The New Unified Civil and Commercial Code and Cultural Heritage Protection in Argentina

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-99
Author(s):  
María Luz Endere ◽  
Lucía Carolina Colombato

Abstract:The recent reform of the Unified National Civil and Commercial Code will bring about significant changes in the Argentine legal system. The aim of this article is to analyze their impact in relation to the area of cultural heritage, especially in regard to the public property status of archaeological and paleontological heritage. Changes adopted—in contrast to those proposed, which referred to the issues related to indigenous communities and the protection of collective rights—are also discussed. The latter is the most innovative aspect of the reform since it involves a change of approach regarding private property and strengthens the regulatory powers of the state over private property, which might be applied to the protection of cultural property.

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicja Jagielska-Burduk

LEGAL STATUS OF CULTURAL PROPERTY AND WORKS OF ART IN THE PRL Summary The article deals with the legal status of works of art and cultural property in the Polish legislation during communism period. Classifying those objects as private property was considered as a very difficult task, because of their material value and the public interest in saving them for future generations. The strict limitations of individuals property were perceived as unusual and as a result a new sort of property – the private cultural property was distinguished. Moreover, the concepts of the common heritage and res extra commercium could be observed in the light of the PRL ideas. It should be emphasized that the above mentioned theories for improving cultural heritage regulations are the most popular in the nowadays’ international discussion.


2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Rodgers

AbstractThis article argues that public property rights should be recognised as a separate category of property interest, different and distinct from private and common property interests and conferring distinctive rights and obligations on both “owners” and members of the public. It develops a taxonomy to differentiate private, public and common property rights. The article concludes that it is a mistake to think in terms of “private property”, “common property” or “public property”. The division and allocation of resource entitlements in land can result in private, common and public property rights subsisting over the same land simultaneously, in different combinations and at different times. The categorisation of property interests in land (as private, common or public) may also shift and change from time to time. The article considers the importance of distinguishing between private, common and public property interests for developing new strategies for environmental governance, and for implementing the effective protection of natural resources.


2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy Redden

A randomised survey in Texas found that 22 per cent of the public identified themselves as consumers of New Age media. Despite widespread recognition of the ‘spiritual supermarket’ there has been little sustained analysis of the production of spiritual commodities and related issues of cultural property. This article presents a case study of the bestselling spiritual self-help book and DVD The Secret, which features various teachers and sacred wisdom traditions seen to hold the key to the meaning of life—but which has also been the subject of copyright disputes. Through this example the article examines ways informational commodities are produced by transforming freely available spiritual traditions into intellectual property for a contemporary market in self-help products. Two related tensions raised by this reconstruction are explored. The first is between cooperation and competition in the liberal New Age milieu where entrepreneurs present marginally differentiated goods and services side-by-side. In contrast with exclusionary organisation of religious doctrine, freedom to adapt the lingua franca of holistic spirituality allows for coefficiency among providers, but also new forms of ownership distinction, as exemplified by The Secret. The second tension is between these private property relations and the corporate cultural property of the custodians of knowledge traditions that are commodified. The Secret, as with much New Age syncretism and multiculturalism, depends upon particular processes of transvaluation that inscribe diversity as positive by rendering selected instantiations of it equivalent—in this case through universalising the therapeutic value of specific traditions have for modern life. Drawing in particular upon debates about New Age use of Indigenous Australian knowledges, the author questions how the reworking of wisdom into a commodity may bear upon the ethnocultural significance of sacred traditions and upon other attempts to fashion their roles in contemporary public spheres


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Szilárd Sztranyiczki

Abstract Taking into account the recent change in Romanian civil legislation, we consider the present scientific material very useful for an overview of this institution under the auspices of the New Civil Code. The national legal provisions set clear, therefore, that the property is divided into two institutions, the public property and the private property. Property classification is very important in this form for us to understand the legal nature and the applicable regime for each type of property. Moreover, the property right, either private or public, has an elite regulation in most European laws, but also in universal laws the respect for it and the guarantee of this right can be also found in the fundamental human rights, in the international treaties, and in the constitutions of different nations. We will try, therefore, to offer a brief overview of the new Romanian legislation in the mentioned field, which is already harmonized with European legislation, the result being the New Romanian Civil Code. We believe that the interpretation should be considerably more extensive, but - pragmatically - we will try to capture the main theoretical and practical features to denote the importance of this institution.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 27-44
Author(s):  
Marzena Dyjakowska

