No abstract

No abstract

Fundamental legal conceptions are considered in relation to the analytical concerns of Hohfeld and Bentham, and also in relation to the normative concerns of constitutional and common law protection of rights and liberties. The use of a square of opposition to expound fundamental conceptions is rejected in favour of “a triangle of possibilities”. It is argued that using this device helps to provide a clearer understanding of which conceptions may appropriately be recognised as analytically fundamental, and in turn avoids confusion over the normative treatment of practical situations that may arise through the designation of legal rights and liberties as “fundamental”. In particular, the nature of legal liberties, and the priority accorded to legal rights, are both questioned.

Fascination with the Coase Theorem arises over its apparently unassailable counterintuitive conclusion that the imposition of legal liability has no effect on which of two competing uses of land prevails, and also over the general difficulty in tying down an unqualified statement of the theorem. Instead of entering the debate over what exactly the theorem holds, this article suggests that the core of Coase's reasoning is flawed and to the extent that any version of the theorem relies upon this reasoning it can be disproved. The article commences by modelling the nature of the counter-intuitive thrust to the Coase Theorem, which is used to trace the development of Coase's reasoning, and ultimately to expose the flaw it contains. The heart of the article comprises the allegation of an error made by Coase when he transferred his core argument to the context of economic rents. Ancillary observations are made on the relationship between the Coasean analysis of characteristically legal problems and the conditions of general market equilibrium, and the theoretical status of Law-and-Economics.

This article engages with Jaffey's recent contribution on the nature of no-prior-duty remedial obligations. Jaffey's use of a right-liability relation and his challenge to Hohfeld's analytical scheme are rejected as unsound. An alternative model distinguishing three pathways to account for remedial obligations and other legal consequences is proposed. This draws on the Hohfeldian scheme but extends it to permit the full expression of reflexive liabilities, mutually correlative liabilities, and the operation of nonhuman conditions. The proposed approach also recognizes a weaker form of a Hohfeldian power, which is required in considering the way that the law deals with the allocation and realization of risk.