LIBERTY, PROPERTY, ENVIRONMENTALISM

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol M. Rose

The environment has often been thought to consist of resources that are unowned, and hence subject to the well-known tragedy of the commons. But in recent years, property ideas have been increasingly recruited for environmental protection, in a manner that appears to vindicate the view that property rights evolve along with the needs for resource management. Nevertheless, property regimes have some pitfalls for environmental resources: the relevant parties may not be able to come to agreement; property regimes may be weak or ineffective; they may be aimed at purposes inconsistent with environmental protection; property rights definitions may not work well for environmental resources; modern property regimes may promote monoculture rather than diverse environments. This essay describes these problems and asks to what degree they apply to a new effort to use property rights approaches, namely cap-and-trade programs to control greenhouse gases. It concludes that property rights, while imperfect and something of a retreat from a regime of complete liberty, may offer gains for environmental protection. But success will depend on close attention to the accountability and effectiveness of the governmental institutions necessary to support environmental property regimes.

Author(s):  
Myroslava Hudyma ◽  

Within the framework of the general doctrine of constitutive and translational acquisition of rights, the publication made an attempt to identify their suitability for describing the phenomenon of ownership transfer. The general characteristics of translational and constitutive acquisition of rights are analyzed, their differences are highlighted, and it is emphasized that the specified types can cover such legal situations as full transfer of the right (the right as a whole), and transfer of a part of powers (as components of the certain right). The paper underlines that the differences between the types of acquisition of rights are not so much quantitative (one jurisdiction or their complex is transferred), as qualitative characteristics and such issues are especially relevant in the spectrum of research on the transfer of ownership as a right that includes a triad of powers. Close attention is paid to the construction of constitutive acquisition of right, the possibility of use of which is extremely controversial, due to the overwhelming denial of the correctness of separation and alienation of a separate authority from ownership right, because the approval of the latter will lead to theoretical dissonance on the existence of incomplete (split ownership). It is emphasized that the application of the construction of the transfer of authority can take place in different shades of meaning and be combined with the right alienation, and without it. Therefore, the construction of right granting without alienation of the right is quite viable. Moreover, the transfer of one or even several powers of the owner is not only practically possible, but also necessary to establish limited property rights on the basis of full property right (ownership right). However, it is noted that in these cases, the acquirer will not receive the right of the alienator as a whole, but only certain legal possibilities of behavior in relation to a particular good. The legal capacity of the acquirer will not coincide with the legal capabilities of the alienator in content and scope, and therefore to talk about the transfer of ownership is incorrect, only a certain authority (powers) of the owner will be transferred, provided its (their) separation admissibility. The paper concludes that the specifics of property rights, which forms a triad of indivisible powers, determines the possibility of applying the construction «transfer of ownership» only to cases of translational acquisition of right, in which the acquirer receives a right identical to the right of the grantor both in content and volume.


2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-15
Author(s):  
David Ress

Controversy over the expansion of pound netting in the largest US fisheries of the late nineteenth century marked an early conflict between those who considered fisheries a commons and those who sought to establish property rights in a fishery. Pound-netters physically staked out a specific part of the sea for their exclusive use, and their conception of their property rights resulted in significant overfishing of important food – and oil – fish species. Here, just as with the commons that many economists argue inevitably result in over-exploitation of a resource, regulation was rebuffed and the fisheries collapsed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 457-488
Author(s):  
Monica Eppinger

Abstract Major twentieth-century social theories like socialism and liberalism depended on property as an explanatory principle, prefiguring a geopolitical rivalry grounded in differing property regimes. This article examines the Cold War as an under-analyzed context for the idea of “the tragedy of the commons.” In Soviet practice, collectivization was meant to provide the material basis for cultivating particular forms of sociability and an antidote to the ills of private property. Outsiders came to conceptualize it as tragic in both economic and political dimensions. Understanding the commons as a site of tragedy informed Western “answers” to the “problem” of Soviet collective ownership when the Cold War ended. Privatization became a mechanism for defusing old tragedies, central to a post-Cold War project of advancing “market democracy.” Meanwhile, the notion of an “illiberal commons” stands ready for redeployment in future situations conceived as tragically problematic.


1974 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry McGill

The full story of the 1918 election can never be told, although its importance as a watershed is, and was at the time, undoubted. Private papers have disappeared and fire destroyed records of the Local Government Board and Home Office. An especially interesting kind of record, the expenditure of candidates, was not even collected, and no questions were raised about this until it was too late.Churchill was among those who understood that “an election is to be fought, the result of which will profoundly affect political relationships and political issues for several years to come ….” Recent scholarship has concentrated on the divisions within the Liberal Party prior to the election, the special questions of Ireland and of National Democratic Party candidates, and “the stages” by which the drama unfolded in the autumn of 1918. But there has been no explanation of the timing: why did Lloyd George wait so long, and, having waited so long, why did he hurry into a December election, knowing the problems of voter registration and the signs of apathy and even hostility to an election? Moreover, all the discussion of why “coupons” were awarded as they were has obscured the difficulty of planning a coalition program, which was the precondition of any allocation of “coupons.”The constraints upon Lloyd George went back to 1916. From the moment he succeeded Asquith he was “a Prime Minister without a party.” His claim to have 136 Liberal supporters in the Commons was never substantiated by a name list or verified in the division lobbies.


1968 ◽  
Vol 8 (93) ◽  
pp. 626-633 ◽  

In our last month's issue we gave an account of ICRC relief work up to the end of October 1968 in Nigeria and the secessionist province Biafra. This clearly brought out the scale and very considerable cost of the mission which will continue for months to come. As the financial situation had reached the crisis stage, the International Committee invited representatives of governments, National Societies and international institutions, able to help it, to a meeting in Geneva, in order to explain the facts which justify not only the massive scale of, but also support for, the Red Cross action. There were in fact three meetings, one of National Societies, the second of representatives of governments and inter-governmental institutions and the third of voluntary agencies.


2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (51) ◽  
pp. 12859-12867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Moritz ◽  
Roy Behnke ◽  
Christine M. Beitl ◽  
Rebecca Bliege Bird ◽  
Rafael Morais Chiaravalloti ◽  
...  

Current theoretical models of the commons assert that common-pool resources can only be managed sustainably with clearly defined boundaries around both communities and the resources that they use. In these theoretical models, open access inevitably leads to a tragedy of the commons. However, in many open-access systems, use of common-pool resources seems to be sustainable over the long term (i.e., current resource use does not threaten use of common-pool resources for future generations). Here, we outline the conditions that support sustainable resource use in open property regimes. We use the conceptual framework of complex adaptive systems to explain how processes within and couplings between human and natural systems can lead to the emergence of efficient, equitable, and sustainable resource use. We illustrate these dynamics in eight case studies of different social–ecological systems, including mobile pastoralism, marine and freshwater fisheries, swidden agriculture, and desert foraging. Our theoretical framework identifies eight conditions that are critical for the emergence of sustainable use of common-pool resources in open property regimes. In addition, we explain how changes in boundary conditions may push open property regimes to either common property regimes or a tragedy of the commons. Our theoretical model of emergent sustainability helps us to understand the diversity and dynamics of property regimes across a wide range of social–ecological systems and explains the enigma of open access without a tragedy. We recommend that policy interventions in such self-organizing systems should focus on managing the conditions that are critical for the emergence and persistence of sustainability.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document