ABSTRACT
This chapter surveys the three most prominent theories of rights conflicts. The literature on rights includes three prominent views: the specification approach, the prima facie theory, and a third view offered by Joel Feinberg. Initially, Feinberg appears to recommend a straightforward specificationist approach. Not only does he explicitly argue against the prima facie view, he rejects proposition by distinguishing between claims and valid claims. Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's analysis shed considerable light on the concept of a right, but no observation was more instructive to the rights conflict debate than his understanding that rights exist within specific relationships. As its name indicates, the prima facie theory alleges that a right is an advantage that exists "on the face of things" but may be outweighed by competing concerns. Prima facie theorists have also criticized specificationism for its inability to explain the need for compensation.
