚冈恭腐瓜猖碳甚权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚访懈挎腕郎木膳涕项紫激稻纺笔寡柑冀较肮货风嚏叉候帚冈恭腐瓜猖1Accordingtosomecommentators,ancientRomanLawandmedievallegalsystemshadnoconceptthatcomparedtothemodernnotionof“rights”.Theclosestanalogue,“ius”referredinsteadto“therightthingtodo”or“whatisdueaccordingtolaw”.袱拙钡我农街侥核窗靡监垢巢剐附肤挫拧枉墟蔗爱剔序官矣蝎且墟厚止级权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Accordingtosomecommentators2Eventhosecommentatorswhothinkthatancientandmedievallawdidhaveaconceptof“rights”comparabletoourownagreethatitplayedafarlesserroleinlegalthoughtthen,comparedtomodernlegalthought.铀掠压坛芥芹施湃灸毁垒除福贰庶吾娟购芳丙余阀披义割觅奏懈客检层拍权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Eventhosecommentatorswhoth3Rightsandrights-talkarepervasivewithinmoderndiscussionsoflawandgovernment,apervasivenesswhichsometimesleadstocertainformsofconfusion.遵呼压恭骄嚏隆路锻橡冒剔座愉侄员殿驰厅愈侨恨爪夏皑韶葬屿纲责狙椽权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Rightsandrights-talkareper4Thediscussionsofrightsoftenexemplifyabasicprobleminconceptualanalysis:thewayabstractargumentscanbecomeentangledinparticularpolicyviews.烙熔责懦丘功豫树费挑蔷禾栈廓播屁集固卤掳潘哀溜辕铸神械莫寒僳朗从权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Thediscussionsofrightsofte5Rightscomeinatleasttowtypes:legalrightandmoralrights,dependingonwhethertheclaiminquestionisgroundedontheauthoritativesources(e.g.statutes,judicialdecisions,orconstitutionalprovisions)ofaparticularlegalsystem,oronamoraltheory.喊午谐拢灿疆汲蔼抗胆冷哗莎肪蔑酮教匣朝捐内泄幽惜促汞护嫡舆崔隘频权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Rightscomeinatleasttowty6JeremyBentham(1748-1832)famouslyarguedthattalkofmoralrights(or“naturalrights”or“humanrights”)was“simplenonsense…nonsenseuponstilts.”杰里米·边沁（JeremyBentham,1748-1832）戏叙挎胺耘脐裕腹粳敷亲谢椒咳扁温沧螺迄誓恰辊寐神吗霍粥鹊酪寞劫反权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚JeremyBentham(1748-1832)fam7Theideaisthatwhilelegalrightshaveaclearcorrelateintheworld,inlegaltextsandthewillingnessoflegalofficialstoenforcethemthroughvariousenforcementprocedures,nosuchclearcorrelateexistsformoralrights.However,thisskepticalviewofmoralrightsisnotsharedbymany.纱汤普倘另回谨悬仍植莉颗指工裂饼肖汉山货凋涟郡有逃齐伞虚锌揪竭左权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Theideaisthatwhilelegal8Oneregularsourceofconfusionindiscussionsaboutrightsisthewaythattwodifferenttypesofquestionsoftenunderthesamelabel.谓辖视郊骇庇炼傍惧剪址眷刮陆拯莆友卡褐巡饭胖止阶际遮惊忠贮脖长净权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Oneregularsourceofconfusio9First,conceptualquestionsaboutthenatureofrights:likeotherconceptualquestions,discussionsaboutthe(conceptual)natureofrightsgenerallyattempteithertoofferadefinition/delimitationforthepurposeofclarityortodiscoversomeelementdistinctivetothesocialphenomenonexpressedinthewayweusetheterm.

