Because I’m being forced to take a crack course on basic constitutional studies, except the whole thing is so hastily put together that materials, classes, programs, etc are such a goddamn mess that we don’t even know what source to look at.
I’m just missing one point from the first unit: What is the difference between what is called “Objective Rights” and “Subjective Rights”?
- something that one’s efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
I’m not a law student, but my concerntration is public law, so I’ve taken some Constitutional law classes. However, in my studies I haven’t heard of subjective and objective rights. I’ve heard of fundamental, secondary, and tertiary rights, but not objective and subjective.
Merlin would be the best bet. However, the region and country is also important since each country has a different legal system.
If you want to know what fundamental, secondary, and tertiary rights are I can help, but I’m at a loss with objective and subjective rights.
Someone should activate the Merlin signal or something, since he doesnt post that much
I actually googled “objective rights”, “subjective rights” and wasn’t really able to find anything. I don’t think they’re actual legal terms, but I could be wrong…
I’ve never heard of those terms before, but sometimes different legal writers or professors like to make up their own stuff.
Traditionally in law-related topics, “objective” means stuff that you can demonstrate factually through observation or “expert”-based proof. Whereas “subjective” usually means the person’s state of mind at the time, what they personally thought was going on at that moment.
So, if I was to guess, I’d say objective rights are something like the right to a jury trial in a criminal case, while subjective rights might involve whether or not someone really understood his Miranda rights, to use a criminal law context.
Did that help at all? Could you tell me what context the terms are in?
No context at all, classes basically consist of a woman who does not have teacher qualifications spouting terminology left and right, sometimes even several times just with different names (I’m not kidding. Fuero Laboral=Tribunal de Trabajo for example) without telling us when she does that. Up until last year this course was entirely self-study for us translator students, so the actual “class” is a hastily put together wreck.
I’ve (sort of) come up with a distinction by guessing from what each one is subdivided into. Here in this poor excuse for bibliography all it says is that rights can be classified “as a rule” or “as a faculty”. Under Objective (The Rule) you find examples of most legal rights like penal, civil, commercial, etc, while under Subjective is… some shit I can’t make out.
“Rights according to conduct”
“…according to their dependence to another right”
“…according to their economic right”
I suppose I might just corner that bitch next class and force her to spout a definition that actually makes sense. Thanks for your help nevertheless.
It seems to me that a subjective right would cover a situation like fighting someone and accidentally killing them in self defense, or shooting some guy who was trespassing on your property. While in most normal terms that would be considered murder, in those cases the ‘crime’ would be justified and not an offense because you were defending yourself. In a case like that the interpretation of the law would be subjective based on the circumstances of the situation.