On Legal Rights' Boundary

In daily life,there are a lot of disputes caused by neighboring relations,especially the invasion of immeasurable things such as sound,vibration and gas.The core problem of solving this dispute is determining the emission limit of immeasurable things of the parties,which also the boundary of tolerance obligation of the other party.On a more general aspect,this kind of neighboring relationship dispute can often be understood as a conflict of rights,and its solution depends on the pinpoint definition of the boundary of the conflicting rights,so as to determine the normative attitude of the law to what extent of rights do people really have in this situation and how should they act.First of all,this paper analyzes the ideas and doctrines of the legal settlement of the neighboring disputes caused by the invasion of immeasurable objects,and then finds out the basic ideas of the resolution of the conflict of rights at the aspect of general legal rights and a series of premise assumptions on which to rely: first,the legal norms are decisive to the content of legal rights;second,the conflict of rights in the legal system is just a prima facie conflict.This means that the core of resolving the conflict of rights lies in the discovery of relevant laws and regulations,so as to make judicial decisions have the basis of legitimacy.However,the legal rules are not always clear about the extent of specific rights people have in some situations,and can be used as a basis for resolving the conflict of rights.On the contrary,it is often due to the vagueness of the provisions of rights that a large number of conflicts of rights occur.According to the traditional theory,the core problem in this kind of hard case is how to make the right judicial decision,which is well satisfied by the strategy of trade-off.However,through the analysis of the difference between rights and their protected interests,we can find that there is a certain gap between the strategy of trade-off and the definition of the rights' boundary.The settlement of the conflict of rights is not only a judge's reasoning activity of how to draw the correct judicial conclusion,but also a persuasion activity of explaining to the parties,especially the reason why the judicial conclusion is truly correct.Therefore,the legality and legitimacy of the judicial conclusion must be considered at the same time.In easy cases,legitimacy is provided by the legal system itself,and the judicial conclusion can be accepted only by proving its legality.However,in the difficult cases with the absence of legal rules,the conflict of rights makes the legal system present some kind of self contradiction,which at the same time shakes its own legality basis and the legitimacy basis provided by the legal system.In order to maintain the acceptability of judicial decisions,or to supplement their legality or to justify their legitimacy.As the absence of legal rules is an established fact for a case,and the case type justification is not in line with the institutionalization requirements of the law,so if we want to close the gap between rights and interests,legality and legitimacy,we must seek the legal norms that can still be used to find the expression of normative attitude of the law in a case when the legal rules are exhausted.This kind of legal norm is the legal principle.Under the constraints of legal principles,the strategy of balancing interests,as a way for judges to draw correct judicial conclusions,also complements the defects of its acceptability in both legitimacy and legitimacy.Under the constraints of legal principles,the strategy of trade-off,as a way for judges to draw correct judicial conclusions,also complements the defects of its acceptability in both legality and legitimacy.