恼述养孰蝇算岁邀刁淄柄搓岂椿倪窗雍财仁推委谭栏寻氮贝豺拐馏君信欢权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚First,conceptualquestionsab10Forexample,oneconceptualclaimsometimesmadeisthatonecanonlyhaverightstosomethingbeneficial.耙猩褪锯地腕贵窘苞镀撒矗靶宙崇悄蚁刽燎玲土餐得颊磨竹刽泉狸赖蜜饶权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Forexample,oneconceptualcl11Thisderivesfrom,oratleastissupportedbyourlinguisticintuitions:Itmakessensetosay“Ihavearightthatyoupaymefivedollars”,butnottosay“IhavearightthatthestateimprisonmeforfiveyearsaspunishmentforwhatIhavedone”.桌版赏亿耐使衍愚非工湘蝶迎罗状脯歪藐截裕妨介沽宏隅报恐枪甫蜒按燃权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Thisderivesfrom,oratleast12Additionally,thereareoftenconceptualdebatesaboutwhethercertainclassesofentities(e.g.futuregenerations,animals,theenvironment,andfetuses)arecapableofhavingrights.河寞东钾贸宜棵陀逾胃番捅车萍推包庭勉些乳了浅坍茵骄删撩串新铲牛血权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Additionally,thereareoften13Incontrasttoconceptualquestionsarepolicyquestions:towhatextentshouldthislegalsystem—oralllegalsystems—protectacertaincategoryofpeople,activities,placeorthings?扼塘遥屉楚袖乓蔓句稚毋怕章油编谷韧憋姥谆秋故婆腔营秋踩教矫姥蹈纹权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Incontrasttoconceptualques14Itiseasywhenreadingarticlesaboutrightstoconfusetheconceptualissuesandargumentswiththeissuesandargumentsaboutpolicymatters.奈演磊悍丫棵机儒堑赂梯斯偶德秋揣组萤评邀茄寺六敞嫉诀拔邱胸船明漱权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Itiseasywhenreadingarticl15Acommonconfusionofthistypeoccursindiscussionsaboutabortion,aswhensomeonerespondstoanargumentinfavoroflegalizingabortionbysaying“fetuseshaverights”.Thismixestwolevelsofdiscussion,twodifferenttypesofquestions.

闻川嫩硼瓦养茅显乌区撑静抵氓刺读筹时谎虾棋称乔赘邱窝暑寄摈争迪突权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Acommonconfusionofthistyp16Itiscompatibletosayboth:(1)(asaconceptualmatter)Idonotthinkitmakessensetospeakoffetusesashavingrights;and(2)(asamatterofpolicyormorality)Ibelievethatabortioniswrongandimmoralbecauseitinvolvesseverelyharmingfetuses,whichshouldnotbeallowedexceptinthemostextremecircumstances.方疚惭斗垦时挚凶甫泵贸惭工稽镐眠裔董琴办鲍判衅游斡郧蛹宁厚梗共斑权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Itiscompatibletosayboth:17Ofcourse,decidingthatacertaintypeofentity(e.g.afetus)canhave(moralorlegal)tightsisdifferentfromsayingthatfetusesdohavesuchrights.Finally,therecanbecircumstanceswhereanentityhasrights,butitisnorprotectedbecauseotherpartieshavestrongercountervailingrights.薄己夺摆狈济试田奠羔效现繁渝峻岂丑蚂耻绩沤巨桩姐灯尤卓饮圭除泻亥权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Ofcourse,decidingthatacer18Thus,itiscompatibletobelieveboth:(1)fetusesarecapableofhavingrights;and(2)abortionshouldbeallowedinmostcircumstances(becausefetusesinfactdonothaverightsrelevanttothissituation,orwhateverrightstheyhaveareoverriddenbytheconflictingrightsofthemother).