Property as a human right and property as a special title. Rediscussing private ownership of land

2018 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 273-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Moroni
Keyword(s):  
Private Ownership ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Ownership Of Land

scholarly journals Constitutional and post-constitutional problems: Reconsidering the issues of public interest, agonistic pluralism and private property in planning

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Moroni
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Planning Theory ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Research Perspective ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Ownership Of Land ◽  
Planning Problems ◽  
Agonistic Pluralism

In the field of planning theory the discussion often seems to assume that all problems – for example, ethical or political ones – pertain to a single level or dimension. In fact, different and clearly separate “levels”, which raise problems of different kinds, can be distinguished. A “multi-level” approach therefore seems necessary. The underlying idea is that it is essential to distinguish more sharply between two analytical levels: the constitutional and post-constitutional levels. These levels are here understood mainly as analytical levels; that is, as standpoints that anyone can – at any time and even only hypothetically – assume to posit certain problems at the appropriate level and treat them by acknowledging the argumentative requirements suited to that level. This article uses such a multi-level approach to address three fundamental and currently much debated problems of planning theory and practice: the issue of “agonistic pluralism”; the issue of “public interest”; the question of “private ownership (of land)”. The contribution of this article falls within the neoinstitutionalist approaches to planning. The belief is that these approaches are shedding new light on planning problems and that research in this direction should be expanded. In this regard, this article attempts to make a contribution to this research perspective especially in analytical and methodological terms.

Land Reform and Agrarian Change in Sri Lanka

1978 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 611-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. H. Peiris
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Agricultural Production ◽  
Land Reform ◽  
Agrarian Change ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Reform Programme ◽  
Ownership Of Land ◽  
Privately Held

In 1972 a land reform programme based on the objectives of maximizing agricultural production and employment and reducing inequalities in wealth and income was initiated in Sri Lanka. It commenced with the enactment of the Land Reform Law, No. 1 of 1972 which imposed ceilings on private ownership of land and provided for the setting up of a Land Reform Commission (hereafter, LRC) vested with powers to acquire privately held land in excess of the ceilings. Three years later, the scope of the reform was extended through the Land Reform (Amendment) Law, No. 39 of 1975 under the provisions of which land held by public companies was nationalized. Both these laws provided for the payment of compensation to dispossessed owners.

What Can the Endogenous Institutions Literature Tell Us About Ancient Rome?

2020 ◽  
pp. 13-46
Author(s):  
Robert K. Fleck ◽  
F. Andrew Hanssen ◽  
Dennis P. Kehoe
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Ancient Rome ◽  
Agrarian Economy ◽  
Productive Activities ◽  
Endogenous Institutions ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
Ownership Of Land

A large and growing literature on “endogenous” institutions seeks to understand the circumstances under which institutions of particular types arise. One of the literature’s guiding principles is that, because institutions structure the incentives that members of a society face, if institutions are not well matched to a society’s circumstances—that is to say, not designed to inspire productive activities, broadly defined—the society will not thrive. We will discuss how this approach can help modern scholars understand the institutions of the Roman Empire, a society that clearly did thrive. The focus of this paper will be on the Roman imperial government’s policies that promoted the private ownership of land. These policies were crucial to the efforts of the Roman imperial government to create a class of landowners in the cities across the empire who would share in the burdens of ruling the empire. However, the extent to which landowners could dispose of their properties freely was limited by the overall constraints of an ancient agrarian economy and the fiscal requirements of the Roman state.

Change of Sovereignty and Private Ownership of Land

1918 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 475-497
Author(s):  
Francis B. Sayre
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Strong Influence ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
The Law ◽  
Ownership Of Land ◽  
Law Of Succession

Perhaps no part of international law gives rise to more uncertainty and disagreement than the law which determines the resulting rights and duties of states and individuals upon a change of sovereignty, — the so-called law of succession. One group of writers holds that the. new sovereign succeeds to all the rights and obligations of the former sovereign with respect to the territory ceded. The new sovereign, it is said, like the Roman heir, is “universal successor” to the obligations as well as to the rights of the former sovereign. Grotius suggests the analogy of the Roman heir when he says: “Heredis personam, quoad dominii tam publici quam privati continuationem, pro eadem censeri cum defuncti persona, certi est juris” (Book II, Chap. IX, sec. 12). Again, he says: “Potest imperium victoria acquiti, ut est in rege alio imperante, et tune in ejus jus succeditur” (Book III, Chap. VIII, sec. 2). This analogy, suggested by Grotius when international law was in the making, has had a remarkably strong influence upon the development of the rules of international law governing a change of sovereignty. Many writers of authority, following in the footsteps of Grotius, have laid it down that the new sovereign succeeds to all the obligations as well as to the rights of the former sovereign.

Arguing for Human Rights

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias Risse
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Human Right ◽  
General Argument ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Hugo Grotius ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines whether there is a human right to essential pharmaceuticals. It first considers the notion of an Intellectual Common by engaging with Hugo Grotius, and particularly whether his argument against private ownership of the seas can be applied to ideas. Freedom of the seas is no longer called for on Grotius's own terms. However, his reasoning in support of freedom of the seas bears not only on the atmosphere but also on a different domain, the domain of ideas. How people can exploit ideas economically is regulated by intellectual property law, which includes patents, copyrights, and trademarks. The chapter presents a general argument against the legitimacy of private intellectual property beyond compensation and incentive setting wherever intellectual property is regulated. It concludes by making the case for the relationship between human rights and vital medicines.

