Rights and Duties: Claims, Liberties, Powers, and Immunities

Why “rights-talk” needs a toolkit

In political debate, the word right is used to mean different things: a demand that others provide something, a permission to act, an authority to change rules, or a shield against interference. Confusion happens when people argue past each other—for example, treating a liberty (permission) as if it were a claim (entitlement), or treating a moral right as if it automatically created a legal remedy. This chapter builds a precise toolkit for identifying what kind of right is being asserted, who owes what to whom, and what institutions must do when rights conflict.

Four basic positions: claims, liberties, powers, immunities

1) Claim-rights (entitlements)

A claim-right is a right that correlates with a duty on someone else. If A has a claim-right against B, then B has a duty toward A.

• Form: “A has a right that B do (or not do) X.”
• Correlative: B has a duty to do (or not do) X.
• Example (negative claim): A has a right not to be assaulted; everyone has a duty not to assault A.
• Example (positive claim): A has a right to receive the wages promised in a contract; the employer has a duty to pay.

Key diagnostic question: “Who, specifically, must do what for whom?” If you cannot name a duty-bearer and an action/omission, the claim-right is underspecified.

2) Liberty-rights (permissions)

A liberty-right (also called a privilege) is a right that correlates with no-duty in the right-holder. If A has a liberty to do X, then A is not under a duty not to do X. A liberty does not automatically mean others must help A do X.

• Form: “A is free to do X.”
• Correlative: A has no duty not to do X.
• Example: A has the liberty to wear a political badge in public (absent special restrictions). This does not by itself impose a duty on others to provide badges or venues.

Common mistake: Treating a liberty as a claim. “I have a right to speak” can mean (a) a liberty to speak (no duty to remain silent) and/or (b) a claim that others (especially the state) not censor you.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

3) Powers (rule-changing abilities)

A power is an ability, recognized by a system of rules, to change normative relations—creating, altering, or extinguishing rights and duties.

• Form: “A can, by doing Y, change what is permitted/required.”
• Correlative: Someone else becomes liable to have their normative situation changed by A’s act.
• Examples: A legislature has the power to enact a statute; a judge has the power to issue a binding order; a person has the power to transfer property by sale; a voter has the power (with others) to select officials who will exercise further powers.

Key diagnostic question: “Does the person’s action change what the rules are (or who has which rights)?” If yes, you are likely dealing with a power.

4) Immunities (protections against rule-changing)

An immunity is protection against someone else’s power. If A has an immunity against B, then B lacks the power to change A’s normative position in the specified way (B has a disability).

• Form: “B cannot, even if B tries, validly impose/alter X on A.”
• Correlative: B has no power (a disability) regarding that change.
• Examples: Constitutional limits that prevent a legislature from passing certain kinds of laws; procedural limits that prevent police from searching without required authorization; rules that prevent an employer from unilaterally changing already-earned wages.

Key diagnostic question: “Is the point to block someone from changing your status, even through official channels?” If yes, you are likely dealing with an immunity.

Correlation map: who owes what to whom

Use this table to keep the correlatives straight. It prevents mixing up “permission,” “entitlement,” “authority,” and “protection.”

Step-by-step method: translate a “right” into a rights-map

When you hear “I have a right to X,” do the following steps to clarify what is being claimed and what follows from it.

Step 1: Write the statement in a precise form

• Vague: “People have a right to housing.”
• More precise: “Eligible residents have a claim-right that the state provide access to basic shelter meeting defined standards.”

Step 2: Identify the type(s) of right involved

Many real-world rights combine types.

• Claim component: “The state must not evict without due process” (duty on the state).
• Liberty component: “Residents may choose where to live” (no duty on residents not to choose).
• Power component: “Tenants may terminate a lease with notice” (changes obligations).
• Immunity component: “Landlords cannot waive safety standards by contract” (landlord lacks power to remove protections).

Step 3: Name the duty-bearer (or power-holder) and the beneficiary

• Beneficiary: Who holds the right?
• Duty-bearer: Who must act/forbear?
• Institutional actor: Who enforces or recognizes it (court, agency, employer, school)?

Step 4: Specify the content: action, omission, standard, and timeframe

Rights become operational only when you specify what counts as compliance.

