Duties and RightsTwo of the most im

Duties and Rights
Two of the most important notions in the law are those of “duty” and “right.” It is
sometimes thought that the two are closely related in the sense that the duty of one
person corresponds to the right of another and the other way round. As we will see,
that is not the case in general.
3.5.1 Duties, Prohibitions, and Permissions
Duties The notion of a duty is closely related to that of a prohibition and that of
permission. Two factors are important in connection with duties:
1. the agents who are under the duty,
2. the kind of action to which the duty applies.

Addressees Duties are meant to guide persons in their behavior. This means that
duties are always addressed to one or more agents.
We use the general term “agent”, because as well as real persons, groups of persons and
organizations can also be under a duty.
Sometimes a duty addresses everyone. This is, for instance, the case with the duty
not to torture. A duty can also address a set of one or more agents, such as the duty
that rests on John Doe and Jean Doe to clean away the snow from the pavement
before their house. An in-between version is that a duty rests on everyone who
satisfies particular conditions, such as the duty for all car drivers to carry a driver’s
license.
Content of Duty Every duty has a content, which indicates what the addressee of
the duty is supposed to do. The action that a duty prescribes can both be doing
something and abstaining from doing something.
An example of a duty do something is the duty to pay one’s income tax. An example of a
duty to abstain from something is the duty not to commit theft.
Prohibition A prohibition is nothing more than a duty to abstain from something.
The duty not to commit theft is therefore the prohibition of theft.
Implicit Permissions come in two forms. Often permission is nothing
more than the absence of a prohibition. This is what might be called an implicit
permission.
If we say that it is permitted to walk on the grass, this means nothing more than that it is not
prohibited to walk on the grass.
An implicit permission is not really something; it is rather the absence of
something, namely the absence of a prohibition, the absence of a duty to abstain
from something, which boils down to the same thing.
Explicit Permissions However, there are also explicit permissions.
Police officers, for instance, are usually permitted to carry out a body search on suspects of
serious crimes. This permission is not merely the absence of a prohibition. In fact there is a prohibition: it is in general forbidden to search persons in this way. However, along with
this general prohibition there exists an exception for police officers in connection with
suspects of serious crimes. Police officers are permitted to do what no-one else may do,
namely to search suspects of serious crimes.
In general, explicit permissions make exceptions to prohibitions. For this reason,
they need to be stated explicitly. It is not necessary to formulate a rule to create an
implicit permission because implicit permissions do not have to be created. They
are nothing other than the absence of a prohibition. Explicit permissions need to be
created because they only make sense if there is a general prohibition. The
permission is then needed to limit the scope of this prohibition, and to that purpose
an explicit permission is necessary.
Such an explicit permission can take the shape of a more specific rule, which is an
exception to the general prohibition (E.g. “Police officers are allowed to use proportionate
violence in the exercise of their function”). It can also take the shape of an individual
permission, such as a construction license provided to a citizen who wants to build a home
for his family.
Permission and Competence Two concepts that are easily confused are those of
permission and competence. Nevertheless, there are clear differences between the
two. Permission has to do with what a person is allowed to do. Any kind of action
can be the object of permission. Moreover, if one does what was not permitted, the
result is that one acted unlawfully.
Competence, on the contrary, has nothing to do with what is allowed; it deals
with what is possible. Competence is a precondition for the intentional creation of
legal effects by means of a juridical act. If one tries to perform a juridical act for
which one lacks the required competence, one will normally not succeed in
bringing about these effects. Still, the attempt to do so does not have to be illegal.
For instance, if an ordinary citizen tries to create a statute, this is not necessarily illegal, but
an attempt to do so will lack the intended consequences (the legislation will be considered
non-existent or void) because ordinary citizens lack the required competence.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

Nhiệm vụ và quyền lợiHai trong số các khái niệm quan trọng nhất trong pháp luật là những người trong "nhiệm vụ" và "phải." Nó làđôi khi nghĩ rằng hai liên quan chặt chẽ trong ý nghĩa rằng nhiệm vụ của mộtngười tương ứng với quyền của người khác và cách vòng. Như chúng ta sẽ thấy,đó không phải là trường hợp nói chung.3.5.1 nhiệm vụ, Cấm đoán và cấp phépKhái niệm về một nhiệm vụ liên quan chặt chẽ đến của một lệnh cấm của nhiệm vụsự cho phép. Hai yếu tố quan trọng liên quan đến nhiệm vụ:1. các đại lý người theo nhiệm vụ,2. loại hành động mà các nhiệm vụ áp dụng.Nhiệm vụ của addressees có nghĩa là để hướng dẫn người trong hành vi của họ. Điều này có nghĩa lànhiệm vụ này luôn luôn được gửi đến một hoặc nhiều đại lý.Chúng tôi sử dụng thuật ngữ chung "đại lý", bởi vì cũng như những người thực sự, nhóm người vàCác tổ chức cũng có thể theo một nhiệm vụ.Đôi khi, một nhiệm vụ địa chỉ tất cả mọi người. Đây là, ví dụ, trường hợp với nhiệm vụkhông để bị tra tấn. Một nhiệm vụ có thể cũng chỉ là một tập hợp của một hoặc nhiều đại lý, chẳng hạn như nhiệm vụmà phụ thuộc vào John Doe và Jean Doe để làm sạch đi tuyết từ vỉa hètrước khi nhà của họ. Phiên bản ở giữa là một nhiệm vụ phụ thuộc vào tất cả mọi người ngườiđáp ứng các điều kiện cụ thể, chẳng hạn như trách nhiệm cho tất cả các trình điều khiển xe thực hiện một trình điều khiểngiấy phép.Nội dung của nhiệm vụ mọi nhiệm vụ, có nội dung cho biết người nhận củanhiệm vụ là phải làm. Các hành động có trách nhiệm quy định có thể cả hai thực hiệnsomething and abstaining from doing something.An example of a duty do something is the duty to pay one’s income tax. An example of aduty to abstain from something is the duty not to commit theft.Prohibition A prohibition is nothing more than a duty to abstain from something.The duty not to commit theft is therefore the prohibition of theft.Implicit Permissions come in two forms. Often permission is nothingmore than the absence of a prohibition. This is what might be called an implicitpermission.If we say that it is permitted to walk on the grass, this means nothing more than that it is notprohibited to walk on the grass.An implicit permission is not really something; it is rather the absence ofsomething, namely the absence of a prohibition, the absence of a duty to abstainfrom something, which boils down to the same thing.Explicit Permissions However, there are also explicit permissions.Police officers, for instance, are usually permitted to carry out a body search on suspects ofserious crimes. This permission is not merely the absence of a prohibition. In fact there is a prohibition: it is in general forbidden to search persons in this way. However, along withthis general prohibition there exists an exception for police officers in connection withsuspects of serious crimes. Police officers are permitted to do what no-one else may do,namely to search suspects of serious crimes.In general, explicit permissions make exceptions to prohibitions. For this reason,they need to be stated explicitly. It is not necessary to formulate a rule to create animplicit permission because implicit permissions do not have to be created. Theyare nothing other than the absence of a prohibition. Explicit permissions need to becreated because they only make sense if there is a general prohibition. Thepermission is then needed to limit the scope of this prohibition, and to that purposean explicit permission is necessary.Such an explicit permission can take the shape of a more specific rule, which is anexception to the general prohibition (E.g. “Police officers are allowed to use proportionateviolence in the exercise of their function”). It can also take the shape of an individualpermission, such as a construction license provided to a citizen who wants to build a homefor his family.Permission and Competence Two concepts that are easily confused are those ofpermission and competence. Nevertheless, there are clear differences between thetwo. Permission has to do with what a person is allowed to do. Any kind of actioncan be the object of permission. Moreover, if one does what was not permitted, theresult is that one acted unlawfully.Competence, on the contrary, has nothing to do with what is allowed; it dealswith what is possible. Competence is a precondition for the intentional creation oflegal effects by means of a juridical act. If one tries to perform a juridical act forwhich one lacks the required competence, one will normally not succeed inbringing about these effects. Still, the attempt to do so does not have to be illegal.For instance, if an ordinary citizen tries to create a statute, this is not necessarily illegal, butan attempt to do so will lack the intended consequences (the legislation will be considerednon-existent or void) because ordinary citizens lack the required competence.