Abstract
It is almost a truism that the idea of having a right is vague and ambiguous, and that it can be approached from many angles. It is also clear that good explications of this idea are needed in many fields, but one can hardly say that the attempts to provide them have been very successful. The best attempts, so far, at an explication or analysis of the notion of a right are found in jurisprudence. Hohfeld’s contribution should especially be mentioned in this connection. The object of the first part of this essay is to give an analysis of the concept of a right which, in certain respects, is a further development of Hohfeld’s distinctions.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The interpretation is, in all essential respects, identical with that which was given in S. Kanger, New Foundations for Ethical Theory (Stockholm, 1957).
A summary of these authors’ distinctions is given in J. Hall, ed., Readings in Jurisprudence (1938).
Reprinted in W.N. Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning, and Other Legal Essays (1923), ed. by W.H. Cook.
A summary of Corbin’s and Kocourek’s ideas may be found in J. Hall, ed., Readings in Jurisprudence (1938).
For instance R. Fusilier in Les Monarchies Parlementaires (1960); “Le caractère non fondamental du droit de dissolution dans le fonctionnement du régime parlementaire est démontré non seulement par l’usage généralement de moins en moins fréquent de la dissolution dans les pays considérés, mais encore par la pratique norvégienne, qui l’ignore, et de l’étude de laquelle il ressort nettement que la dissolution ne constitue pas un facteur nécessair du régime parlementaire” (p. 32). The standard view is maintained by D.V. Verney in The Analysis of Political Systems (1959): “The power of the Government to request a dissolution is a distinctive characteristic of parliamentarism. … Certain States generally regarded as parliamentary severely restrict the right of the Executive to dissolve the Assembly. In Norway the Storting dissolves itself, the Head of State being allowed to dissolve on special sessions, but this is a departure from parliamentarism inspired by the convention theory of the French Revolution” (pp. 31-32).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Holmström-Hintikka, G., LindstrÖm, S., Sliwinski, R. (2001). Rights and Parliamentarism. In: Holmström-Hintikka, G., Lindström, S., Sliwinski, R. (eds) Collected Papers of Stig Kanger with Essays on his Life and Work. Synthese Library, vol 303. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0500-5_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0500-5_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0022-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0500-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive