There is a transition from the objective laws or moral orders that precede human will in classical natural law to the subjective demands or rights emanating from human will in modern natural law,and it represents a hi...There is a transition from the objective laws or moral orders that precede human will in classical natural law to the subjective demands or rights emanating from human will in modern natural law,and it represents a historical debate on the shift from an obligation-based theory to a right-based theory.Strauss,within the context of this transition across time,assesses Thomas Hobbes's philosophy of law and recognizes him as the founder of modern natural rights theory.Using Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's analysis of jurisprudence,Howard Warrender assesses the privilege nature of Hobbes's concept of natural rights and concludes that,since Hohfeld's privilege is the opposite of obligation and related to no-right,obligations cannot be derived from natural rights.Therefore,Warrender argues that Strauss's assertion requires correction.However,Warrender places excessive emphasis on Hohfeld's static separation of the concept of privilege within his theoretical system,overlooking the dynamic transformation from privilege to claim rights.In this regard,Hobbesian scholar Carlan's criticism of Warrender is valid.Meanwhile,Warrender's research holds theoretical significance in that he,under the premise of being a part of Hobbes'natural law tradition,transforms Hohfeld's flat,two-party legal rights relationships into a three-party legal rights structure,which could represent a potential innovation in the 20^(th)century legal philosophy.展开更多
“The Fundamental Rights and obligations of Citizens”, the title of Chapter II of the current Constitution of PRC, and the stipulation that citizens must fulfill certain obligations while enjoying rights have trigger...“The Fundamental Rights and obligations of Citizens”, the title of Chapter II of the current Constitution of PRC, and the stipulation that citizens must fulfill certain obligations while enjoying rights have triggered many debates. Considering the historical origin, constitutional philosophy, and the text and structure of the Constitution, the special provisions of the current Constitution are influenced by the principle of consistency of rights and obligations. The principle of consistency of rights and obligations in the Constitution is of complex connotation. Therefore, although the principle of consistency of rights and obligations effectively connects the public and private spheres, it ignores the diversity and differences of the interests and elements contained in the Constitution, the asymmetry of the normative status of fundamental rights and fundamental obligations,and the right of citizens to self-determination of personal interests.The principle of consistency of rights and obligations should be purposefully narrowed and concretized: In the context of public-private integration and risk society prevention, the principle of consistency of rights and obligations can be used as a supplement to the functional system of the Constitution;in the field of fundamental political obligations, the principle of consistency of rights and obligations should be in line with the requirements of the state to respect and protect human rights;in the field of fundamental social obligations, the exercise of fundamental rights by individuals is protected by the Constitution as long as they comply with the law and do not infringe upon the interests of the social community. The principle of the consistency of rights and obligations is only used as the negative constituents of the determination of rights and the basis for the effect against a third party of fundamental rights.展开更多
基金a phased project of two general projects:the Translation and Study of Hobbes’s Of Man(Project No.22YJA720009)a project of the Humanities and Social Sciences Planning Fund by the Ministry of Education+1 种基金the Research on Early Modern Western Sovereignty Theory(Project No.SK2022010)a project of the Basic Scientific Research of the Institutions of Higher-learning affiliated to Central Departments。
文摘There is a transition from the objective laws or moral orders that precede human will in classical natural law to the subjective demands or rights emanating from human will in modern natural law,and it represents a historical debate on the shift from an obligation-based theory to a right-based theory.Strauss,within the context of this transition across time,assesses Thomas Hobbes's philosophy of law and recognizes him as the founder of modern natural rights theory.Using Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's analysis of jurisprudence,Howard Warrender assesses the privilege nature of Hobbes's concept of natural rights and concludes that,since Hohfeld's privilege is the opposite of obligation and related to no-right,obligations cannot be derived from natural rights.Therefore,Warrender argues that Strauss's assertion requires correction.However,Warrender places excessive emphasis on Hohfeld's static separation of the concept of privilege within his theoretical system,overlooking the dynamic transformation from privilege to claim rights.In this regard,Hobbesian scholar Carlan's criticism of Warrender is valid.Meanwhile,Warrender's research holds theoretical significance in that he,under the premise of being a part of Hobbes'natural law tradition,transforms Hohfeld's flat,two-party legal rights relationships into a three-party legal rights structure,which could represent a potential innovation in the 20^(th)century legal philosophy.
文摘“The Fundamental Rights and obligations of Citizens”, the title of Chapter II of the current Constitution of PRC, and the stipulation that citizens must fulfill certain obligations while enjoying rights have triggered many debates. Considering the historical origin, constitutional philosophy, and the text and structure of the Constitution, the special provisions of the current Constitution are influenced by the principle of consistency of rights and obligations. The principle of consistency of rights and obligations in the Constitution is of complex connotation. Therefore, although the principle of consistency of rights and obligations effectively connects the public and private spheres, it ignores the diversity and differences of the interests and elements contained in the Constitution, the asymmetry of the normative status of fundamental rights and fundamental obligations,and the right of citizens to self-determination of personal interests.The principle of consistency of rights and obligations should be purposefully narrowed and concretized: In the context of public-private integration and risk society prevention, the principle of consistency of rights and obligations can be used as a supplement to the functional system of the Constitution;in the field of fundamental political obligations, the principle of consistency of rights and obligations should be in line with the requirements of the state to respect and protect human rights;in the field of fundamental social obligations, the exercise of fundamental rights by individuals is protected by the Constitution as long as they comply with the law and do not infringe upon the interests of the social community. The principle of the consistency of rights and obligations is only used as the negative constituents of the determination of rights and the basis for the effect against a third party of fundamental rights.
文摘减轻损失规则的重要内容是减轻损失义务,包含两方面的意思:第一,原告有义务采取积极措施(positive steps)将被告违约所致损失降至最低范围;第二,在被告适当履行合同的情况下,原告实施某些行为是适当的,但在被告已经违约的场合,原告倘若再实施这些行为,就会不公正地扩大违约造成的损失(unjustifiably augment the loss)。减轻损失义务大多源自法律的规定,也有基于当事人的约定产生的情形。减轻损失的措施可以类型化为停止履行、替代安排、守约方与违约方再协商、继续履行。守约方应当采取什么样减轻损失的措施,要取决于周围情事。其措施是否适当,宜以一个理性人、经济人的认识作为判断标准比较合理,并且对这种适当的要求不宜太高。在程序方面,要根据双方当事人提供的证据做出事实的认定。是否需要将选择措施之事预先通知违约方,主流观点主张,虽然通知并非“坏事”,但这充其量只是看整个行为是否合理的其中一个因素,而且不一定是重要因素。守约方采取减轻损失的措施支出的合理费用,应由违约方负责赔偿。守约方违反减轻损失的义务,不向违约方就此承担违约责任,但由此扩大的损失无权请求违约方予以赔偿。
