Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (3):430-450 (2018)

Visa A. J. Kurki
University of Helsinki
This article introduces a new formulation of the interest theory of rights. The focus is on ‘Bentham’s test’, which was devised by Matthew Kramer to limit the expansiveness of the interest theory. According to the test, a party holds a right correlative to a duty only if that party stands to undergo a development that is typically detrimental if the duty is breached. The article shows how the entire interest theory can be reformulated in terms of the test. The article then focuses on a further strength of the interest theory, brought to the fore by the new formulation. In any Western legal system, the tortious maltreatment of a child or a mentally disabled individual results in a compensatory duty. The interest theory can account for such duties in a simple and elegant way. The will theory, on the other hand, struggles to explain such compensatory duties unless it abandons some of its main tenets.
Keywords rights  philosophy of law  legal philosophy  tort  interest theory
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2018
DOI 10.1093/ojls/gqy005
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Are There Any Natural Rights?H. L. A. Hart - 1955 - Philosophical Review 64 (2):175-191.
The Nature of Rights.Leif Wenar - 2005 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (3):223-252.
On the Nature of Rights.J. Raz - 1984 - Mind 93 (370):194-214.
Wrongs, Rights, and Third Parties.Nicolas Cornell - 2015 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 43 (2):109-143.
A Hybrid Theory of Claim-Rights.Gopal Sreenivasan - 2005 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25 (2):257-274.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Rights.Leif Wenar - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Towards a Theory of Legal Animal Rights: Simple and Fundamental Rights.Saskia Stucki - 2020 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 40 (3):533-560.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Kramer’s Delimiting Test for Legal Rights.David Frydrych - 2017 - American Journal of Jurisprudence 62 (2):197-207.
Authority and Interest in the Theory of Right.Nieswandt Katharina - 2019 - In David Plunkett, Scott Shapiro & Kevin Toh (eds.), Legal Norms, Moral Norms: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 315-334.
Rights Bearers and Rights Functions.Anna-Karin Margareta Andersson - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (6):1625-1646.
Capacity, Claims and Children's Rights.Mhairi Cowden - 2012 - Contemporary Political Theory 11 (4):362-380.
Theories of Rights: Is There a Third Way?Matthew H. Kramer & Hillel Steiner - 2007 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27 (2):281-310.
In Defense of the Jurisdiction Theory of Rights.Eric Mack - 2000 - The Journal of Ethics 4 (1-2):71-98.
The Reciprocity Theory of Rights.David Rodin - 2014 - Law and Philosophy 33 (3):281-308.
Rights: Beyond Interest Theory and Will Theory? [REVIEW]Rowan Cruft - 2004 - Law and Philosophy 23 (4):347 - 397.
The Missing Link in Stakeholder Theory: A Philosophical Framework.Anja Matwijkiw & Bronik Matwijkiw - 2014 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (1):125-154.
Real Rights.Carl Wellman - 1995 - Oxford University Press.


Added to PP index

Total views
262 ( #36,469 of 2,448,853 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
36 ( #19,067 of 2,448,853 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes