For example, under the Securities Exchange Act, courts have interpreted that, in some cases, there is an implied private right of action, even though Congress had not expressly referred to a private right of action. This trial is a private trial for “anyone” who feels hurt by the company. Although Mills does not necessarily share the view that all rights are linked to the foundations of well-being, many contemporary authors (e.g., Raz 1984a, 1984b; Wellman 1985, 1995) agree that the basic concept of a law is something common to law and morality, although some have argued that legal authors, particularly Hohfeld, provide a better and clearer starting point for general analysis than previous authors in moral philosophy. The view that the basic concept is common to both seems consistent with the assertion that legal claims concerning justification in practical reasoning should nevertheless be based on moral claims. A U.S. citizen is a person born in the United States, is a legal citizen of that country, and receives U.S. citizenship, including. This may be effective in some circumstances, but may not be effective when a single law enforcement authority is mandated to deal with hundreds, if not thousands, of crimes committed by a single company that affect the rights of many people. This distinction is important here, as with all legal aspects: something negative must have resulted from the cause or basis of your claim. A negligent business or bad driver that does not cause harm is not a cause of action. But both happen and result in injury or damage. According to older versions, such as those of Bentham and Austin, X is a rights holder because he is the intended beneficiary or beneficiary of someone else`s obligation, or perhaps of the absence of an obligation that the law might have imposed on him. For example, if X is entitled to payment of £10 from Y, this is because Y has an obligation which (remit the £10) is intended to benefit X.
One of the problems with this theory is to explain why, although criminal law may exist in part to protect moral rights, it is not generally regarded as a direct transfer of legal rights to citizens, even if they are the intended beneficiaries of the corresponding duties. (Of course, there may be parallel civil rights in many systems, but this is a matter of urgency. See below for more information.) Congress may include an explicit private right of action in various laws and statutes that allow individuals to directly sue under the law. Let`s look at some examples of when a private plaintiff may have a private right of action. An overview of Hart`s theory (1973) can be given as an illustration of the first point of view. According to Hart, someone (call him “X”) can be a legitimate rights holder, mainly in two ways. First, X may have bilateral authorization to perform an act, i.e. X is authorized to both A and non-A (with certain prohibitions for others to interfere). Second, someone else may have an obligation (e.g. to pay £10) over which X has control, mainly by waiver or performance. Since X has a choice in all cases, this explains why he is called the rights holder.
One of the difficulties with this type of theory is to explain our apparent reference to rights when there is no choice, for example when one not only has the right to vote, but is also legally required to do so. For example, if Congress passes a law that allows individuals to sue for certain types of bodily injury, securities fraud, criminal enterprise, or others, you expressly have the right to sue on that basis. Other approaches can be classified in different ways, but there is a significant gap between those who believe that rights are designated as practical reasons by their great weight and those who believe that rights are nothing special in this regard, but rather must be analyzed in duties, permits, powers, etc. or a combination of these. perhaps with the addition of other conditions. Essentially, a private right of action exists when a person (other than the government or state) has the right to bring a legal action or bring an action against another person under the law. A popular private right is the right of an individual to protect his privacy and not to be violated. In this sense, privacy can mean, among other things, territorial territory, physical property or personal information. Common situations, such as involuntary intrusion or surveillance of a person`s home, ransacking of property, and acquiring private data without the person`s knowledge, may constitute a violation of a person`s private rights. A more modern version of this theory was proposed by MacCormick (1977), who argued that a rights holder was the intended recipient of a particular benefit and not just a general beneficiary of the rules. However, even with this change, it remains difficult to explain the rights of third parties under contracts. Suppose that X and Y enter into a contract imposing customs duties on each of them, with the intention that the performance of those obligations will benefit Z.
According to the theory, Z must (conceptually) be a legitimate rights holder. But it is indeed a completely random question of whether Z is or not. Some legal systems recognize Z rights in such a situation, others do not. In the United Kingdom, for example, Scots law recognized these rights for a long time under certain conditions, but English law did not do so until the situation was changed by law in 1999. Not all philosophers agree that rights can be fully analyzed. White (1984), for example, argued that the task is impossible because the concept of one right is as fundamental as any of the others, such as duty, liberty, power, etc. (or a set of these) in which it is usually analyzed. However, he agreed that the rights could be explained in part by reference to those concepts. White`s approach, which relies largely on precise linguistic analysis, remains in the minority. Private rights may also include the so-called right to sue. The right of action states that a person can sue any party who has violated his rights.