Abstract

This article engages with Alan White’s discussion of the relationship between rights and claims and the literature provoked by it, particularly the response of Neil MacCormick. A further challenge is brought against White’s position of maintaining that there is but one kind of right, and that a right to something does not imply (nor is implied by) a claim to that thing. The analysis offered here insists on acknowledging different meanings of claim and different strengths to claims. A core distinction between claim as assertion and claim as justified requirement is advanced, together with an accompaying distinction between making a claim and holding a claim. It is then possible to identify four different claims relating to a particular right as follows. ClaimA: A claims he ought to have the right that B pay him £x ClaimB: A claims he has the right that B pay him £x Right : A has the right that B pay him £x ClaimC: A claims that B pay him £x ClaimD: A claims a remedy for B failing to pay him £x In the relationship between ClaimC and the Right an equivalence can be discerned, without reaching the conclusion that the respective ideas expressed by them are the same. More broadly, this study suggests the importance for any fruitful discussion of rights, of providing a framework within which the different meanings, perspectives, and associated ideas can be approached in an orderly fashion.