权利的利益理论:仍然存在

IF 1.2 Q1 LAW
Visa A. J. Kurki
{"title":"权利的利益理论:仍然存在","authors":"Visa A. J. Kurki","doi":"10.1017/S1352325221000203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In two recent papers, Mark McBride has attacked the interest theory of rights, both introducing new arguments and claiming that interest theorists have not successfully deflected Gopal Sreenivasan's earlier arguments. This essay replies to all of McBride's criticisms, showing them to be mistaken.","PeriodicalId":44287,"journal":{"name":"Legal Theory","volume":"27 1","pages":"352 - 364"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE INTEREST THEORY OF RIGHTS: STILL STANDING\",\"authors\":\"Visa A. J. Kurki\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1352325221000203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In two recent papers, Mark McBride has attacked the interest theory of rights, both introducing new arguments and claiming that interest theorists have not successfully deflected Gopal Sreenivasan's earlier arguments. This essay replies to all of McBride's criticisms, showing them to be mistaken.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44287,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal Theory\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"352 - 364\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325221000203\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325221000203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在最近的两篇论文中,马克·麦克布莱德(Mark McBride)攻击了权利的利益理论,既引入了新的论点,又声称利益理论家未能成功地转移戈帕尔·斯里尼瓦桑(Gopal Sreenivasan)早期的论点。这篇文章回应了麦克布莱德的所有批评,表明他们是错误的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
THE INTEREST THEORY OF RIGHTS: STILL STANDING
ABSTRACT In two recent papers, Mark McBride has attacked the interest theory of rights, both introducing new arguments and claiming that interest theorists have not successfully deflected Gopal Sreenivasan's earlier arguments. This essay replies to all of McBride's criticisms, showing them to be mistaken.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
16.70%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信