The theory of rights of rights, the theory of analysis of rights who came up with it

Rights and powers are two different concepts, the former being a legal concept and the latter being a political one. There is a close relationship between the two: power is based on legal rights and aims to realize legal rights, and rights, as a legal qualification, restrict the form, procedure, content and process of power.

The difference lies in the following four points:

1. The exercise subjects are different. The exercise of rights is the general subject, while the powers are mainly the organs of the State and their functionaries.

2. Different methods of punishment. Rights can generally be waived and transferred, while rights must be exercised in accordance with the law and cannot be waived or transferred.

3. The rules of presumption are different. The presumption rule of rights is that "it is sufficient to do so unless expressly prohibited by law." "The power is limited only to the extent expressly provided, otherwise it is ultra vires.

Fourth, the social functions are different. Rights generally reflect private interests, and power generally reflects public interests.

Legal basis: Article 1 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China.

This Law is formulated on the basis of the Constitution so as to protect the lawful rights and interests of civil subjects, to adjust civil relations, to preserve social and economic order, to meet the requirements of the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and to carry forward the Core Socialist Values.

Article 2: The Civil Law regulates the personal and property relations between natural persons, legal persons, and unincorporated organizations that are equal subjects.

The theory of rights analysis was put forward by the American analytical jurist Hoffield.

The analysis of rights in analytical law is mainly the analysis of the formal types of rights, and Hoffield's analysis of rights is the culmination of the analysis of the forms and types of rights, and the four formal types of rights he proposed logically include all possible forms and types of rights, but his work is also based on Bentham.

and other analytical jurists based on the final results of the invocation work.

According to Hoffield, people always use the concept of right to include the meaning of privilege, power, and immunity, rather than using the meaning of right in the strict sense. Since the term rights have been abused to a large extent, how can the use of the term be limited in legal discourse and given a definite meaning?

Hoffield uses the method of determining the connotation of the right by determining the connotation of the relevant conceptual obligation of the right. He believes that obligation refers to what a person should or should not do, for example, in the legal relationship between x and y.

, Y has the obligation to leave the land, then, in connection with this, X has the right to demand that Y leave his land.

Hoffield looked for a synonym in English.

To illustrate the right in the strict sense of the word, this is the meaning of claim, that is, claim and request. It can be seen that Hoffield's concept of rights is related to the civil law system.

.

anspruch) is more similar.

Summary. Pro, right and power are two different concepts. Rights usually refer to the legitimate rights and interests of individuals or collectives conferred by laws, rules and regulations, etc., and are a subjective right stipulated in accordance with the law.

For example, citizens enjoy rights such as freedom of speech and property rights, and enterprises enjoy rights such as market competition rights and intellectual property rights. Once these rights are recognized by law, they have the legal effect of being guaranteed and upheld. Power, on the other hand, refers to the ability of a person or an organization to influence and control the behavior of others, and to restrain or dominate them by mastering specific resources, mechanisms or functions.

Power is often used to achieve one's own goals, defeat one's opponents, manipulate society, or control resources. For example, political leaders have important decision-making power, entrepreneurs control the allocation of resources in companies, and so on.

Pro, right and power are two different concepts. Rights usually refer to the legitimate rights and interests of individuals or collectives conferred by laws, rules and regulations, etc., and are a kind of subjective rights stipulated in accordance with the law. For example, citizens enjoy rights such as freedom of speech and property rights, and enterprises enjoy rights such as market competition rights and intellectual property rights.

Once these rights are recognized by law, they have the legal effect of being guaranteed and upheld. Power, on the other hand, refers to the ability of a person or an organization to influence and control the behavior of others through the mastery of specific resources, mechanisms or functions, and to have a chaotic restraining or dominating effect on them. Power is often used to achieve one's own goals, defeat one's opponents, manipulate society, or control resources.

For example, political leaders have important decision-making power, entrepreneurs control the allocation of resources in companies, and so on.

In short, power emphasizes the ability of a person or organization in Qinzhou to influence the behavior of others, while power emphasizes the protection and support of individuals or collectives in terms of law and ethics. Although there are similarities between the two, there are differences in concepts and meanings. <>

1. Rights: refers to legal rights, which are certain rights and interests granted to citizens by the Constitution and laws. It can be expressed in the right holder to do or refrain from certain acts himself, or it can be expressed in the right holder to require others to perform certain acts or refrain from certain acts.

2. Power: one is the political coercive force, such as state power, and the other is the dominant force within the scope of responsibility. The subject of power can only be the State organ to which the power is delegated and its specific staff.