The law allows citizens or legal persons to do or not do certain acts, and requires others to do or not do certain acts accordingly. In socialist society, rights and obligations are consistent and inseparable. Legally, one party has rights, and the other party must have corresponding obligations, or the relationship between rights and obligations. No citizen can only enjoy rights without obligations, nor can he only assume obligations without enjoying rights. It refers to the legal permission and guarantee for the subject of legal relationship to do or not to do a certain behavior, and accordingly requires others to do or not to do a certain behavior.
A right is an interest, requirement, qualification, strength or freedom recognized as legitimate by morality, law or custom. However, this definition is not perfect or even meaningless. In fact, since any of the above five elements can represent a certain essence of rights, there is nothing wrong with defining rights from any of these five elements. Which factor or factors are used as the origin to define rights depends on the value orientation and theoretical proposition of the definer. At the same time, "justified by morality, law or custom" has many different interpretations. For example, on the issue of interests, some interests are legal and some interests are illegal; Some interests are legal, but they are not protected by law; Some interests can't be claimed legally, but they can be claimed morally or politically. For another example, on the issue of freedom, if freedom of will is the essence of rights, then animals, mental patients and infants with immature intellectual development will not enjoy rights. This kind of problem is discussed in the right analysis section below. The above is not so much the definition of rights as the definition method of rights, which represents a way to understand the concept of rights.
How to define and explain the word "right" is a difficult problem in jurisprudence. In modern political law, right is a respected and vague concept. When talking about the definition of right, Kant said that asking a jurist what is right is just like asking a logician what is truth, which will make him feel embarrassed. "Their answer is likely to be this. They try to avoid the repetition of synonyms in their answers, but only admit the fact that they pointed out what the laws of a certain country thought was the only right thing at a certain time, but did not directly answer the universal questions raised by the questioner." Fernberger believes that it is impossible to give a "formal definition" of rights, and rights should be regarded as a "simple, undefined and non-analyzable original concept".
The difficulty in defining the word right is related to the overuse of the word right to some extent. Although the language of rights originated in the west, the culture of rights has now become a global phenomenon. As a convenient and exquisite tool to appeal and express justice, right language provides a way to express practical rational requirements. In other words, you can call it a "right" as long as you think it is a reasonable and legal requirement. The negative result is that the language of rights is often abused, and some misunderstandings often appear when discussing rights and their meanings. Perhaps because of this, the "right" item in the Oxford Law Manual simply describes the right as "a word that has been seriously misused and abused." However, on the other hand, how to define and explain the word "right" is a very meaningful topic in jurisprudence. Because right is a core concept in modern political science, no matter what school or scholar can bypass the issue of right. On the contrary, different schools or scholars can clarify their views and even determine the origin of their theoretical system by defining and explaining the word "right".
accountability
Laws bind citizens or legal persons to do or prohibit certain behaviors. In socialist society, obligations and rights are consistent and inseparable. The responsibilities of citizens or legal persons stipulated by law, such as military service.
The content of legal relationship refers to the restriction that the subject of legal relationship must or must not engage in some behavior stipulated by law. Corresponding rights. Legal obligations are different from those based on morality, religious doctrine or other social norms. They are produced according to the legal norms formulated by the state, and their performance is guaranteed by the state's coercive force. If you violate your legal obligations, you will bear legal responsibility.
Legal obligations and rights are inseparable. No rights, no obligations, no obligations, no rights. In some legal relationships, each participant in the legal relationship may enjoy rights and assume obligations at the same time. For example, in a sales contract, > >
Question 2: The meaning of citizens' rights and obligations Hello, the basic rights of citizens refer to the main and indispensable rights that citizens enjoy under the Constitution. As we all know, the legal rights of citizens are varied in name and scope, including both basic rights and general rights. However, as the fundamental law of the country, it is neither possible nor necessary to stipulate various rights of citizens, so the constitution can only confirm some basic rights.
The basic obligations of citizens, also known as constitutional obligations, refer to the fundamental responsibilities that citizens must abide by and should perform according to the Constitution: the basic obligations of citizens are of primary significance to the country, and they form the basis of obligations stipulated by ordinary laws. The basic obligations and rights of citizens jointly reflect and determine the political and legal status of citizens in the country, which constitutes the basis and principle of civil rights and obligations stipulated by ordinary laws.
Question 3: The importance of rights and obligations, and the consistency of citizens' rights and obligations. According to the Constitution of our country, any citizen enjoys the rights stipulated by the Constitution and laws, and at the same time must fulfill the obligations stipulated by the Constitution and laws. In China, the interests of the state and the collective are basically the same as those of citizens. This consistency of rights and obligations is determined by the national nature of the people's democratic dictatorship and the socialist economic system, which is divorced from the rights and obligations of all citizens in the exploiting class countries.
Question 4: The concept, essential characteristics and functions of rights and obligations are the core contents of legal norms. Standards are called legal norms because they give people certain rights and tell people what kind of ideas and behaviors are just and legal and will be protected by law. Or set an obligation for people, indicating what people should do, what they must do or what kind of behavior they are forbidden, which will be enforced or prohibited by state power under certain conditions.
The concept of rights is very complicated. According to statistics, there are at least one hundred definitions of "right" in theoretical circles. Interest theory, freedom theory, qualification theory, proposition theory, magic theory, possibility theory, norm theory, etc. Here, we choose a less controversial definition: right in the legal sense refers to a qualification that one party to a legal relationship can ask the other party to do something or not in a legal relationship and is recognized by legal norms. Rights have the following characteristics: (1) Rights reflect a reciprocal legal relationship between subjects. First of all, for example, when I own the ownership of this table, ownership, as a right, reflects not the relationship between me and the object of the table, but the relationship between me and all subjects except me. Secondly, in this relationship, the subjects must be equal. If it is not equal, it is not right, but power. (2) Rights are stipulated or recognized by legal norms and confirmed and guaranteed by the state. (3) Right is a legal qualification.
The essence of the concept of rights is to respect the personality and property of others and put respect for others in the first place. Rights can be exercised or waived. Such as inheritance rights and creditor's rights.
Obligation refers to a certain responsibility that citizens must perform as stipulated by the Constitution and laws, and it is a necessity. Explain that the state requires citizens to act or prohibits citizens from acting. If citizens fail to fulfill this responsibility, the state will impose requirements, and if the circumstances are serious, they will be punished by law. Obligations must be fulfilled and never abandoned.
Question 5: How to understand the relationship between rights and obligations in the legal sense? Rights and obligations are two ways or means to define social relations by law. On the whole, rights and obligations, as the measure of behavior, perform the functions of class rule and public affairs management, and their basic functions are the same. However, from the content of specific legal relations, rights and obligations have a certain division of functions, and each has its own way, direction and scope.
Rights and obligations have different forms of expression or change. Rights have power, privilege and immunity, while obligations have responsibility, no right and disqualification. Accordingly, legal relations can be divided into four types: corresponding to rights and obligations, corresponding to powers and responsibilities, corresponding to privileges and powerlessness, and corresponding to exemptions and disqualifications. In different types of legal relations, the division of powers between rights and obligations is also different.
The legal relationship corresponding to rights and obligations is the legal relationship between equal subjects, mainly civil legal relationship.
The legal relationship between power and responsibility is not only the relationship between the power giver and the power exerciser, but also the relationship between the manager and the managed.
The legal relationship between privilege and right is that the subject of right and the subject of obligation are separated.
The corresponding legal relationship between exemption and disqualification is a one-sided combination of the corresponding legal relationship between power and responsibility and the corresponding legal relationship between privilege and non-power.
-Xie Pengcheng: Four Theories on Rights and Duties, Law Research No.3, 1992, p. 1-2. Rights and obligations, as the embodiment of certain social interests, bear the function of evaluating individual behavior. For the subject of rights, it has certain limits, and the exercise of rights cannot be infinite; As far as the subject of obligation is concerned, the boundary between what should be done and what should not be done is certain, and it is impossible to be indefinitely responsible for one's own actions. The relationship between rights and obligations is reflected in its nature.
As a behavior pattern set by law, obligation has the greatest correlation with rights, that is, obligation rules should be set for a certain right and the realization of that right should be guaranteed. In other words, if an act is not related to rights, the law cannot enforce the obligation of the act. Secondly, rights and obligations are complementary. In some cases, the obligations undertaken must enjoy corresponding rights in other cases. The complementary relationship between rights and obligations does not mean.
-On the Rule of Law by Wang Renbo and Cheng Liaoyuan, Shandong People's Publishing House, 1992, p. 174- 175.
Using Marxist dialectical materialism, this paper analyzes the relationship between rights and obligations, and limits it to the scope of legal relations, which shows the dialectical relationship of the unity of opposites between rights and obligations. The so-called unification means that the two are closely related, mutually conditional and complementary.
-Wang: Modern Jurisprudence-History and Theory, Hunan Publishing House, 1995, p. 233. Generally speaking, rights and obligations are unity of opposites in structure and complement each other in function.
(1) Structure is unity of opposites. As two separated, mutually exclusive, interdependent and interrelated factors, rights and obligations embody the relationship of unity of opposites.
(2) The functions are complementary and promote each other. Because rights and obligations are interrelated in structure, the two functions are mutually restricted and promoted.
-Li Long, editor-in-chief: Jurisprudence, Wuhan University Press, 1996, p. 196- 197. Rights and obligations are inseparable. If someone has some subjective rights, it also means that another person (or some people) has corresponding legal obligations. On the contrary, someone already exists.
—— Wang Yongfei and Zhang Qifu, eds.: On Jurisprudence in China, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 1996, p. 38 1. Rights and obligations are interrelated, that is, unity of opposites. Rights and obligations represent interests and burdens. One is active and the other is passive. In this respect, they are two separate and opposing components and factors in legal issues, and they are two mutually exclusive opposites. At the same time, they are interdependent and interrelated. Interdependence shows the impossibility of rights and obligations ... >>
Question 6: Concepts of basic rights and obligations of citizens I. Concepts of basic rights and obligations of citizens
(A) the concept and characteristics of basic rights
The so-called right refers to the possibility of citizens engaging in certain behaviors stipulated by the Constitution and laws. Obligation refers to the necessity for citizens to engage in certain behaviors through the Constitution and laws.
The basic rights of citizens refer to the main and indispensable rights that citizens enjoy under the Constitution. As we all know, the legal rights of citizens are varied in name and scope, including both basic rights and general rights. However, as the fundamental law of the country, it is neither possible nor necessary to stipulate various rights of citizens, so the constitution can only confirm some basic rights. Although basic rights and general rights are essentially the same, basic rights have their own legal characteristics:
First of all, basic rights determine the legal status of citizens in the country;
Second, basic rights are the most important, basic and indispensable rights of citizens in social life;
Third, the basic rights are matriarchal and can be derived from the general rights of citizens:
Fourth, basic rights are stable and exclusive, which are inseparable from people's civil rights and legal equality.
(B) the basic obligations of citizens
The basic obligations of citizens, also known as constitutional obligations, refer to the fundamental responsibilities that citizens must abide by and should perform according to the Constitution: the basic obligations of citizens are of primary significance to the country, and they form the basis of obligations stipulated by ordinary laws. The basic obligations and rights of citizens jointly reflect and determine the political and legal status of citizens in the country, which constitutes the basis and principle of civil rights and obligations stipulated by ordinary laws.
(3) the subject of basic rights
The subject of basic rights is mainly citizens. The constitutions of some countries stipulate that legal persons and foreigners can also become the subjects of basic rights. A citizen refers to a natural person with the nationality of a country. Article 33, paragraph 1, of China's current Constitution stipulates: "Anyone who has the nationality of China people is a citizen of China people." This shows that any natural person who wants to become a citizen of our country has no other qualifications except our nationality. There are two concepts of citizen and people in the text of our constitution. Generally speaking, "citizen" and "national" have the same meaning. In the early days of the founding of New China, the word "citizen" was used as a synonym for "citizen", and it was not until the election law of 1953 that the title of "citizen" was changed. But in our country, "citizen" and "people" are two different concepts. Their differences mainly lie in:
First, the nature is different. Citizen is a legal concept corresponding to foreigners (including stateless people), and man is a political concept corresponding to the enemy.
Second, the scope is different. The scope of citizens is wider than that of the people. Citizens include not only the people, but also the enemies of the people.
Third, the consequences are different. People among citizens enjoy all civil rights and perform all obligations stipulated by the Constitution and laws; Enemies among citizens, on the other hand, cannot enjoy all civil rights, nor can they fulfill some obligations of citizens. In addition, citizens generally express the concept of individuals, while people often express the concept of groups.
Second, the effectiveness of basic rights.
(A) the concept and characteristics of the effectiveness of basic rights
The so-called validity of basic rights is the binding force of basic rights on social life: its purpose is to ensure the realization of human rights values stipulated in the Constitution. The validity of basic rights comes from the validity of the constitution itself, and the value of basic rights is reflected through the rights activities of specific subjects. In constitutional practice, the effectiveness of basic rights has the following characteristics:
(1) the universality of the effectiveness of basic rights, that is, basic rights bind all state power activities and social life fields;
(2) the concreteness of the effectiveness of basic rights, that is, the effectiveness of basic rights is usually realized in specific events; Specific subjects feel the value of rights in specific activities and solve constitutional disputes around effectiveness through specific events.
(3) the reality of the effectiveness of basic rights, that is, basic rights provide a legal basis for future legislative activities; But in essence, basic rights are specific forms of rights to adjust the activities of the main body in the real society. Once stipulated, they have direct normative effect in the Constitution. The concretization of basic rights by departmental law is only a form of realizing basic rights, not the only form.
(4) The validity of basic rights can be sued, that is, if there is a dispute about the validity of basic rights in constitutional practice, it should be resolved through specific litigation or other forms. The above characteristics of basic rights reflect the nature and specific operation process of basic rights, which is conducive to our specific analysis of the form of the effectiveness of basic rights.
(B) the embodiment of the effectiveness of basic rights
The validity of basic rights directly restricts the activities of state power .................................................................................................................................................................... & gt