MacCormick’s Interest Theory of Rights
Share
Neil MacCormick, a renowned legal philosopher, is associated with the Interest Theory of Rights. This theory offers a distinct perspective on the nature and foundation of rights in the context of legal philosophy.
Rights as protected interests: MacCormick's theory posits that rights are best understood as protected interests. In other words, an individual's rights are intimately tied to their interests and well-being. When a right is recognised, it serves to protect or advance an individual's interests.
Bilateral relationship: According to this theory, rights create a bilateral relationship between the right-holder and the duty-bearer. In any rights situation, there is both a claim and an obligation. The right-holder has a claim to a particular action or outcome, and the duty-bearer has an obligation to fulfill or respect that claim.
Conflict resolution: MacCormick's Interest Theory is particularly useful in resolving conflicts between competing interests or rights. When two or more individuals have conflicting interests, the legal system steps in to adjudicate these conflicts by determining whose interests or rights should prevail.
Balancing of interests: The theory recognises that, in some cases, it may be necessary to balance the interests of different parties when rights conflict. This balancing act is often undertaken through legal processes and judicial decisions to achieve a fair and just resolution.
Subjective and objective interests: MacCormick distinguishes between subjective and objective interests. Subjective interests are what individuals personally value, while objective interests are those that society recognises as valuable for the general well-being.
Normative element: The Interest Theory introduces a normative element into the understanding of rights. It is not just about what people desire but also what society deems as valuable and worthy of protection.
Contextual approach: MacCormick's theory acknowledges that the nature and scope of rights can vary depending on the social and legal context. What is considered a right in one society or legal system may not be the same in another.
Legal positivism: MacCormick's theory aligns with legal positivism, emphasising that the existence and recognition of rights are contingent on the rules and norms of a specific legal system.
MacCormick's Interest Theory of Rights asserts that rights are ultimately about the protection of individual interests. It provides a framework for understanding the basis of rights, their role in conflict resolution, and the normative elements that underpin the recognition of rights within a legal system. This theory has contributed to the philosophical discourse surrounding the nature of rights in jurisprudence.
Rights as protected interests: MacCormick's theory posits that rights are best understood as protected interests. In other words, an individual's rights are intimately tied to their interests and well-being. When a right is recognised, it serves to protect or advance an individual's interests.
Bilateral relationship: According to this theory, rights create a bilateral relationship between the right-holder and the duty-bearer. In any rights situation, there is both a claim and an obligation. The right-holder has a claim to a particular action or outcome, and the duty-bearer has an obligation to fulfill or respect that claim.
Conflict resolution: MacCormick's Interest Theory is particularly useful in resolving conflicts between competing interests or rights. When two or more individuals have conflicting interests, the legal system steps in to adjudicate these conflicts by determining whose interests or rights should prevail.
Balancing of interests: The theory recognises that, in some cases, it may be necessary to balance the interests of different parties when rights conflict. This balancing act is often undertaken through legal processes and judicial decisions to achieve a fair and just resolution.
Subjective and objective interests: MacCormick distinguishes between subjective and objective interests. Subjective interests are what individuals personally value, while objective interests are those that society recognises as valuable for the general well-being.
Normative element: The Interest Theory introduces a normative element into the understanding of rights. It is not just about what people desire but also what society deems as valuable and worthy of protection.
Contextual approach: MacCormick's theory acknowledges that the nature and scope of rights can vary depending on the social and legal context. What is considered a right in one society or legal system may not be the same in another.
Legal positivism: MacCormick's theory aligns with legal positivism, emphasising that the existence and recognition of rights are contingent on the rules and norms of a specific legal system.
MacCormick's Interest Theory of Rights asserts that rights are ultimately about the protection of individual interests. It provides a framework for understanding the basis of rights, their role in conflict resolution, and the normative elements that underpin the recognition of rights within a legal system. This theory has contributed to the philosophical discourse surrounding the nature of rights in jurisprudence.