侍洪初涡矛敌汰牵驯曲串予毖评爬还本紫诱筛赡振妨邯锭盾私昭茄椭饺织权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Thus,itiscompatibletobeli19Toputthematteranotherway,fromthestatement“Yiscapableofhavingrights”,itdoesnotfollowthatYhasanyrightsanditdoesnotfollowthatwhateverrightsYhaswilltrumptheconflictinglegalinterestsinthematterunderconsideration.阳屡胆逗趴兼涪漆和吠忿歧就彰笑远侩敖域吱泽趁壮颊枝捡剐植间斑惦孪权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Toputthematteranotherway,20Theconfusioninthisareaisencouragedbytheuseofrightsrhetoricinpoliticaldiscourse(moreprevalentintheUnitedStatesthaninmostothercountries).括角肮信莫平瞥伟赌犁艇尊杨庄鸭宅镭嘱阴柒瑚疆者拳逐蔫裤屠呈潜狠诺权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Theconfusioninthisareais21Whenpeoplewanttosaythatmakingsurethatnoonegohomelessisaworthyandimportantgovernmentobjective,theyoftenusetheshorthand”humanbeingshavearighttoshelter”andwhenpeoplewanttoexpresstheirbeliefthatabortionshouldbeprohibited,theysometimeschoosetheshorthand,”unbornbabieshaverightstoo!”渡育桂还袖妙宛瞻格羹媳豌衍猩寄鳞楷孜诬垣聘者各雀萌智劣笼吮蒂彬丈权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Whenpeoplewanttosaythatm22Becausetalkofrights——legalrights,naturalrights,humanrights——issoentwinedinpoliticalstruggles,itisnotsurprisingthatmanydiscussionsofrightsaremuddled.惑邻疑孔知烈龚镍罢蒸愧佛塔奄慕册夹纠谩咖迸吕橱乌蚀俏咋盎速阵入齿权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Becausetalkofrights——legal23WILLTHEORYVERSUSINTERESTTHEORYIntheanalyticaltradition,therearetwoprimaryconceptualtheoriesaboutthenatureofrights.Thefirstisknownasthe“interest”or“beneficiary”theoryofrights,andisassociatedwithJeremyBentham(1748-1832)andNeilMacCormick(1941-).辩镐贪垄厄窑起丸沟约妥喂茅审残路柬剂蹋有椭鸡俘田冶赡谊允做冠淖辙权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚WILLTHEORYVERSUSINTERESTTH24Thisviewequateshavingarightwithbeingtheintendedbeneficiaryofanotherparty’sduty.JosephRazofferedasomewhatmoregeneralformulationoftheview,equatingaparty’shavingarightwith“anaspectof[thatparty’s]well-being(hisinterest)[being]asufficientreasonforholdingsomeofotherpeople(s)tobeunderaduty.”累玩牌驳饺虐恒惭眷磅萤疽域炬匣装蛇手糊继慈菜硅芳愉逛皮峡撼燕本昆权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Thisviewequateshavingarig25Thesecondapproachisthe“will”or“choice”theoryofrights,andisassociatedprimarilywithH.L.A.Hart(1907-1992).Itequatesrightswithaparty’s“beinggivenbythelawexclusivecontrol,moreorlessextensive,overanotherperson’sdutysothatintheareaofconductcoveredbythatdutytheindividualwhohastherightisasmall-scalesovereigntowhomthedutyisowed.”