While protecting everyone, legal subjectivity imposes restrictions on all by submitting to the rule of law. The question of affordance therefore operates at two levels in relation to the legal entity. First, to what extent does the technological medium provide the institutional mode of existence of the legal entity? And secondly, what are the affordances of the legal entity in the legal-institutional dimension thus granted? The answers to these two questions are closely linked; The two are interdependent and cannot be considered in isolation. The second category of affordance follows separately, or perhaps in parallel, from the affordances of the text that make possible the institutional fact of legal subjectivity in the first place. The protection offered by the legal person is made possible by its mode of existence, constituted by positive law, the basis of which in the text serves as a means of externalizing legal institutional facts. The text gives the protected person (or his or her legal representative) the possibility to refer to the legal texts that govern his or her rights, powers and related obligations. This happens in the common legal world, with its attachment to the rule of law, which underpins the application of these texts, always subject to interpretation and reasoning in the event of a dispute. the possibility of being subject to legal obligations, As discussed earlier in the section on legal norms, the institutionality of legal norms, which previously relied on the underlying technology of the text, provides the parties with the opportunity to challenge the interpretation of the norm and gives the court the opportunity to work towards obtaining a valid judgment. This ever-present tension between the corpus of institutional facts and the possibility of competition offers legal protection under dictated normativity. The creative fiction of the legal subject is a fundamental element of a legal system.1 It is an avatar that represents us in the legal form of life, a mask that people “wear” when they appear on the stage of the legal “play.” In fact, the term “personality” comes from the Latin persona, which has its roots in theatre.2 The figure we assume by putting on the mask – our character, our avatar – should move and act within the dimension of legal institutional facts, asserting rights, fulfilling duties and exercising power there. It is therefore a pragmatic representation of the human or the non-human, defined in order to protect it and enable it to function effectively in the legal world.3 To do this, it ignores the complexity of the “real” person or entity to the extent necessary to enable activities between legal actors. which are compatible with and within the symbolic universe of law. The legal subject is an avatar that represents us in the legal form of life.
Only a legal person can perform legal acts, such as: the conclusion of a contract; Other “things” may be relevant to the law, such as cars, mountains, or money, but these “legal objects” are what legal topics deal with. To whom and to what legal subjectivity is conferred is determined by positive law. However, since the horrors of World War II, all people have been given a default legal subjectivity to ensure a minimum threshold of legal protection. This reflexivity is evident in Dewey`s pragmatic conception of the legal subject as a “juridical and conscientious entity,” which implies any system necessary to support it. See Dewey (No. 1), p. 661. This “retrospective” approach is a fundamental element of the law`s mode of existence and may contradict the profound ex ante nature of the calculation discussed below. ↩ On the other hand, if the “subject of law” is not established and does not operate in a corpus of legal norms (even institutional ones), he cannot benefit from the same form of protection with regard to these norms, since the mode of existence of the subject and the norm is based on different affordances. In other words, the niche inhabited by the legal entity moves from a niche consisting of legal rights and powers (as legal-institutional affordances) to a niche consisting of something else. the ability to possess legal rights and exercise legal powers, The range of possible legal entities varies by jurisdiction.
For example, the classification of a multinational car manufacturer as a legal entity is the result of a start-up process. This means that the requirements and process of setting up a company defined by the positive law of a particular jurisdiction have been respected and followed, with the legal effect of creating a new legal entity with legal subjectivity. We have seen above that a central objective of the legal entity is to provide an abstraction that protects and submits at the same time: it provides uniform “interfaces” that allow the holding and enforcement of rights and powers, while ensuring that each entity is subject to the same system. The nature of the legal entity implies the institutional character of the legal system, just as the institutional nature of the legal system implies some kind of legal entity that may possess subjective rights and legal powers.7 The legal system and the legal entity are therefore co-constitutive and draw our attention to the nature of the legal entity that could support a particular type of right. and vice versa. This emphasizes the idea that the legal entity is by law and the law is by the legal entity, which does not make much sense independently of the other. The institutionality on which this is based depends on certain material conditions of possibility,8 in particular the technologies that make institutionality possible in the first place. Responsible, open, exposed, submissive, vulnerable, sensitive means being intrinsically or by circumstances likely to suffer something negative. Liability implies the possibility or likelihood of causing something because of the particular position, nature or situation.
The absence of barriers that prevent its appearance can be lost. An overt claim indicates a lack of protection or resistance to something that actually exists or threatens. Exposure to the infectious subject implies an opening, for whatever reason, to something that must be suffered or suffered. All reports are subject to a strain of susceptibility or a natural tendency or propensity to cause something. Susceptibility to delay implies conditions that exist in nature or individual constitution and make the event probable. Very sensitive to flattery involves the willingness to react or be influenced by forces or stimuli. Too sensitive to criticism The legal system and the legal entity are co-constitutive and draw our attention to the nature of the legal entity that could support a particular type of law, and vice versa. What the legal entity can actually do is considered below in terms of rights and powers. But the idea that the subject and its institutional environment are co-constituted and even implied by the kind of things we expect from legal entities.
Gibson`s niche idea can help us understand this: the abstract uniformity of the legal entity allows it to assert rights and powers within the framework of the rule of law, regardless of the particular characteristics of the underlying entity it represents. This means that, in principle, everyone has the same opportunity to advocate for a legally effective legal remedy. The current mode of existence of the right requires a series or niche of offers of a certain type, which in turn co-constitute a certain type of legal entity. the possibility of interpreting the sources of law in order to determine exactly what the status of rights, powers and obligations is at a given time and to challenge them before an authoritative arbitrator, As an artificial construct constructed from institutional facts, the legal subject is in no way “found” or given – it is a concept conceived that is created by acts of speech, follow the contractual procedures provided for by positive law. This concept includes immovable property that is de facto interoperable both with other legal entities (including those of a completely different nature: a natural person may enter into contracts with an enterprise) and with the operations that the law makes possible by attributing rights, powers and obligations to the legal person. A legal entity is the representation of a human or non-human entity that is legally recognized as the holder of rights and obligations. Most legal entities can also exercise legal powers, with or without the assistance of a legal representative. The idea of legal subjectivity provides the framework within which all this is made possible, regardless of the content of the individual rights and powers themselves, which will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Without a façade capable of holding rights, it becomes easy to arbitrarily deny these rights to individuals.15 Legal protection therefore depends on the existence of a framework that preserves these fundamental characteristics, by whatever means can be made effective: subject, persons, government.
An individual member of a nation subject to the law; This term is used as opposed to the citizen, which applies to the same person when it comes to his political rights. 2. In monarchical governments, subject means one who owes constant allegiance to the monarch. Empty Body politic; Green. Ev. section 286; Phil. & Am. on Ev. 732, No. 1. At the second level, once the legal entity operates “in” the legal-institutional dimension, it creates a legal effect in a normativity dictated by the text by operations carried out with reference to the legal norms that make this possible, always subject to their challenge and the finding by a court that what it has done (or claims to do) is somehow illegal.
