22. Easements

2021 ◽  
pp. 827-891
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Common Ownership ◽  
The Right ◽  
Negative Form ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter is concerned with easements. An easement is the proprietary right to enjoy limited use of the land of another, which may exist in both positive and negative form. To constitute an easement, a right over the land of another must display certain characteristics. If these characteristics are not present, the right over the land of another is merely a personal right. An easement may be created by express, implied, or presumed grant. As a proprietary right, an easement is not easy to extinguish, but, in the case of freehold land, easement will be extinguished where the dominant and servient land come into common ownership and an easement attached to a lease may sometimes be extinguished upon the termination of that lease.

22. Easements

Land Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Common Ownership ◽  
The Right ◽  
Negative Form ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter is concerned with easements. An easement is the proprietary right to enjoy limited use of the land of another, which may exist in both positive and negative form. To constitute an easement, a right over the land of another must display certain characteristics. If these characteristics are not present, the right over the land of another is merely a personal right. An easement may be created by express, implied, or presumed grant. As a proprietary right, an easement is not easy to extinguish but in the case of freehold land, easement will be extinguished where the dominant and servient land come into common ownership, and an easement attached to a lease may sometimes be extinguished upon the termination of that lease.

25. Easements

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Common Ownership ◽  
The Right ◽  
Negative Form ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter is concerned with easements. An easement is the proprietary right to enjoy limited use of the land of another, which may exist in both positive and negative form. To constitute an easement a right over the land of another must display certain characteristics. If these characteristics are not present the right over the land of another is merely a personal right. An easement may be created by express, implied, or presumed grant. A s a proprietary right an easement is not easy to extinguish but in the case of freehold land, easement will be extinguished where the dominant and servient land come into common ownership and an easement attached to a lease may sometimes be extinguished upon the termination of that lease.

scholarly journals Contribuciones a la vulnerabilidad hacia el cambio climático desde la economía institucional

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 143
Author(s):  
Pedro Díaz Simal ◽  
Saúl Torres Ortega
Keyword(s):  
Future Research ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Economic Literature ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Real Model ◽  
Theoretical Assumptions ◽  
The Right ◽  
Made In ◽  
Academic Debate

<div data-canvas-width="377.3732987504456">This paper analyzes the various contributions made in the economic literature that in fluence climate change vulnerability. We try to create conceptual order and transparence in the contributions identifying the assumptions and constraints that each school has introduced into academic debate and practical application. We analyze the conceptual framework that articulates the debate, review the theoretical approaches developed in the literature identifying the object of analysis and the basics of each theory, so that the real model implications are established in each case study. From this scheme we derive a clarifying proposal for organizing theoretical discourse. We specifically focus on the theoretical assumptions underlying each model. We conclude with some criteria for choosing the right models in each case and a general guideline for future research.</div>

13. Unregistered land and priorities

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben McFarlane ◽  
Nicholas Hopkins ◽  
Sarah Nield
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Priority Rules ◽  
Fundamental Distinction ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
Good Conscience ◽  
The Right ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter explores the defences against pre-existing property rights that are available to a purchaser of unregistered land. It is concerned with priority rules in unregistered land. The fundamental distinction in unregistered land is between legal and equitable rights. Generally, there is no defence against pre-existing legal rights. In respect of equitable rights, a defence is available for a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the right. The defence is founded on equity's ideas of acting in good conscience. The Land Charges Act 1925 (LCA 1925) provided a system for the registration of a limited number of interests in unregistered land. It had been replaced by the LCA 1972. The 1972 Act enables a number of equitable interests, and one legal interest, to be recorded on a register against the name of the holder of the legal estate. In respect of property rights registrable as land charges a purchaser may have a defence of non-registration. The doctrine of notice does not apply in respect of such rights..

Post-Soviet Russian Scholarship on Self-Determination

2021 ◽  
pp. 177-205
Author(s):  
Johannes Socher
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Epistemic Community ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Invisible College ◽  
Russian Government ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Consensus View ◽  
The Right ◽  
Academic Debate ◽  
The Invisible

Chapter 5 covers the post-Soviet Russian scholarship on self-determination and shows how it forms a separate epistemic community, with peculiar features and doctrinal positions having existed already prior to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and the willingness to adjust these positions to official assessments of the Russian government, if necessary. Even before the annexation of Crimea, the discourse on self-determination in Russian scholarship showed some distinctive features, of which most can be explained by a lasting legacy of the former Soviet doctrine of international law, in particular the position that the right to self-determination may in principle also confer a right of secession. In sum, these features stayed however more or less inside the canon of the ‘invisible college of international lawyers’, as Oscar Schachter once famously called it. Only with ‘Crimea’, the company arguably parted again, and once Russia’s actions on the peninsula made it impossible for Russian scholarship to stay within the consensus view without criticizing the Russian government, former consensus was partly replaced by historical-irredentist claims, creative re-readings of self-determination, and attempts in revitalizing the concept of consolidation of historical titles. Moreover, the assessment of ‘Crimea’ in Russian international law scholarship clearly shows that the views expressed in the academic debate by and large correlated with the official positions purported by the Russian government (although criticism was not completely absent, and in particular scholars from the younger generation in Russia were not all ready to accept the official interpretation of the events).

