ABSTRACT
Hohfeld was acutely aware of the ‘potent tendency [of words] to control thought’. He was perhaps less aware of the power of syntax to do the same. Hohfeld’s tendency to express the content of duties and liberties in the syntactically restrictive to ϕ form has allowed a corrupted version of his analytical scheme to take root. That version takes as axiomatic that the content of any duty or liberty is the action or inaction of the duty bearer or liberty holder. Yet duties and liberties can (and do) pertain to matters other than the action or inaction of the duty bearer or liberty holder. This insight has a range of doctrinal implications.
Eleanor Eldridge, Rights That, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Published: 4 July 2024.
Leave a Reply