• Action/omission: Provide, refrain, permit, accommodate, disclose, repair.
• Standard: “reasonable,” “safe,” “non-discriminatory,” “timely,” “least restrictive.”
• Timeframe: immediately, within 30 days, during emergencies only, etc.

Step 5: Identify the remedy and the forum

A right without a remedy may still be a moral claim, but it will function differently than a legal right. Clarify what should happen if the duty is breached.

• Remedies: injunction (stop doing X), damages/compensation, reinstatement, policy change, exclusion of evidence, disciplinary action, public apology, independent review.
• Forum: court, administrative tribunal, ombuds office, internal grievance process, electoral accountability.

Rights-mapping worksheet (fill-in template)

Use this worksheet to map any rights claim into a structured analysis. Copy and fill it for each scenario.

RIGHTS-MAP WORKSHEET  (one claim at a time) 1) The asserted right (quote it): 2) Right-holder (A): 3) Against whom? (B): 4) Type(s): [ ] Claim   [ ] Liberty   [ ] Power   [ ] Immunity 5) If Claim: What is B’s duty? (do/omit what, by when, to what standard?) 6) If Liberty: What is A permitted to do? What interference is still allowed (if any)? 7) If Power: What act changes the rules/relations? What new duties/rights result? 8) If Immunity: Who is blocked from changing what? What counts as an invalid change? 9) Possible conflicts: Which other right(s) are implicated? 10) Proposed remedy if violated: 11) Decision-maker / institution: 12) Evidence needed to show violation:

Institutional dimension: why powers and immunities matter in politics

Political conflict often concerns not only what people may do, but who gets to decide and how stable protections are.

Powers: allocating authority

• Rule-making powers: legislatures, regulators, school boards, workplace management.
• Adjudicative powers: courts, tribunals, disciplinary panels.
• Private powers: contract formation, property transfer, consent to medical treatment.

When someone argues “the agency shouldn’t be able to do that,” they are often challenging a power (authority) rather than a liberty or claim.

Immunities: limiting authority

Immunities are the architecture of limits: they prevent certain changes even if a majority wants them or an official attempts them. In practice, immunities often appear as:

• Jurisdictional limits: “This body has no authority over that domain.”
• Procedural immunities: “You cannot impose this burden without following required steps.”
• Substantive immunities: “Even with proper procedure, you cannot impose this kind of restriction.”

Conflicts between rights: identifying the collision point

Rights conflicts are rarely “right vs. right” in the abstract; they are conflicts between specific incidents (claims, liberties, powers, immunities) in particular settings. Start by mapping each side with the worksheet, then locate the precise point of incompatibility.

Conflict type A: liberty vs. claim (speech vs. security)

Typical structure:

• Speaker asserts a liberty to express views and a claim against censorship.
• Others assert a claim to safety (e.g., protection from threats) and a claim that officials prevent foreseeable harm.

Where the conflict often really is: not “speech vs. security,” but whether the speech is (a) protected expression, (b) a direct threat, (c) harassment, or (d) incitement—each category changes the duties of institutions and the available remedies.

Conflict type B: claim vs. claim (property vs. welfare)

Typical structure:

• Owners assert a claim that others not take or use their property without consent and often an immunity against certain kinds of uncompensated seizure.
• Others assert a claim that institutions provide basic support (food, shelter, healthcare), which requires resources and administrative powers.

Where the conflict often really is: the design of duties (taxation, regulation, provision), the scope of immunities (what cannot be taken/changed), and the institutional powers to implement redistribution or social provision.

How theories prioritize or balance (without repeating general theory)

Different approaches tend to resolve conflicts by emphasizing different decision rules. Use these as diagnostic lenses when analyzing a dispute:

• Side-constraints approach: treats some claim-rights/immunities as strong limits; policy goals cannot override them except under narrow conditions. Practical marker: “Even if it would help, you may not do that to people.”
• Outcome-focused balancing: weighs the costs/benefits of protecting each right in context; restrictions may be justified if they prevent greater harm. Practical marker: “We must compare impacts and choose the least harmful feasible option.”
• Priority to basic needs / minimum floor: gives special weight to ensuring certain claims are met at least to a threshold, even if it constrains some liberties or property incidents. Practical marker: “No one should fall below a minimum standard.”
• Institutional legitimacy approach: emphasizes which body has the power to decide and what procedures are required; a decision may be wrong in substance yet invalid if made without authority. Practical marker: “Who is authorized to decide this, and did they follow the rules?”

