4 Adel. L. Rev. 377 (1971-1972)
Why do students usually get into a muddle when analysing legal situations in Hohfeldian terms? What is the use of trying to straighten out the muddles, and of teaching Hohfeldian analysis at all? The short answer to the first question is that Hohfeld was clear-headed in applying his scheme, but because of his writing style and his odd views about definition was regrettably gnomic about the meaning and inter-relations of the terms of that scheme. The short answer to the second question is that clear-headed familiarity with Hohfeld's scheme can bring with it an awareness of the questions regularly begged when "claims of right" are raised in law, politics, and moral debate, and thus some some awareness of the ambiguity, evasion, and overkill afflicting the Western debate since "rights" became the basic counter in discourse.
John M. Finnis,
Some Professorial Fallacies About Rights,
4 Adel. L. Rev. 377 (1971-1972).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/5