Welcome to Francis Academic Press

Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 2023, 6(3); doi: 10.25236/AJHSS.2023.060308.

Explaining or Guiding Legal System: Hohfeld’s Approach of Rights


Zechen Zhang

Corresponding Author:
Zechen Zhang

Juris Doctor, Law Faculty, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 


In the early twentieth century, an American jurist, Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, proposed an analytical scheme of jural relations. He put forward four pairs of basic legal elements to justify the nature of the entire legal relations in reality, which however incurs a large number of criticisms from various perspectives in academic literatures. This essay will analyse and respond certain main criticisms on the basis of appropriate interpretation of Hohfeld’s framework and explore one of primary flaws of his theory. 


Hohfeld; analytical platform; criticism; response; failure of guiding

Cite This Paper

Zechen Zhang. Explaining or Guiding Legal System: Hohfeld’s Approach of Rights. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences (2023) Vol. 6, Issue 3: 44-48. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2023.060308.


[1] Walter Wheeler Cook. (1919). Hohfeld's Contributions to the Science of Law. The Yale Law Journal, 28(8), 721-738. 

[2] Glanville Williams. (1956). The concept of legal liberty. Columbia Law Review, 56(8), 1129, 1131, 1135.

[3] Pierre Schlag. (2015). How to do things with Hohfeld. Law & Contemporary Problems, 78, 185, 188-92.

[4] Ivana Tucak. (2009). Rethinking the Hohfeld's analysis of legal rights. Pravni vjesnik, 25, 31, 35-6.

[5] Joseph William Singer. (1982). The legal rights debate in analytical jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld. Wisconsin Law Review, 975, 986. 

[6] Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. (1913). Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 23(1), 16, 32, 34.

[7] Eleanor Curran. (2010). Blinded by the Light of Hohfeld: Hobbes's Notion of Liberty. Jurisprudence, 1(1), 85, 98. 

[8] James E Penner. (1995). The bundle of rights picture of property. UCLA L. Review, 43, 711, 724.

[9] Christopher M Newman. (2018). Hohfeld and the Theory of in Rem Rights: An Attempted Mediation. Cambridge University Press, 5.

[10] James E Penner. (1997). The analysis of rights. Ratio Juris, 10(3), 300. 

[11] Suri Ratnapala. (2017). Jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press, 312.

[12] Yosal Rogat. (1964). The Judge as Spectator. The University of Chicago Law Review, 31(2), 213, 237.

[13] Ethan J. Leib, David L. Ponet and Michael Serota, Leib. (2013). A Fiduciary Theory of Judging. California Law Review, 101, 699, 730-8.

[14] Dworkin, Ronald. (1970). A special supplement: Taking rights seriously. The New York Review of Books, 15(11), 17, 23-31.

[15] E v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 2 WLR 1351.

[16] Nikolai Lazarev. (2005). Hohfeld’s analysis of rights: An essential approach to a conceptual and practical understanding of the nature of rights. Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 12(1).

[17] John Finnis. (1971). Some professorial fallacies about rights. Adelaide Law Review, 4, 377. 

[18] Eugene Volokh. (1999). Freedom of speech and information privacy: The troubling implications of a right to stop people from speaking about you. Stanford Law Review, 52, 1049, 1106-10.