The “Third Way”

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Balázs Trencsényi ◽  
Michal Kopeček ◽  
Luka Lisjak Gabrijelčič ◽  
Maria Falina ◽  
Mónika Baár ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Division Of Labor ◽  
Central Europe ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
International Division ◽  
Third Way ◽  
East Central Europe ◽  
East Central ◽  
The Third ◽  
Ownership Of Land

The interwar years saw the flourishing of agrarian populist ideology all over East Central Europe. However, rather than a homogeneous movement, there were several types of agrarianism, responding to local exigencies and often marked by considerable internal cleavages. The main common denominator was the doctrine of a “third way,” which usually meant a critique of both liberal Western capitalism and socialist collectivism. While the private ownership of land was unquestioned, agrarian theoreticians argued that this did not fit the logic of capitalistic production. There was no consensus, however, whether in the future these countries would eventually become industrialized or whether the international division of labor would keep them forever agrarian. Agrarian populism had many intersections with ethno-populism and the stress on the peasantry as the only “uncontaminated” social class could also have nationalistic connotations. Nevertheless, most peasant parties rejected the radical nationalism characterizing neo-conservative and extreme-rightist political camps.

scholarly journals The Origins of Private Ownership of Land in Egypt: A Reappraisal

1980 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth M. Cuno
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Social Change ◽  
North America ◽  
Ideal Type ◽  
Modernization Theory ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Traditional Societies ◽  
Ownership Of Land ◽  
Traditional Norms

In the historiography of Egypt it has long been accepted that private ownership of land was introduced in the nineteenth century. This development in statute law has often been linked analytically to a process of “modernization.” Modernization theory posits a fundamental dichotomy between two ideal-type societies, the traditional and modern, which implies an equally sharp discontinuity between historical eras: before and after the beginning of modernization. In this view, traditional societies lack the potential for generating significant social change from within. Change results rather from the expansion of communications and diversification of technology worldwide from modern Europe and North America. In the process of modernization, traditional norms and structures break down in the host societies, and new, rational values and institutions emerge in their place. The development of Egypt's new land regime is usually considered one such change.

The Human Right to Private Property

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanoch Dagan ◽  
Avihay Dorfman
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Public ◽  
Constitutional Protection ◽  
Liberal Conception ◽  
Current State ◽  
Relational Justice

AbstractFor private property to be legitimately recognized as a universal human right, its meaning should pass the test of self-imposability by an end. In this Essay, we argue, negatively, that the prevailing (libertarian) understanding of private property cannot plausibly meet this demanding standard; and develop, affirmatively, a liberal conception which has a much better prospect of meeting property’s justificatory challenge. Private property, on our account, is an empowering device, which is crucial both to people’s personal autonomy (understood in terms of self-determination) and to their relational equality (understood in terms of reciprocal respect and recognition among persons). The liberal conception of the human right to property has both vertical and horizontal significance — it implies respect from both the public authority and other individuals — which means that it is thoroughly political but not necessarily statist.Our account generates important implications, both domestic and transnational. Domestically, it implies that whereas some property rights should be subject to strong constitutional protection, state law should facilitate other types of private and non-private property institutions, and these property institutions may well be subject to non-owners’ claims to access and, more broadly, to being treated respectfully. Furthermore, our conception of the human right to property requires that everyone have the unusual authority typical of full-blown private ownership. Transnationally, our analysis highlights a freestanding dimension of relational justice, which is relevant across borders even given that our distributive obligations are statist. This injunction of relational justice in transnational interactions brings into question the adequacy of the current state of the law, according to which these interactions are mainly governed by choice-of-law rules that conceptualize them as wholly subsumed under the capacities of the parties as citizens of their respective polities.

scholarly journals Legal-Factual Element of Unpaid Privatization of Land Plots by Citizens of Ukraine in the Order of Allotment as of the Basis for the Occurrence of Land Legal Relations of Private Ownership Right

2020 ◽  
pp. 345-349
Author(s):  
Sergiy Grynko
Keyword(s):  
Private Ownership ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Land Plot ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
Land Privatization ◽  
Legal Consequence ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Legal Fact ◽  
Ownership Of Land ◽  
Relationship Of

The article proposes the result of a theoretical study on detection and analysis of the system of the relevant legal facts and legalcompositions as one of the elements of the basis for the occurrence of land legal relations (property rights to land plots) as unpaid privatizationof land plots in the order of allotment. The definition of privatization of land plots in the order of allotment as the basis forthe occurrence of relations of ownership of land under the aforementioned method of acquisition of rights is given.In the sphere of unpaid privatization of land plots by citizens of Ukraine in the order of allotment there is a factor of informationaland normative legal nature in the form of a vast system of objective legal norms, reflecting:– model of complex legal composition, i.e. system (complex) of legal facts and legal compositions, and also legal conditions ofthe basis for the occurrence of the land legal relationship accumulated in the legally defined order by the corresponding persons of theland privatization legal relations;– model of legal consequence in the form of the occurrence of the legal relationship of private ownership of land parcel;– cause-effect relationship between the model of complex legal composition and the model of legal consequence (i.e. matrix relationship).Unpaid privatization of land plots in the order of allotment as a basis for the occurrence of relations of land plot ownership is aholistic system of interrelated circumstances (legal conditions) of legal-factual causal, intellectual, legal normative and informationalnature, which is the source for the occurrence (beginning of existence) of the legal relationship of private ownership of land plot.The legal-factual element of the basis for the occurrence of land-privatization legal relationship is the legal fact of filing a privatizationapplication and the necessary documents that must be attached to the mentioned application.The legal-factual element of the basis for the occurrence of land legal relationship of ownership of land plot in the process ofunpaid privatization of land plots by citizens of Ukraine is quite volumetric and represents a complex legal composition, which consistsof a system (complex) of legal facts and legal compositions, as well as legal conditions of the basis for the occurrence of land legalrelation, accumulated in the stipulated order by the appropriate parties of land-privatization legal relations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document