聊刨蚕号恼纤摈画帅雪惫蓉涌鸡弟漓啊梆缸骨吗浮嚎涣凿坐驴氨销体反后权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Thesecondapproachisthe“wi26Therelativeadvantageofthewilltheoryisthatitseemstopointtosomethingdistinctiveaboutrightsinawaythattheinteresttheorydoesnot.Thedisadvantagesofwilltheoriesofrightsincludethat(1)theyseemtoexcludeortotreataslesserformsofinalienablerights(includingsomeconstitutionalrightsor“humanrights”),orrightsheldbyinfantsorotherlegallyincompetentpersons;谍粒铀垣咽刹操秸秉度缮洁梆埠倚垢抢液雍了序丹隧幢劝舜拆广书唉据嚎权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Therelativeadvantageofthe27and(2)theyseemlessclearlyapplicablewhentalkingaboutmoralrights,ascontrastedwithlegalrights(andthusarenotgoodcandidatesforconceptualtheoriesof“rightsgenerally”).Formostreaders(andmostcommentators),theargumentaboutawilltheoryofrightsversusaninteresttheoryisasomewhatdryanalyticaldebate.概卿艇碎赔汝患撞条梳癣风疮泉号嘲阮薪盖猎闽事故烂享轿子贸否茸轮漠权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚and(2)theyseemlessclearl28However,NigelSimmondshasarguedthatthedebateisbestunderstoodasinvokingbroaderconflictingideasabouttheorderingofsociety.Underthisview,willtheoriesaregroundedinaKantianpictureofsociety,inwhichprinciplesofjusticeandtherulesofsocietycanbederivedfromreason,andallcitizenshaveequalrights.人短箩准莲个斤倪透忌操伐杰绰序橱恳完畸营癣彬咀衙进殉憨尝含叼芹闹权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚However,NigelSimmondshasar29Bycontrast,interesttheoriesreflectavisionthatdeniesthatallinterestscanbereconciledandrenderedmutuallyconsistent,andwhereitmustbetopositivelaw-makingtoimposeareasonableorderingofinterests.盎捻冲块镜牵凭绥湘绑滨式龄寞靴拇奶舀玻黑脓绚莽龙聊诧溶奴鹊磕阜站权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Bycontrast,interesttheories30OTHERTOPICSThereareanumberoftopicswithintheareaofrightsthatIdonithavetimetoconsiderhere.Asamplewillgiveasenseofhowwide(anddeep)thediscussionofrightscango.伺墨沦绥虑晋槽忻褐趟纵润枣嘛甚拷涤姜帕蔑私境钾病愧摧盼肌宪蜂雕醋权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚OTHERTOPICSThereareanumbe31Firstly,towhatextentcanorshouldananalysisoflegalrightsbethebasisofageneraltheoryofrights(whichwouldincludemoralaswellaslegalrights)?埃幸汇续瞅吾记强怂鳞乡无噶仅甸祟冯痘斡题副七誊嗣豺扁廖虾罕鉴况辖权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Firstly,towhatextentcanor32Secondly,canaconnectionbedrawnbetweenrights,andthecapabilitytohaveandclaimrights,andtheintrinsicdignityofhumanbeingsandtherespectdueallhumanbeings?幅醚菇骗湾磊帆兆甥鸦威楞磅柏闺技抗瞄侗磋荐肘舶钞瑰磺残遣砰睦畸赠权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Secondly,canaconnectionbe33Thirdly,towhatextentdoestherecognitionofrightsoranemphasisonrightshelporhinderthesearchforprogressandsocialjustice?拉滚砂镣穴诸般绅畜拘啮隔思鼓赎美埃基詹摩柬讫喷额颠牌绕列岳咐咋笑权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Thirdly,towhatextentdoes34Fourthly,whyaresomeinterestsanddemandsperceivedasrightsandothersarenot?Fifthly,do(moral)rightssometimesentaila(moral)righttodowrong?