HOHFELD’S THEORY Dr.

Navtika Singh Nautiyal

OF JURAL RELATIONS
Prof. Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld: -
always emphasized upon the important part played by analytical jurisprudence in the
legal profession.
He advocated that every legal professional must have a basic understanding of the
concepts of analytical jurisprudence in order interpret and apply the law correctly
and accurately.
He believed that the task of finding solutions to legal problems becomes much easier
by studying and applying concepts of analytical jurisprudence.
THEORY OF JURAL RELATIONS

According to Hohfeld, one of the greatest obstacles in finding solutions to legal

problems is the assumption that all legal concepts can be reduced to ‘rights’ and
‘duties.

Read more at Legal Bites © Reserved: 

https://www.legalbites.in/hohfelds-theory-of-jural-relations/
RIGHTS AND DUTIES
As discussed earlier, ‘rights’ is one of the most misunderstood terms since everything is
tried to be defined as a right. Words such as privilege, power and immunity are used
synonymously with the term ‘rights’. However, Hohfeld is of the opinion that if we look
at the statutes carefully, there is a marked distinction between the various legal concepts.
Hohfeld proposes that the term rights must be confined to only that which exists
corresponding to a duty. Rights and duties are correlated concepts and when a right is
infringed there is always a duty that has been violated.
Hohfeld uses the example of trespass to explain the correlation between rights and
duties. He states that suppose if X has a land and he has the right against Y that theatter
shall not enter in his land, Y also has the corresponding duty to not enter upon X’s land.
He goes on to say that an appropriate synonym for the term ‘right’, in the light of the
aforesaid meaning accorded to it, would be ‘claim’.
Privilege and No-rights
Hohfeld defines privilege as the jural opposite of duty. Privilege, according to him, is the negation of a
duty. The negation of duty takes place only when the contents of both, the duty and privilege, are
opposite to each other.

For instance, a duty not to enter can be negated by the privilege of entering. Duty is the correlative of
right. Similarly, privilege also has a correlative. However, there exists no particular term to explain the
same, which is why, Hohfeld has decided to term it as a “no-right”.  Thus, if I have the privilege of
entering into land, the correlative is a “no-right” against my entering to the land. Unlike a duty which
has to be necessarily fulfilledone may or not exercise his privilege. There is no right that is infringed in
case of non-exercise of a privilege.
Powers and Liabilities
Legal power is the jural opposite of legal disability and the jural correlative of legal
liability. Power is the ability conferred upon an individual by the law to alter or
create new legal relations. One can make a will of his property or can alienate his
property; one can marry one’s deceased wife’s sister–all these are often termed as
rights however a careful legal analysis reveals that they are powers, not rights.
IMMUNITIES AND
DISABILITIES
Immunity is the jural correlative of disability and the jural opposite of liability. In simple
terms, immunity is the negation of liability. According to Hohfeld, the contrast between
power and immunity is the same as the contrast between right and privilege. He states that a
right is the “affirmative claim” against someone and privilege is areedom from such an
affirmative claim. Similarly, power is the “affirmative control” over a legal relation and
immunity is the freedom from such control.

Similarly, power is the “affirmative control” over a legal relation and immunity is the
freedom from such control.  The jural correlative of immunity is a disability which refers to
no-power.

Thus, when a person exercises immunity in a legal relationship with another, the latter has
no power over the legal relation.
 CONCLUSION
Hohfeld explains exactly how several conceptions are mistaken as rights and duties. With
his theory of jural relations, he has provided legal professionals with a powerful tool to help
understand complex legal problems and devise effective solutions. The widespread
tendency to confuse rights with liberties can lead a jurist to make conceptual errors and
faulty interpretations. For example, if one believes that the right to free speech is a right (in
the strict sense), but in fact it is only a liberty, then one will wrongly believe that others
have duties of non-interference which are correlative to this ‘right’. The concepts of rights,
privileges, powers, immunities seem
to be the legal benefits granted to an individual while the four correlative terms – duty, no-
right, liability and disability are the corresponding legal burdens.