| The conflict of legal rights is not a pseudo-proposition. It exists in many legal areas and is very common in judicial practice. Due to the influence of multiple factors, such as the limited rationality of legislators, social variability and ambiguity of legal language, the boundaries between rights are not clearly defined by legislators under certain circumstance, which can lead to conflicts of legal rights. The essence of conflicts of legal rights is the conflicts of interests and values. Conflicts of legal rights often lead to the difficult problem of application of law. Judges need to define the boundaries between legal rights by striking a balance between competing legal interests in each individual case, so as to resolve the conflicts of rights. In doing so, judges should consider the hierarchy of rights. However, rights-hierarchy as a whole lacks certainty and therefore has only limited value in balancing legal interests. If judges can't make judgment with the help of the hierarchy of rights, they need to turn to the principle of proportionality, which consists of three sub-principles, i.e., the principle of appropriateness, the principle of necessity, and the principle of proportionality in a narrow sense. The principle can guide judges to make rational and objective decisions in balancing rights and minimize their judicial discretion. Considering the uncertainty and the decision-making nature of the balancing of legal interests, it is very important that judges should strike a prudent balance between judicial activism and judicial self-restraint and avoid overstepping judicial limits in the process of resolving conflicts of rights. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号