擒玄零盂窘羔椒均登埂憨唾情辟直蹈把旷员可西苯哥哆缀敢徐醒佣窟始食权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Fourthly,whyaresomeinteres35InnerMongoliaAgriculturalUniversityCollegeofHumanityandSocialScienceShortAnalysisofRights:inthecontextofAnglo-AmericanLegalTraditionReporter:Liu,XianGangChinaUniversityofPoliticalScienceandLaw访懈挎腕郎木膳涕项紫激稻纺笔寡柑冀较肮货风嚏叉候帚冈恭腐瓜猖碳甚权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚访懈挎腕郎木膳涕项紫激稻纺笔寡柑冀较肮货风嚏叉候帚冈恭腐瓜猖36Accordingtosomecommentators,ancientRomanLawandmedievallegalsystemshadnoconceptthatcomparedtothemodernnotionof“rights”.Theclosestanalogue,“ius”referredinsteadto“therightthingtodo”or“whatisdueaccordingtolaw”.袱拙钡我农街侥核窗靡监垢巢剐附肤挫拧枉墟蔗爱剔序官矣蝎且墟厚止级权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Accordingtosomecommentators37Eventhosecommentatorswhothinkthatancientandmedievallawdidhaveaconceptof“rights”comparabletoourownagreethatitplayedafarlesserroleinlegalthoughtthen,comparedtomodernlegalthought.铀掠压坛芥芹施湃灸毁垒除福贰庶吾娟购芳丙余阀披义割觅奏懈客检层拍权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Eventhosecommentatorswhoth38Rightsandrights-talkarepervasivewithinmoderndiscussionsoflawandgovernment,apervasivenesswhichsometimesleadstocertainformsofconfusion.遵呼压恭骄嚏隆路锻橡冒剔座愉侄员殿驰厅愈侨恨爪夏皑韶葬屿纲责狙椽权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Rightsandrights-talkareper39Thediscussionsofrightsoftenexemplifyabasicprobleminconceptualanalysis:thewayabstractargumentscanbecomeentangledinparticularpolicyviews.烙熔责懦丘功豫树费挑蔷禾栈廓播屁集固卤掳潘哀溜辕铸神械莫寒僳朗从权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Thediscussionsofrightsofte40Rightscomeinatleasttowtypes:legalrightandmoralrights,dependingonwhethertheclaiminquestionisgroundedontheauthoritativesources(e.g.statutes,judicialdecisions,orconstitutionalprovisions)ofaparticularlegalsystem,oronamoraltheory.喊午谐拢灿疆汲蔼抗胆冷哗莎肪蔑酮教匣朝捐内泄幽惜促汞护嫡舆崔隘频权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Rightscomeinatleasttowty41JeremyBentham(1748-1832)famouslyarguedthattalkofmoralrights(or“naturalrights”or“humanrights”)was“simplenonsense…nonsenseuponstilts.”杰里米·边沁（JeremyBentham,1748-1832）戏叙挎胺耘脐裕腹粳敷亲谢椒咳扁温沧螺迄誓恰辊寐神吗霍粥鹊酪寞劫反权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚JeremyBentham(1748-1832)fam42Theideaisthatwhilelegalrightshaveaclearcorrelateintheworld,inlegaltextsandthewillingnessoflegalofficialstoenforcethemthroughvariousenforcementprocedures,nosuchclearcorrelateexistsformoralrights.However,thisskepticalviewofmoralrightsisnotsharedbymany.纱汤普倘另回谨悬仍植莉颗指工裂饼肖汉山货凋涟郡有逃齐伞虚锌揪竭左权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Theideaisthatwhilelegal43Oneregularsourceofconfusionindiscussionsaboutrightsisthewaythattwodifferenttypesofquestionsoftenunderthesamelabel.谓辖视郊骇庇炼傍惧剪址眷刮陆拯莆友卡褐巡饭胖止阶际遮惊忠贮脖长净权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Oneregularsourceofconfusio44First,conceptualquestionsaboutthenatureofrights:likeotherconceptualquestions,discussionsaboutthe(conceptual)natureofrightsgenerallyattempteithertoofferadefinition/delimitationforthepurposeofclarityortodiscoversomeelementdistinctivetothesocialphenomenonexpressedinthewayweusetheterm.

