Liberty-immunity forms from the corpus

Analysis of real fragments: the package identifier, the act, the form verdict (exemplary / disputed / wrong form choice), and why.

OverviewBoundariesCorpus formsPitfalls

Law

1. Turkish Constitution, art. 12 — immunity, not liberty (exemplary)

Package tr.constitution — Constitution of Türkiye (InalienableFundamentalRights):

Arxo Law

rule InalienableFundamentalRightsImmunity(subject: Person, right: FundamentalRight) strict {
    when person(subject);
    when fundamental_right(right);
    then immunity InalienableFundamentalRights {
        holder subject;
        protected_effect fundamental_right_alienated_or_waived(subject, right);
    };

Exemplary — with the author’s comment in the file: “inalienable, unwaivable” is not the holder’s behaviour but the absence in any act of the force to transfer or extinguish the right. This is immunity, not liberty. The canonical separation example for the whole directory: “may” vs “may not be subjected to”.

2. Japanese Constitution, art. 75 — immunity with an exception and priority (exemplary)

Package jp.constitution — Constitution of Japan (MinisterImmunityFromProsecution):

Arxo Law

rule MinisterImmuneFromProsecutionInOffice defeasible {
    ...
    for m: Person;
    when state_minister(m);
    unless (consent_of_prime_minister(m) and state_minister(m));
    then immunity MinisterImmunityFromProsecution {
        holder m;
        protected_effect prosecution_takes_effect(m);
        window [@1947-05-03, infinity);
    };
}

priority MinisterImmunityOverProsecutionPower {
    prefer MinisterImmuneFromProsecutionInOffice over ProsecutionByOrdinaryLaw;
}

Exemplary: a defeasible immunity (the premier’s consent — an exception with its own binding), a window from the constitution’s effective date, an anchor with an original quote, and explicit priority over the prosecution power. The whole power–immunity–priority bundle in one node.

3. Japanese Constitution — request and preparation liberties (exemplary)

Package jp.constitution — Constitution of Japan: then liberty RequestJointCommittee; then liberty DoPreparatoryActsBeforeEntryIntoForce. Liberties of procedural acts (“may request”, “may prepare”) — strong permission where the act’s vocabulary says “may”.

4. Jersey registry — liberty of entry in a restricted section (exemplary)

Package je.charities — Jersey charities register: then liberty RequestEntryInRestrictedSection. “May request” as liberty with a registry opponent: holder and against distinguishable.

5. Turkish Constitution, art. 13+ — liberty of personal development (exemplary)

Package tr.constitution — Constitution of Türkiye: then liberty ProtectAndDevelopOwnExistence. Substantive “may” as liberty — a pair with the art. 12 immunity of the same act (first fragment above): one act holds both forms separated.

Adjacent forms

6. Judicial irremovability — judges’ immunities (exemplary)

Package jp.constitution — Constitution of Japan: then immunity JudicialIndependence; package tr.constitution — Constitution of Türkiye: then immunity JudicialTenureImmunity. Protecting tenure against a removal effect is immunity, not a prohibition on removing: the effect never materializes, even if the act is issued.

7. Turkish reform laws — immunity from unconstitutionality (disputed)

Package tr.constitution — Constitution of Türkiye: then immunity ReformLawsBeyondUnconstitutionality. Disputed, not exemplary: the protected “effect” is a finding of unconstitutionality, i.e. a court decision, not a power transformation in pure form. The form holds (the compiler accepted it), but the reader should check whether a procedural limit on the court’s competence is more exact here.