Lost in translation. Some problems with a Hohfeldian analysis of Hobbesian rights

Hobbes Studies

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 58-76

  Curran, Eleanor ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61949257609     PISSN: 09215891     EISSN: 18750257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/187502506X00042     Document Type: Review

References (4)

1. There is, of course, debate within Hobbes scholarship about whether or not the laws of nature apply in the state of nature, whether they ever apply in foro externo rather than merely in foro interno etc. See for example LeBuffe 2003. But for my purposes here I am assuming the 'traditional' view that the state of nature is not governed by a moral law
2. See for example Jeremy Waldron, 1984, p. 8. "Hohfeld's claim-right is generally regarded as coming closest to capturing the concept of individual rights used in political morality."
3. See E. Curran, "Hobbes's Theory of Rights - A Modern Interest Theory", The Journal of Ethics, 6: 63-86, 2002
4. See E. Curran, "Can Rights Curb the Hobbesian Sovereign? The Full Right to Self-preservation, Duties of Sovereignity and the Limitations of Hohfeld", Law and Philosophy (2006) 25: 243-265