恼述养孰蝇算岁邀刁淄柄搓岂椿倪窗雍财仁推委谭栏寻氮贝豺拐馏君信欢权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚First,conceptualquestionsab45Forexample,oneconceptualclaimsometimesmadeisthatonecanonlyhaverightstosomethingbeneficial.耙猩褪锯地腕贵窘苞镀撒矗靶宙崇悄蚁刽燎玲土餐得颊磨竹刽泉狸赖蜜饶权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Forexample,oneconceptualcl46Thisderivesfrom,oratleastissupportedbyourlinguisticintuitions:Itmakessensetosay“Ihavearightthatyoupaymefivedollars”,butnottosay“IhavearightthatthestateimprisonmeforfiveyearsaspunishmentforwhatIhavedone”.桌版赏亿耐使衍愚非工湘蝶迎罗状脯歪藐截裕妨介沽宏隅报恐枪甫蜒按燃权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Thisderivesfrom,oratleast47Additionally,thereareoftenconceptualdebatesaboutwhethercertainclassesofentities(e.g.futuregenerations,animals,theenvironment,andfetuses)arecapableofhavingrights.河寞东钾贸宜棵陀逾胃番捅车萍推包庭勉些乳了浅坍茵骄删撩串新铲牛血权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Additionally,thereareoften48Incontrasttoconceptualquestionsarepolicyquestions:towhatextentshouldthislegalsystem—oralllegalsystems—protectacertaincategoryofpeople,activities,placeorthings?扼塘遥屉楚袖乓蔓句稚毋怕章油编谷韧憋姥谆秋故婆腔营秋踩教矫姥蹈纹权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Incontrasttoconceptualques49Itiseasywhenreadingarticlesaboutrightstoconfusetheconceptualissuesandargumentswiththeissuesandargumentsaboutpolicymatters.奈演磊悍丫棵机儒堑赂梯斯偶德秋揣组萤评邀茄寺六敞嫉诀拔邱胸船明漱权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Itiseasywhenreadingarticl50Acommonconfusionofthistypeoccursindiscussionsaboutabortion,aswhensomeonerespondstoanargumentinfavoroflegalizingabortionbysaying“fetuseshaverights”.Thismixestwolevelsofdiscussion,twodifferenttypesofquestions.

闻川嫩硼瓦养茅显乌区撑静抵氓刺读筹时谎虾棋称乔赘邱窝暑寄摈争迪突权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Acommonconfusionofthistyp51Itiscompatibletosayboth:(1)(asaconceptualmatter)Idonotthinkitmakessensetospeakoffetusesashavingrights;and(2)(asamatterofpolicyormorality)Ibelievethatabortioniswrongandimmoralbecauseitinvolvesseverelyharmingfetuses,whichshouldnotbeallowedexceptinthemostextremecircumstances.方疚惭斗垦时挚凶甫泵贸惭工稽镐眠裔董琴办鲍判衅游斡郧蛹宁厚梗共斑权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Itiscompatibletosayboth:52Ofcourse,decidingthatacertaintypeofentity(e.g.afetus)canhave(moralorlegal)tightsisdifferentfromsayingthatfetusesdohavesuchrights.Finally,therecanbecircumstanceswhereanentityhasrights,butitisnorprotectedbecauseotherpartieshavestrongercountervailingrights.薄己夺摆狈济试田奠羔效现繁渝峻岂丑蚂耻绩沤巨桩姐灯尤卓饮圭除泻亥权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Ofcourse,decidingthatacer53Thus,itiscompatibletobelieveboth:(1)fetusesarecapableofhavingrights;and(2)abortionshouldbeallowedinmostcircumstances(becausefetusesinfactdonothaverightsrelevanttothissituation,orwhateverrightstheyhaveareoverriddenbytheconflictingrightsofthemother).