The rights of principle are independent. Ancillary rights are opposed to other rights and have a positive effect on fundamental rights. For example, if the owner of land has a right of way over adjacent property, ownership of the land is his principal right and the right to adjacent land is the ancillary right. Instead, most authors argued that rights should be analyzed in other, more fundamental terms, primarily duty, permission, and power, perhaps with the addition of other criteria. This means that not all rights will be of great importance. Their importance depends on the strength of the reasons of duty, permission, or power. Before examining these reports more closely, it is worth mentioning another point. Theorists are divided between those who believe that rights are, so to speak, the «reflex» of duty, permission, or power, and those who believe that the law takes precedence over them. The question is whether duty, etc. establishes the right or whether the law establishes duty.

Most older authors (e.g. Bentham, Austin, Hohfeld, Kelsen) seem to have adhered to the first view, while more recent authors (e.g. MacCormick, Raz, Wellman) adopt the second view. The second view implies that the force of a right is not necessarily exhausted by an existing set of duties, etc., that flow from it, but may be a reason for the creation of new obligations as circumstances change. The latter view, at least, seems to be more consistent with the operation of constitutional legal claims. As a rule, the remedies themselves are combined with other remedies, such as: having a coercive order imposed by the court, possibly under penalty of a penal or quasi-criminal sanction, or making arrangements for the freezing or forfeiture of a person`s property if, for example, someone has not paid damages previously awarded by the court. The details of these additional remedies vary from system to system. Legal rights are clearly rights that exist under legal systems or decisions of competent authorities in those jurisdictions. They raise a number of different philosophical questions. (1) whether statutory rights are conceptually related to other types of rights, primarily moral rights; 2) What is the analysis of the concept of legal law? (3) What types of businesses may be legitimate right holders; (4) whether there are types of rights that are exclusive to, or at least much more important in, legal systems as opposed to morality; (5) What rights should legal systems create or recognize? Question (5) is primarily a matter of moral and political philosophy and does not generally differ in principle from the question of what duties, permissions, powers, etc.

should create or recognize legal systems. It is therefore not dealt with here. Constitutions will also vary depending on whether certain rights are «enshrined» or not. Consecration may be absolute, in which case rights cannot be revoked or modified by any constitutional means (as is the case with some of the «fundamental rights» of the German Constitution), or it may be relative and require only a more onerous procedure than normal legislation (as in the case of the United States Constitution). The rights conferred on a person by the state, government, or constitution are called public rights. Examples: right to vote, right to use public parks, etc. The powers raise another question. Many authors (e.g. Hohfeld 1919, Hart 1973) have considered it a kind of right. By legal force, we mean the ability to make changes to the law or its application (as well as other conditions). As a general rule, of course, when granting a power, the legislature also grants the right to exercise it, but this is sometimes not the case, for example if the exercise of the right itself would constitute a felony or tort. In English law, for example, until a recent change in the law, a thief had the legal authority, in certain special circumstances, to transfer ownership of stolen property to a third party, even if he had committed a civil and possibly criminal fault.

This seems to indicate that powers should not be considered rights themselves. It is up to the law to confer certain powers on the individual or to grant certain freedoms in the form of legal rights.