The paper discusses the confiscation of property (publicatio bonorum) as a source of revenue for the fiscus in ancient Rome. The term fiscus means, among other things, the public property, State funds, but also the private property of emperors. The confiscated property could be adjudged not only to aerarium – the State Treasury (publicare), but also to the personal treasury of emperors, and trials seem to have been inspired to supply it. The most „successful” accusation was connected with the crime of lese-majesty: the scope of this crime was especially wide and it was easy to convict the defendant. The Senate often voted for adjudgement of the confiscated property in respect of the Emperor, especially if the convict had received some benefits from him. This practice turned into a rule and the Emperor’s treasury became the sole beneficiary of publicatio bonorum. Some emperors are especially known as rulers accumulating their private property on confiscated goods (Caligula, Septimius Severus, Domitian). A portion of those goods was due to the children of the defendant; some rescripts issued by the emperors even ordered to transfer his whole property in the first place to his descendants. In spite of the rule that it was necessary to find the defendant guilty to confiscate his property, the publicatio bonorum was not available; when he committed suicide before the sentence, a presumption was made that this act was equal to a guilty plea. According to another rule – confessus pro indicato est – the defendant was convicted unless his suicide was justified. The personal belongings (pannicularia) were to be confiscated, too, but only after the conviction.


2022 ◽  
pp. 223-240
Author(s):  
Milica Maksić Mulalić

This chapter researches the possibilities for the sustainability of cultural heritage in inland territories, focusing on the case study of two archaeological sites in Serbia. Two plans, the plan for the archaeological site of Gamzigrad-Romuliana and the plan for the archaeological site of Caričin grad (Justiniana Prima), were analyzed from the aspect of sustainable development. These plans were prepared in compliance with the principles of preservation, protection, revitalization, and use of immovable cultural property for the purposes of science, education, presentation to the public and tourism. The conflicts between cultural heritage protection and development of tourism were analyzed. As a result of the analysis, recommendations for the sustainability of cultural heritage in inland territories are given in the chapter.


2013 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 365-403
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Hamill

This article uses the recent Occupy litigation of Batty v. City of Toronto to argue that Canadian courts no longer have a robust understanding of common property and its attendant rights. The lack of judicial understanding of common property is hardly surprising given property theory’s focus on private property, particularly individual private property. This article argues that rather than use the traditional analogy of governments holding common property in trust for the public, Batty relies on an analogy of common property which treats the government as an owner. The emergence of the latter understanding of common property can be traced to Supreme Court jurisprudence from the early 1990s. Although the government-as-owner analogy of common property was introduced in a concurring judgment, more recent Supreme Court decisions have since reiterated the analogy. Such an understanding of common property is a clear attempt to force all property into a private property model and emphasize the rights of owners above all other rights in property. This article argues that the government-as-owner analogy is problematic given its emphasis on the government’s use of property rather than the public’s benefit from common property and calls for a return to the trust analogy of common property.