Scenario exercises: identify the right, duty-bearer, and remedy

For each scenario: (1) map each side’s right(s) using the worksheet, (2) identify the duty-bearer(s), and (3) propose an appropriate remedy and forum.

Scenario 1: Protest and public safety

A city requires a permit for demonstrations in the central square. A group holds a protest without a permit and is dispersed by police. The group claims a right to free expression and assembly. The city claims it must protect public safety and keep emergency routes open.

• Your tasks:
  • List the group’s liberty and any claim-rights against interference.
  • List the city’s claim-rights/duties regarding safety (who owes what to whom?).
  • Identify the city’s power to regulate time/place/manner and any immunities that limit that power.
  • Choose a remedy if the dispersal was unlawful (e.g., injunction, damages, policy revision).

Scenario 2: Workplace speech and harassment policy

An employee posts political opinions on an internal company forum. Coworkers complain that the posts create a hostile environment. Management disciplines the employee under an anti-harassment policy. The employee claims a right to speak; coworkers claim a right to a safe workplace.

• Your tasks:
  • Separate the employee’s liberty to speak from any claim against employer discipline (are there contractual or legal protections?).
  • Specify management’s duties: to whom, to do what, and under what standard.
  • Identify what evidence would distinguish protected political expression from targeted harassment.
  • Propose a proportionate remedy (training, policy clarification, reversal of discipline, etc.).

Scenario 3: Property, eviction, and due process

A landlord changes the locks after a tenant misses rent. The tenant claims a right to remain until a legal process occurs. The landlord claims a right to control their property and exclude others.

• Your tasks:
  • Identify the tenant’s claim-right (against whom?) and the landlord’s corresponding duty.
  • Identify the landlord’s relevant claim-rights and which ones are limited by tenant protections.
  • Identify any immunity the tenant has against unilateral eviction (landlord’s disability).
  • Pick a remedy: reinstatement, damages, expedited hearing, penalties.

Scenario 4: Emergency restrictions and institutional authority

During a public health emergency, an agency orders businesses to limit occupancy. A business owner claims the order violates their rights. The agency claims it has authority to protect health.

• Your tasks:
  • Identify whether the dispute is mainly about a liberty (to operate), a claim (against interference), or an immunity (limits on agency power).
  • Identify the agency’s power: what rule authorizes it, and what procedural steps are required?
  • Propose a remedy if the agency exceeded its power (injunction, rule invalidation, requirement to follow procedure).

Scenario 5: Welfare eligibility and administrative discretion

A person is denied a benefit due to a new administrative guideline. They claim a right to assistance; the agency says the guideline is necessary to prevent fraud and manage limited funds.

• Your tasks:
  • Clarify whether the benefit is a claim-right (entitlement) or a discretionary program (limited claim, if any).
  • Identify the agency’s power to issue guidelines and any immunities recipients have (e.g., against retroactive denial without notice).
  • Specify what due process duties apply: notice, reasons, opportunity to appeal.
  • Choose a remedy: reconsideration, back payment, policy revision, independent audit.

Practice: quick identification drills

Label each statement as primarily a claim, liberty, power, or immunity (some may include more than one). Then add the correlative (duty, no-claim, liability, disability).

• “You may refuse medical treatment.”
• “The agency must provide written reasons for denial.”
• “Only the legislature can raise taxes.”
• “The police cannot search your home without required authorization.”
• “A union representative can file a grievance that triggers arbitration.”

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Pitfall 1: Treating all rights as absolute

Even strong claim-rights often have defined limits (scope, exceptions, standards). Avoid absolutism by stating the conditions: “A has a claim that B not do X except when condition C holds, under procedure P.”

Pitfall 2: Ignoring the duty-bearer

“People have a right to dignity” may be morally important, but for practical analysis you must specify who must change behavior: employers, police, schools, media platforms, or the state.

Pitfall 3: Confusing moral rights with legal enforceability

A moral claim can guide criticism and reform even if there is no current legal remedy. In your worksheet, keep “proposed remedy” separate from “existing forum,” and note when you are arguing for institutional change (a new power or a new duty).

Pitfall 4: Missing the power/immunity layer

Many disputes are really about whether an institution had authority or whether someone is protected against that authority. Always ask: “Who has the power to decide this, and who has immunity against certain decisions?”