scholarly journals Common ownership: an EU perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec J Burnside ◽  
Adam Kidane
Keyword(s):  
Asset Management ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Oligopolistic Markets ◽  
Common Ownership ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
The Common ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Union Competition ◽  
Academic Debate

Abstract Recent antitrust scholarship has claimed that parallel investments by institutional investors in competing firms may harm competition. Proponents of this theory, dubbed ‘common ownership’, posit that harm may arise even with small shareholdings, particularly in oligopolistic markets.  Although the debate has been focused on the U.S., the European Commission recently invoked common ownership as an ‘element of context’ in two merger decisions. This article examines common ownership through a European lens. A threshold issue will be whether levels of common ownership in Europe are comparable to those in the U.S.; the available evidence suggests they are not.  We note a number of misconceptions about the asset management industry, putting in doubt core elements of the common ownership hypothesis. We review the academic debate in which the theory has been vigorously contested on both methodological and theoretical grounds. We review the battle between empirical studies claiming to demonstrate and to disprove common ownership effects. The article considers whether the theory is sufficiently robust to provide a basis for enforcement, and (if so) whether current European Union competition law tools could be used to that end. The European Commission’s invocation of common ownership is subjected to critical evaluation. We conclude that it is premature to draw any conclusions as to the reality of alleged common ownership concerns or to base enforcement efforts on them. Until a better understanding of the underlying facts and a broad academic consensus emerge, reform prescriptions that have been advanced are a solution in search of a problem—to say nothing of the conflicts that would arise with other rules governing asset management.

scholarly journals Hak Pemanfaatan Sumber Daya Alam Perspektif ‎Hukum Islam

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 440-471
Author(s):  
Mugiyati Mugiyati
Keyword(s):  
Natural Resources ◽  
General Public ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Property ◽  
Common Ownership ◽  
Rights And Interests ◽  
The Right

Abstract: Islam gives freedom to people to utilize the public natural resources, because everyone has the irtifâq right namely to use immovable good, whether it belongs to an individual or public property. Common ownership is allowed in Islamic law if an object which is intended and used for the public. The principle of freedom granted by Islam for the right holders to use is not without limit, but constrained by accountability and adherence to sharia. The right holders in using theirs’ is to be in line with the principle of maqâshid al-syarî’ah. On the basis of this principle, they are prohibited to use their rights in excess which lead to infringement and damages to the interests of the others as well as the rights and interests of the general public. Of course, this can be jailed (ta’zîr) by the judge.Keywords: Right holder, natural resources, Islamic law. Abstrak: Islam memberikan kebebasan kepada manusia untuk memanfaatkan sumber daya alam yang bersifat publik, karena setiap orang memiliki hak irtifâq yaitu hak pemanfaatan benda tidak bergerak, baik benda itu milik individu atau milik umum”. Kepemilikan umum dimungkinkan dalam hukum Islam jika suatu benda pemanfaatannya diperuntukan bagi masyarakat umum yang mana masing-masing saling membutuhkan. Prinsip kebebasan yang diberikan Islam bagi pemilik hak untuk mempergunakan haknya bukanlah bebas tanpa batas, namun dibatasi oleh pertanggungjawaban dan kepatuhan pada syariah. Pemegang hak dalam menggunakan haknya harus sejalan dengan maqâshid al-syarî’ah. Atas dasar prinsip ini pemilik hak dilarang mempergunakan haknya secara berlebihan yang menimbulkan pelanggaran hak dan kerugian terhadap kepentingan orang lain maupun terhadap hak dan kepentingan masyarakat umum dan dapat dikenai hukuman penjara (ta’zîr) oleh hakim.Kata Kunci: Hak pemanfaatan, sumber daya alam, hukum Islam.

scholarly journals Private, Public, and Common Ownership

1998 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Haller
Keyword(s):  
Group Membership ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Public Ownership ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Common Ownership ◽  
The Right ◽  
Privately Owned

AbstractThe idea that private ownership implies that owners are free to do with their things whatever they want is shown to be mistaken. It is argued that private, public and common ownership are all based on the right to alienate a thing, regardless of the number of owners. Social or legal norms can make the ownership of a thing conditional on the participation in government or on group membership. In the former case, the norms establish public ownership, in the latter case common ownership. If things are owned and these norms do not apply, they are privately owned. Local social circumstances determine to some extent what form of ownership generates the highest benefits to owners, social and legal norms provide incentives which encourage or discourage the choice of the efficient form of ownership.

The Right of Common Ownership

2019 ◽  
pp. 149-155
Author(s):  
William B. Simons
Keyword(s):  
Common Ownership ◽  
The Right

13. Patents III

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanya Aplin ◽  
Jennifer Davis
Keyword(s):  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Prior Use ◽  
Stage Process ◽  
Priority Date ◽  
The Right ◽  
Experimental Use ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter discusses patent infringement, exceptions to infringement, and entitlement. Assessment of whether a patent has been infringed involves a three-stage process. First, the patent claims must be construed to see whether the defendant’s activities fall within the scope of the monopoly. Second, identify the infringing acts that the defendant is alleged to have carried out. Third, consider the applicability of exceptions to infringement. The chapter then focuses on three key exceptions to infringement within the Patents Act 1977: acts done for experimental purposes (‘experimental use’); acts done for private and non-commercial purposes (‘private use’); and the right to continue use begun before the priority date (‘prior use’). Finally, it considers persons entitled to the grant of a patent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document