Law and Philosophy 28 (6):537 - 584 (2009)

In a celebrated article, published nearly a century ago, Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld endeavored to elucidate the various types of jural relations. Hohfeld’s scheme has been justly regarded as a seminal contribution to analytical jurisprudence, and has stimulated lively debate since. This Essay aims to refute one of Hohfeld’s fundamental and most influential theses: the axiom of right–duty correlativity. To do so, it employs the simplest refutation strategy in first-order logic, namely providing a valid counterexample. Part I discusses earlier attempts to do likewise, and explains why they failed. For the most part, previous illustrations of ostensibly standalone rights or standalone duties neglected relevant parties who could owe the correlative duties or hold the correlative rights, respectively. Part II puts forward a simple argument: There are abstract duties in private law that ban certain types of conduct without reference to specific victims. Those duties are not necessarily correlative with rights, although their breach may generate secondary duties with corresponding rights. In particular, tort law allows plaintiffs to recover for harm caused by breach of duty that occurred before they acquired legal personality. This is tantamount to recognizing duties that are not correlative with rights, and therefore invalidates the correlativity axiom.
Keywords Philosophy   Logic   Political Science   Social Sciences, general   Law Theory/Law Philosophy   Philosophy of Law
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10982-009-9045-2
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,130
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Equality and the Duties of Procreators.Peter Vallentyne - 2002 - In David Archard & Colin Macleod (eds.), Children and Political Theory. Oxford University Press.
Health Versus Harm: Euthanasia and Physicians' Duties.J. L. A. Garcia - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (1):7 – 24.
The Correlativity of Duties and Rights.James Fieser - 1992 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 7 (2):1-7.
Euthanasia and Physicians' Moral Duties.Gary Seay - 2005 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (5):517 – 533.
Rights and Duties.Carl Wellman (ed.) - 2002 - Routledge.
Tort Law and Corrective Justice.Hanoch Sheinman - 2003 - Law and Philosophy 22 (1):21-73.
A Bundle of Software Rights and Duties.David M. Douglas - 2011 - Ethics and Information Technology 13 (3):185-197.
How Are Rights and Duties Correlative?Jack Donnelly - 1982 - Journal of Value Inquiry 16 (4):287-294.


Added to PP index

Total views
61 ( #187,147 of 2,506,429 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,997 of 2,506,429 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes