Dar kartą apie subjektines teises : subjektinių teisių sampratos, jų santykio su objektine teise bei prigimties problemos

Direct Link:
Collection:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Language:
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Title:
Dar kartą apie subjektines teises : subjektinių teisių sampratos, jų santykio su objektine teise bei prigimties problemos
Alternative Title:
Once more about rights : problems of the conception of rights, their relation to law and their nature
In the Journal:
Jurisprudencija [Jurisprudence]. 2011, Nr. 18 (2), p. 561-574
Notes:
LDB Open.
Keywords:
LT
Interesas; Moralė; Objektinė teisė; Pozityvioji teisė; Prigimtinė teisė; Subjektinė teisė; Teisinis personalizmas; Valia
EN
Interest; Law; Legal personalism; Morals; Natural law; Positive law; Right; Will
Summary / Abstract:

LTStraipsnyje, taikant nepozityvistinę metodologiją, analizuojama subjektinės teisės prigimtis, pateikiama jos samprata, ryšys su objektine teise. Pabrėžiama, kad terminai „prigimtinės teisės“, „žmogaus teisės“ ir „pagrindinės bei bendriausios moralinės teisės“ yra sinonimai, o „prigimtinė teisė“, kaip ideali, siektina teisė, tėra kitas geros moralės pavadinimas. Gera moralė yra objektinės teisės šaltinis materialiąja prasme. Pabrėžiama, kad nei subjektinė, nei objektinė teisė negali egzistuoti ne visuomenėje ir be visuomenės, o todėl subjektinė teisė gali būti suprantama tik kaip objektinės teisės atspindima asmens laisvė. Straipsnyje daroma išvada, jog vieno asmens A teisę (nesvarbu, kaip ji bebūtų vadinama, pavyzdžiui, net laisvę) visuomet atitinka kito asmens B pareiga. Palaikoma intereso teorija, pagal kurią asmuo turi tokią subjektinę teisę, kuri užtikrina jo interesus (poreikius), bei teigiama, kad interesas (poreikis) yra subjektinės teisės grūdas, o techninis elementas, pasireiškiantis kaip pretenzija, laisvė ir pan., yra lukštas, kuris saugo pirmąjį [Iš leidinio]

ENThis article, while disclosing the conception of rights, their relation to law and their nature, presents the constructive criticism and motivated support of legal personalism, i. e. the original theory presented by prof. A. Vaišvila. This article presents the criticism of terms "positive law" and "natural law". It emphasizes that the term "natural rights," while historically very important and common, is rarely used of late. The primary reason for its fall from favor seems to be that it was used in too many different ways and therefore ceased to be useful. So, the author, while defending the indispensable relation between law and morals, offers the term "good morals" instead of "natural law" and also offers to refuse the usage of terms "positive law" and "natural law". This article represents the view that morality is the source of law. The author accepts a position asserting that the terms "human rights", "natural rights" and "fundamental moral rights" are synonymous. However, some institutional rights (for example, social rights) flow from statutes, but not morals. Rights, which are abilities of human beings, are only the reflection of law. There are no legal rights and no law without society and beyond society. Equally, there are no moral rights and no morality (and justice) without society and beyond society.Although this article discusses some models of rights (claim-right or right stricto sensu, liberty or privilege, power and immunity), i.e. technical expression of rights, it still presents the conclusion that A's right, even in the form of liberty, cannot be regarded independently of the duty(ies) on B that coexist with that right. The author analyses will (choice) and interest (benefit) theories interpreting the core of rights. Defenders of choice theories (H.L.A. Hart and the others) argue that a person has a right when others have duties which protect one of that person's choices. A central problem for choice theories is the rights of beings that cannot choose (e. g., animals and human babies). If rights necessarily protect an individual's choices then individuals who cannot choose cannot have rights. So the author rejects this theory. However, the author, as do other Lithuanian scientists, defends the interest (benefit) theory. Defenders of interest theories (J. Bentham and the others) argue that a person has a right when others have duties which protect one of that person's interests. Perhaps the central objection to interest theories is that there seem to be rights which are not in the interest of the right-holder. One might inherit some property which is literally more trouble than it is worth. So the author emphasizes that the interest (benefit) theory may be applied only with some reservation [From the publication]

ISSN:
1392-6195, 2029-2058
Subject:
Related Publications:
Permalink:
https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/29392
Updated:
2018-12-17 12:59:13
Metrics:
Views: 18    Downloads: 1
Export: