The right was defined like a “system of rules”, like a “concept of interpretation to reach justice”, like “an authority to reconcile the interests of the people”, and like the command of a sovereign, safeguarded by the threat of a sanction. It is also the translation of a political project. It is the whole of the rules and standards, defined and accepted by the people, in order to govern the social reports/ratios, and guaranteed, sanctioned, by the intervention of the Public power, i.e. of the State. The sanction attached to the legal provision is what distinguishes the latter from the other rules, such as the rules Morale S and of Politesse. It is also, according to Aristote, with the result that the legal provision “is better than that of any individual”, because it was created in the General interest, for the Community property.
Contents of the rightThe many ways in which the right can be defined reflects actually the many manners which the right in the life of each one can use, and in each company, in each culture. The main part of the social reports/ratios can be analyzed in legal obligations, are authorized (Contrat), that is to say engaging its responsibility. The fact of bringing a damage can also be penalized, and the criminal law or criminal can then repress of such made. The social organization, official, administrative, is also built on the base of legal provisions. It can be a question of the Constitution, i.e. of the whole of the supreme rules which define the company, like its principles of organization. The Administrative law subjects the administrative bodies to the Legal provision and makes it possible at the same time to the citizens to control the administrative action by the means of a jurisdiction, but also makes it possible the administration to have prerogatives that simple individuals could not have. In a more remote way, the international law also makes it possible to build bridges between various companies.
The study of the right raises recurring questions, as for the equality, the Justice, the Sûreté. Anatole France writes thus, in 1894: “The law, in a great concern for equality, interdict to the rich person as with the poor sleeping under the bridges, begging in the streets and to fly of the bread. ”.
The right is a constant social phenomenon, which created or is recreated in a natural way as soon as two individuals are brought together. The creation or the development of rules, which neither are based on considerations morals, nor nuns, is an invincible phenomenon, which is found in each company, considered developed or not. Each legal Système works out legal rules, rights like responsibilities, various manners. The majority of the countries have a codified legal system, said “civil law”, whose rules are modified, more or less regularly, by the governments. Others use a system known as of “ Common law ”, which develops through the Règle of the legal precedent. A small number of country continues to base their rules on the religious texts. But in each country there exists a legal rich person history, with different philosophies, which sometimes clash and triumph. The right also poses economic questions, but also of the political questions, in order to make evolve/move the legal provisions through institutions.
The first problem comes from the definition even of the right term. This one is indeed polysemous. According to the Littré dictionary, the right is a “Whole of the rules which govern the control of the man in company, the social reports/ratios. ”. That gives him a considerable importance. One then sees the right under the angle of his object: to organize the social life. They are thus formulated in a general and impersonal way, without concerning anybody in particular, but by aiming all the people who form the social body. This vision of the right term is described as objective Droit. One considers the legal provision in itself and for itself, had rejected the subjective design: the right would be a social discipline which is built according to general considerations, and not starting from individual claims which one would put end to end. Such authors then condemn the primacy of subjective on the objective right, which they consider contrary with the community property, if not with the general interest. They try to actually affirm the superiority of the group on the individual: the inviduelles prerogatives are only the objective product of the legal provision, and would not result to in no case of the individual will. They are qualified the “maximalist ones” by the doctrines, because they reject the existence even subjective right. For this current, this concept, if it does not have absolute legal interest, has a sociological interest. The concept of subjective right is only one compartmental.
However, today, for an author like Jean-Luc Aubert, “these two directions of the right word are not opposed. They are only two distinct ways to consider the same phenomenon: right. They are complementary. ”. It is only one question of implementation of the objective right
|Random links:||-383 | 1780s | Limerick (poem) | Marineo | Warcraft (film) | Raffaellino LED Sticks | Hymne_à_Proserpine|