No description available.

Thesis (doctoral)--Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen.

This thesis concerns the various concepts of rights and philosophical accounts of them. Chapter 1 addresses some methodological issues affecting analytic legal philosophy and the philosophy of rights. Chapter 2 distinguishes between two kinds of philosophical accounts of rights: models and theories. Models outline the 'conceptually basic' types of rights, their differences, and their relationships with other kinds of 'normative positions' (e.g., duties, liabilities, etc.). Theories of rights serve two roles: first, to posit a supposed ultimate purpose for all rights; second, to provide criteria for determining what counts as 'a right' in the first place. The chapter also criticises both monistic models (ones positing only a single basic kind) for being under-inclusive and a subset of pluralistic ones (those positing several basic kinds) as over-inclusive. Chapter 3 clarifies the concepts of rights exercise, enforcement, remedying, and vindication. Chapter 4 explains the Interest-Will Theories of rights debate, while Chapter 5 argues that its constituents are irredeemably flawed, unnecessary, and under-inclusive. Chapter 6 further analyses the concept of rights enforceability, showing why legal rights are not invariably enforceable by legal powers. It then explains why wholly unenforceable legal rights nonetheless constitute 'imperfect' or defective cases. Chapter 7 argues there are more ways to enforce legal rights than just via powers, elucidating two such modes: legal rights can generally be claimed or invoked using legal liberties in private and social circumstances. While Chapter 8 shows why it might not always be possible to make liberty-based claims or invocations of right, it also provides reasons for thinking that legal rights that cannot be enforced in these ways are also imperfect.

This thesis examines the role that scholarly digests and commentaries played in the formation of legal rules in the Muslim legal institution known as the madhhab. I posit that a shared approach to legal rule-determination, and the respect of juristic precedent that it entails, underlies the jurisprudential processes of all of the four post-classical Sunni madhhabs (the Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfi'ī, and Ḥanbalī), and unites them in a wider ‘madhhab-law tradition’. Taking the Ḥanafī madhhab as a case study, the thesis analyses a commentary written by the late Mamluk jurist Ibn Quṭlūbughā (d. 879/1474) upon the digest of the celebrated Abbasid-era Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Qudūrī (d. 428/1037). In discussing the madhhab's heritage of precedent, Ibn Quṭlūbughā's commentary weaves an intricate tapestry of quotations and references from previous jurists and works, providing us with insight into how author-scholars reacted to, and interacted with, other jurists over space and time. Chapter 1 provides a short introduction to the lives of Qudūrī and Ibn Quṭlūbughā, and the contexts within which they produced their works. Chapter 2 employs both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the commentary, in order to deduce historical and geographical patterns out of which a periodisation of rule-determination in the Ḥanafī madhhab is proposed. In Chapter 3, Ibn Quṭlūbughā's jurisprudential theory of rule-determination is studied, examining both the justifications and the processes employed by jurists in arriving at a legal rule in the Ḥanafī madhhab. Chapter 4 then turns to the craft of commentary itself, analysing over eighty case examples for the logical relationships, rhetorical devices, and legal arguments that inform the actual practice of rule-determination through commentary. A final chapter then summarises the conclusions, and situates them within a broader discussion as to the nature of the madhhab-law tradition.