2]Legal protection CANT be undone

(Alf Niels Christian Ross was a Danish jurist, legal philosopher and judge of the European Court of Human Rights. He is best known as one of the leading figures of Scandinavian legal realism, “VI The Concept of Rights,” On Law and Justice On Law and Justice, pg online @ https://academic-oup-com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/book/36943/chapter/322234069 //pa-ef)

Now we can see that there is a crucial difference in meaning with respect to the word ‘protection’ in these two situations.  Static protection concerns the means of exerting pressure which can be applied against violations of the right. These means of exerting pressure can be effective to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the conditions under which infringement is punished, on the magnitude of the penalty, and on the conditions under which the rights holder can obtain a judgment providing for enforcement (vindication) or at least a judgment for damages. The more effective the sanctions, the better the protection of the right, that is, the higher the probability that the rights holder will in fact achieve undisturbed economic enjoyment of certain things which the legal order wishes to assign to him. It is obvious that this protection can never be absolute.  Dynamic protection, on the other hand, has nothing to do with sanctions. Here, the assurance in question is not an assurance that the legal rules (norms of conduct) are actually obeyed, but an assurance that, considered holistically, the acquirer of a right really will succeed to the legal position of his predecessor. In this situation, then, protection does not mean protection of an existing legal position, but protection of an acquirer’s expectation of being placed into such a position. According to circumstances, this protection can be absolute, since the legal order under certain conditions precludes any possibility of further discussion of the legal position as the result of a succession.