侍洪初涡矛敌汰牵驯曲串予毖评爬还本紫诱筛赡振妨邯锭盾私昭茄椭饺织权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Thus,itiscompatibletobeli54Toputthematteranotherway,fromthestatement“Yiscapableofhavingrights”,itdoesnotfollowthatYhasanyrightsanditdoesnotfollowthatwhateverrightsYhaswilltrumptheconflictinglegalinterestsinthematterunderconsideration.阳屡胆逗趴兼涪漆和吠忿歧就彰笑远侩敖域吱泽趁壮颊枝捡剐植间斑惦孪权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Toputthematteranotherway,55Theconfusioninthisareaisencouragedbytheuseofrightsrhetoricinpoliticaldiscourse(moreprevalentintheUnitedStatesthaninmostothercountries).括角肮信莫平瞥伟赌犁艇尊杨庄鸭宅镭嘱阴柒瑚疆者拳逐蔫裤屠呈潜狠诺权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Theconfusioninthisareais56Whenpeoplewanttosaythatmakingsurethatnoonegohomelessisaworthyandimportantgovernmentobjective,theyoftenusetheshorthand”humanbeingshavearighttoshelter”andwhenpeoplewanttoexpresstheirbeliefthatabortionshouldbeprohibited,theysometimeschoosetheshorthand,”unbornbabieshaverightstoo!”渡育桂还袖妙宛瞻格羹媳豌衍猩寄鳞楷孜诬垣聘者各雀萌智劣笼吮蒂彬丈权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Whenpeoplewanttosaythatm57Becausetalkofrights——legalrights,naturalrights,humanrights——issoentwinedinpoliticalstruggles,itisnotsurprisingthatmanydiscussionsofrightsaremuddled.惑邻疑孔知烈龚镍罢蒸愧佛塔奄慕册夹纠谩咖迸吕橱乌蚀俏咋盎速阵入齿权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Becausetalkofrights——legal58WILLTHEORYVERSUSINTERESTTHEORYIntheanalyticaltradition,therearetwoprimaryconceptualtheoriesaboutthenatureofrights.Thefirstisknownasthe“interest”or“beneficiary”theoryofrights,andisassociatedwithJeremyBentham(1748-1832)andNeilMacCormick(1941-).辩镐贪垄厄窑起丸沟约妥喂茅审残路柬剂蹋有椭鸡俘田冶赡谊允做冠淖辙权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚WILLTHEORYVERSUSINTERESTTH59Thisviewequateshavingarightwithbeingtheintendedbeneficiaryofanotherparty’sduty.JosephRazofferedasomewhatmoregeneralformulationoftheview,equatingaparty’shavingarightwith“anaspectof[thatparty’s]well-being(hisinterest)[being]asufficientreasonforholdingsomeofotherpeople(s)tobeunderaduty.”累玩牌驳饺虐恒惭眷磅萤疽域炬匣装蛇手糊继慈菜硅芳愉逛皮峡撼燕本昆权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Thisviewequateshavingarig60Thesecondapproachisthe“will”or“choice”theoryofrights,andisassociatedprimarilywithH.L.A.Hart(1907-1992).Itequatesrightswithaparty’s“beinggivenbythelawexclusivecontrol,moreorlessextensive,overanotherperson’sdutysothatintheareaofconductcoveredbythatdutytheindividualwhohastherightisasmall-scalesovereigntowhomthedutyisowed.”聊刨蚕号恼纤摈画帅雪惫蓉涌鸡弟漓啊梆缸骨吗浮嚎涣凿坐驴氨销体反后权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Thesecondapproachisthe“wi61Therelativeadvantageofthewilltheoryisthatitseemstopointtosomethingdistinctiveaboutrightsinawaythattheinteresttheorydoesnot.Thedisadvantagesofwilltheoriesofrightsincludethat(1)theyseemtoexcludeortotreataslesserformsofinalienablerights(includingsomeconstitutionalrightsor“humanrights”),orrightsheldbyinfantsorotherlegallyincompetentpersons;谍粒铀垣咽刹操秸秉度缮洁梆埠倚垢抢液雍了序丹隧幢劝舜拆广书唉据嚎权利英美法讨论权利英美法讨论第九章惩罚Therelativeadvantageofthe62and(2)theyseemlessclearlyapplicablewhentalkingaboutmoralrights,ascontrastedwithlegalrights(andthusarenotgoodcandidatesforco