Author(s):  
Joseph W. Dellapenna

From earliest times, at least in arid and semi-arid regions, law has been used to allocate water to particular users, at particular locations, and for particular uses, as well as to regulate the uses of water. In the early 21st century, such laws are found everywhere in the world. While the details of such systems of water law are specific to each culture, these systems, in general terms, conform to one of three basic patterns, or to some combination thereof. The three patterns can be understood as a system of common property, a system of private property, or a system of public property. In a common property system, each person is free to use water as he or she chooses so long as the person has lawful access to the water source and does not unreasonably interfere with other lawful users. Such systems were common in humid regions where generally there was enough water available for all uses, but these break down when demand begins to outstrip supply frequently. Private property systems, more common in arid and semi-arid regions, where water is generally not available to meet all demand on the water sources, is a system that allocates specific amounts of water from an identified water source, for a particular water use at a particular location, and with a definite priority relative to other uses. The problem with such private property systems is their rigidity, with transfers of existing water allocations to new uses or new locations proving difficult in practice. In Australia, the specified claim on a water source is defined not as a quantity, but as a percentage of the available flow. Despite the praise heaped upon this system, it has proven difficult to implement without heavy government intervention, benefiting only large irrigators without adequately addressing the public values that water sources must serve. In part, the problems arise because cheating is easier in the absence of clear volumetric entitlements. The public property systems, which has roots dating back centuries but is largely an artifact of the 20th century, treats water as subject to active public management, whether through collaborative decision-making by stakeholders (a situation that is also sometimes called “common property” but is actually very different from the concept of common property used here), or through governmental institutions. Public property systems seek to avoid the deficiencies of the other two systems (particularly by avoiding the incessant conflicts characteristic of common property systems as demand approaches supply and the rigidity characteristics of actual private property systems), but at the cost of introducing bureaucratized decision making. In the late 20th century, many stakeholders, governments, and international institutions turned to market systems—usually linked to a revived or new private property system—as the supposed optimum means to allocate and re-allocate water to particular uses, users, and locations. Before the late 20th century, markets were rare and small, but institutions like the World Bank set about to make them the primary mechanism for water allocation. Markets, however, proved difficult to implement, at least without transferring wealth from relatively poor users to more prosperous users, and therefore produced a backlash in the form of support for a human right to water that would trump the private property claims central to water markets. The protection of public values, such as ecological or navigational flows, also proved difficult to maintain in the face of the demands of the marketplace. Each of these systems has proven useful in particular settings, but none of them can be universally applied.


KALPATARU ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Bambang Sulistyanto

Abstract. The basic concept of this research departs from the view that cultural heritage is essentially a property of community, so that it requires public policy to manage it. Based on such perspective, the research was focused on the management of cultural heritage as public properties. The objective of this research is to reveal the management of public property from the aspects of public policy which was primarily derived from the study of scientific literatures and empirical evidences. This research used qualitative and explanative method using public relation model that emphasized on the effort to improve people’s perspective on the image of archaeology. Until today, the hypothesis that cultural heritages are public properties which could be enjoyed unconditionally by the public remains a theory. The research results proved that the hypothesis was correct. Keywords: Policy, public, management, cultural heritage. Abstrak. Konsep dasar penelitian ini berangkat dari pandangan bahwa warisan budaya pada hakikatnya adalah milik masyarakat sehingga dalam pengelolaannya diperlukan kebijakan publik. Berangkat dari konsep di atas, permasalahan penelitian ini adalah “bagaimanakah pengelolaan warisan budaya sebagai barang publik”? Tujuan penelitian ini terfokus pada pengelolaan barang publik ditinjau dari aspek kebijakan publik yang berasal dari berbagai literatur ilmiah dan didukung pengalaman pribadi penulis selama berinteraksi dengan masyarakat. Kajian ini bersumber dari sintesa berbagai hasil penelitian yang telah dilakukan sebelumnya dalam berbagai tema dan topik penelitian. Metode yang digunakan adalah eksplanatif kualitatif dengan pendekatan hubungan masyarakat (public relation model) yang menekankan pada upaya perbaikan image ‘citra’ arkeologi di mata masyarakat. Barang publik untuk rakyat yang semestinya dapat dinikmati secara gratis oleh masyarakat hanya berupa teori. Hasil penelitian ini mengungkapkan bahwa pengelolaan warisan budaya sebagai barang publik tidak bisa sepenuhnya dapat dinikmati oleh masyarakat secara gratis. Kata kunci: kebijakan, publik, pengelolaan, warisan,budaya.


1970 ◽  
pp. 121
Author(s):  
Vinnie Nørskov

During the Summer of 2006, the Danish press investigated the Danish auction houses and museums in order to test whether objects knowingly smuggled out of their countries of origin were bought and sold in Denmark. This has raised the question whether Danish legislation is adequate in relation to protecting the world’s cultural heritage, and led to the organisation of the public meeting in March 2007 to discuss the issue. The invited speakers touched on subjects that included the destruction of Iraq’s cultural heritage, the lack of legal tools for returning objects illegally exported from South America, experience with ratification of the international conventions in Norway and the Netherlands, and questions about the role of both the auction business and the museums in trading in stolen cultural property. As a very positive result of the meeting, the Danish Minister of Culture announced that Denmark will work on ratifying the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document