Hohfeld’s Theory of Jural Relations

The goal of Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld’s endeavor was to explain the legal
connections between the parties involved. He lays up an analytical framework that
divides rights into four different types of legal interactions. This approach of breaking
down the concept of a right into its essential parts has several advantages. It is because
of this simple and exact technique that it is not only elegant and appealing but also
necessary for anybody seeking to make an educated evaluation of the legal situation
between the parties.

Prof. Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld stressed the need for analytical jurisprudence in the
legal profession on several occasions. He argued that in order to comprehend and
implement the law correctly and precisely, every legal practitioner need have a
fundamental knowledge of analytical jurisprudence ideas. He thought that
understanding and implementing analytical jurisprudence ideas makes the work of
solving legal difficulties considerably easier.

Although Hohfeld firmly believed in the value of analytical jurisprudence, he also

understood that it is not an all-encompassing instrument for a legal practitioner. He
highlighted that analytical jurisprudence only opens the way for other areas of the law
and that only a thorough grasp of the law would aid in the search for legal answers.
His idea of jural relations is one of his significant contributions to the subject of
analytical jurisprudence.

Theory of Jural Relations

One of the most difficult hurdles to solving legal problems, according to Hohfeld, is
the idea that all legal notions can be reduced to “rights” and “duties.” Furthermore, the
aforementioned two legal principles are seen to be sufficient in assisting in the
resolution of the issues. Although it may appear to be a simple matter of terminology
at first glance, Hohfeld claims that in a “closely reasoned (legal) situation,” such an
issue might lead to a lack of clarity in ideas and communication. He defines rights,
privileges, authority, immunity, no-rights, responsibility, disability, and liability as
eight essential legal ideas.
He then divides them into two categories: “jural opposites” and “jural correlatives.”
Every pair of correlatives must be present at the same time, and no pair of opposites
can coexist. As a result, if a person has a right, he also has a responsibility. A person
who has a privilege, on the other hand, cannot have a responsibility. The eight Jural
Relations are the foundations of the more complicated legal relationships that law
must address. Let’s take a closer look at each of the relationships one by one.
Rights and Duties
Since previously said, the phrase “rights” is one of the most misinterpreted, as
anything is attempted to be classified as a right. The terms “rights” and “privilege,”
“power,” and “immunity” are often used interchangeably. Hohfeld, on the other hand,
believes that a careful examination of the statutes reveals a clear distinction between
the various legal concepts. According to Hohfeld, the term “rights” should be limited
to only that which exists in relation to duty. Rights and responsibilities are intertwined
ideas, and when one is violated, the other is always violated as well.

Powers and Liabilities

Legal power is the jurisprudential polar opposite of legal incapacity and the
jurisprudential inverse of legal culpability. The capacity bestowed on an individual by
the law to modify or establish new legal relations is referred to as power. One can
write a will or alienate one’s property; one can marry one’s deceased wife’s sister–all
of these are commonly referred to as rights, but a close legal examination
demonstrates that these are powers, not rights.

Immunity and disability

Immunity refers to the state of not being able to have one’s rights altered by another. A lack of power
to change legal entitlements is defined as a disability. The basic difference between powers and
immunities is the same as the general contrast between rights and privileges. A right is an affirmative
claim against someone else, whereas a privilege is someone’s exemption from someone else’s right
claim. Similarly, power is someone’s affirmative control over a specific jural relation about another,
whereas immunity is someone’s independence from another’s legal power or control over some jural
relations.

For example, if A enjoys immunity against B, B is limited in his or her ability to exercise powers
relating to the immunity’s covered entitlements. Immunity rights are a common occurrence in
constitutional texts. As a result, if the people are guaranteed freedom of speech by the Constitution,
the legislature cannot wield any power in this regard. While the legislature is disabled, the people
have immunity rights to freedom of speech.

Privilege and No-rights

Privilege, according to Hohfeld, is the legal polar opposite of obligation. According to
him, privilege is the absence of responsibility. The negation of obligation occurs only
when the substance of both the duty and the privilege are diametrically opposed. The
privilege of entering, for example, might nullify a responsibility not to enter. Right is
the correlate of duty. Similarly, there is a correlative to privilege. However, because
there is no specific name to describe the situation, Hohfeld has opted to call it a “no-
right.”

Privileges and no-rights

The term liberty is preferred by the majority of future jurists over the phrase privilege. These two
terms occupy the same structural position in Hohfeld’s theory, notwithstanding Hohfeld’s preference
for the term privilege. Privileges are permissions to act in a given way without being held liable for
the harm caused to others who, at the same time, are unable to ask the authorities to intervene. “To
the degree that the defendants have privileges, the plaintiffs have no rights”, Hohfeld said. There
can’t be a conflict between rights (claims) and privilege. The correlation of this legal relationship
demonstrates that the person against whom liberty is asserted has no right to the conduct to which
liberty pertains. This does not, however, rule out the possibility of him interfering with the action.

Hohfeld agreed that under legal systems, liberties that are not accompanied by responsibilities
imposed on others to avoid interference with legal action exist, and that there are often strong
political reasons for doing so. When someone is granted legal liberty, he relieves legislators of the
burden of imposing a duty on others. When deciding whether or not to apply the above requirements
in a specific circumstance, a rational legislator may take advantage of political concerns.

For example, the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III of the Indian Constitution, are in fact the
‘privileges’ mentioned by Hohfeld as they provide that the State has a correlative ‘no-right’ to
interfere in the exercise of these freedoms.
Conclusion
Hohfeld’s study has certain beneficial aspects that should not be disregarded. His
method has improved our understanding of the ideas of “rights” and “duties,” notably
through his detailed comparisons. He has called attention to the legal implications that
may arise from the existence or lack of specified rights, responsibilities, and other
obligations. The impact of the study may be seen in the American Restatement of the
Law of Property, which uses Hohfeld’s words to define concepts like “right,”
“privilege,” “power,” and “immunity.”

Some of the most significant aspects of Hohfeld’s study of rights are discussed in this
article, and his work is a crucial tool for obtaining a conceptual and practical grasp of
the nature of rights. Hohfeld’s study comprises a thorough examination that aimed to
represent people’s attitudes toward rights. Hohfeld’s study is of basic practical
importance, despite its analytical character.