The legal object is one of the basic systematic concepts of case law and is closely linked to the notion of legal relationship and legal entity. « Every real law is the law of a thing. » (Korkunov) The purpose of the law, as an abstract and general concept, is not related to any area of law. Nevertheless, like most legal categories, it has the clearest and most specific meaning in civil law and, in particular, in property relations. It is relatively easy to see what the legal purpose of the property, mortgage law or inheritance law is. But lawyers have had great debates about the nature of this concept in franchise qualifications, for example, or in citizenship. These difficulties have convinced some of the existence of a non-objective right (Becker). The signs of the objects of civil relations are therefore the following: the end of the behavior that a sovereign must observe towards his own subjects ,— the end of the internal laws of a society,— must be the greatest happiness of the society concerned. This is the goal that individuals will jointly approve if they agree.
It is the straight line —the shortest — most natural line of all, with which a ruler can direct its course. The end of the behavior he should observe towards others, what should it be to judge by the same principle? Do we have to repeat the greatest happiness of his own subjects? On this basis, the well-being, the demands of others will be nothing in his eyes: in relation to them, he will have no other goal than to submit them to his desires by all possible means. He will serve them as he actually serves the animals he uses when they use the herbs on which they roam—short, like the ancient Greeks, like the Romans, as all the models of virtue in antiquity, as all the nations whose history we know used them. The first two objectives can be referred to the duties that the given nation should recognize. The latter two may be covered by the rights that it should assert. But if they believe that the same rights should be violated, how, by what means should they enforce or seek satisfaction? There is no other mode than war. But war is an evil — it is even the complication of all other evils. These items are property, including money and securities, other property, proprietary rights, deliverables, services, intellectual and creative performances, information and other material and intangible goods, objects of human and animal physiology. Roman jurists showed a certain talent for generalization by dividing things as objects of law into corporeal (corporalia) and non-corporeal (incorporalia). This distinction applied, for example, to the right of succession and the exercise of the right to agricultural products. As for the third and fourth objects, there is little need to dwell on them: —Nations, like peoples, rulers as well as individuals, pay sufficient attention to their own interests — there is little reason to lead them there. The first two and the last remain.
If a citizen of the world were to prepare a universal international code, what would he set himself as an objective? This would be the common and equal benefit of all nations: it would be his inclination and duty. At this stage in the development of legal thinking, a whole series of problems that are difficult to solve have emerged. Initially, attempts were made to present objects as so-called public subjective rights; And secondly, there was a desire to build a legal system based on the idea of norms (understood as imperative). But if the basis of the right is an imperative and the obligation that flows from this imperative, then, for example, the object of the right of property does not logically represent the thing itself with its specific use and exchange value, but something negative: the inhibitory actions of all other persons that prevent the owner from possessing, to use and dispose of its property.