Property Law Sources and Analogies in International Law

Author(s):  
Catherine Redgwell

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-12
Author(s):  
Lily Martinet

This presentation draws on my doctoral research, which was conducted on traditional cultural expressions in international law. This subject still fills me with passion even after having spent many years studying it. To sum up my Ph.D. thesis in a sentence, I studied how international law embraces traditional dances, songs, handicrafts, designs, and rituals. Very diverse fields of laws were relevant for this research, but in the framework of this presentation, the focus was kept on intellectual property. The goal of this presentation was to provide answers to two essential questions. The first question relates to the definition of traditional cultural expressions (I), the second one concerned the reasons underpinning the introduction of this concept in international law (II).



2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 915-938 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Allain ◽  
Robin Hickey

AbstractCurrently there is no clear understanding of the meaning of ‘slavery’ in modern international law. While generally it is accepted that the authoritative definition of slavery is provided by Article 1 of the Slavery Convention 1926, in recent times slavery has been understood in such a wide variety of ways that effectively it is a meaningless term. This paper reflects on this interpretation problem and aims to redress this balance by reclaiming the core meaning of the legal definition. It applies property law perspectives to explain the conception of ownership invoked by Article 1, to argue that it remains relevant and to explore how it might be applied in identifying modern cases of slavery.



2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Esperanza Castellanos Ruiz

Resumen: El Reglamento 650/2012 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 4 de julio de 2012, relativo a la competencia, la ley aplicable, el reconocimiento y la ejecución de las resoluciones, a la aceptación y la ejecución de los documentos públicos en materia de sucesiones mortis causa y a la creación de un certificado sucesorio europeo ha venido a unificar las soluciones tan dispares de Derecho internacional privado que existían en el ámbito de la Unión Europea en materia sucesoria. Reconociendo el esfuerzo de los Estados miembros por coordinar la unificación de las normas de Derecho internacional privado en este área, su aplicación no está exenta de problemas con otras materias que afectan directamente a la regulación de la sucesión de una persona, como sucede, por ejemplo, con la regulación de los derechos reales que pueden afectar a los bienes de la masa hereditaria. Partiendo de que no existe una unificación de las normas de Derecho internacional privado en materia de transmisión de la propiedad de los bienes y de los derechos reales, en general, reconocidos por los distintos Estados miembros se pueden plantear muchos problemas teniendo en cuenta la existencia de un numerus clausus de derechos reales y los distintos sistemas de inscripción registral contemplados para la adquisición de tales derechos reales. Los artículos 1 y 23 del Reglamento sucesorio intentan solucionar este conflicto. Representan las dos caras de una misma moneda pues regulan el ámbito de aplicación de la lex successionis en sentido negativo y en sentido positivo, respectivamente. Por un lado, el artículo 1 recoge las cuestiones excluidas del ámbito de aplicación del Reglamento y, por otro lado, el artículo 23 recoge las cuestiones incluidas en su ámbito de aplicación. Sin embargo, la colisión se plantea en relación con la aplicación de la lex rei sitae a determinadas cuestiones sucesorias que están incluidas en el ámbito de aplicación de la lex succesionis a las que hay que aplicar cumulativamente la dos Leyes. Así, la Ley sucesoria regula la transmisión a los herederos, y en su caso, a los legatarios, de los bienes que integran la herencia, según recoge la letra e) del artículo 23.2, y las letras k) y l) del artículo 1.2, excluyen de la aplicación de la ley sucesoria la naturaleza de los derechos reales y cualquier inscripción de derechos sobre bienes muebles o inmuebles en un registro; cuestiones que, en la mayoría de los casos, quedan sometidas a la lex rei sitae o lex registrationis. Este conflicto de leyes es lo que ha provocado la primera decisión del TJUE sobre el Reglamento sucesorio: Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, Sala Segunda, de 12 de octubre de 2017: Kubicka.Palabras clave: Sucesión internacional, lex successionis, lex rei sitae, lex registrationis, ámbito de la ley aplicable, derechos reales, derechos de propiedad, legatum per vindicationem y per damnationem.Abstract: Regulation (EU) no. 650/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 4 July2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession is one of the most important results hitherto achieved for codifying private international law which the European Union. Recognizing the effort of the Member States to coordinate the unification of the rules of private international law in this area, its application is not exempt from problems with other areas that directly affect the regulation of the succession of a person, as happens for example with the regulation of property law that may affect the inheritance assets. Recognition of foreign property law may create problems in light of a Member State’s numerus clausus of property rights and differing land registration regimes. The study of the matters governed by the lex successionis, listed in article 23.2 ESR, must be done taking into account article 1.2 ESR, setting out the issues which are excluyed from the lex successionis scope. Often the exclusion or inclusion of particular matters from or within the scope of application of the lex successionis are two sides of the same coin. In other words, article 1.2 ESR governs the scope of application in a negative sense and article 23.2 ESR in a positive sense. However, the collision arises in relation to the application of the lex rei sitae to certain inheritance questions that are included in the scope of application of lex successionis to which the two Acts must be applied cumulatively. This is what happens with the regulation by lex successionis of the transfer to the heirs and, as the case may be, to the legatees of the assets, rights and obligations forming part of the estate, including the conditions and effects of the acceptance or waiver of the succession or of a legacy, according to letter e) of art. 23.2, bearing in mind that the letters k) and l) of art. 1.2, exclude from the application of the succession law the nature of rights in rem; and any recording in a register of rights in immovable or movable property, including the legal requirements for such recording, and the effects of recording or failing to record such rights in a register; issues that, in most cases, are subject to the lex rei sitae or lex registrationis. This conflict of laws is what led to the first decision of the CJEU on the Succession Regulation: Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Second Chamber, of October 12, 2017: Kubicka.Keywords: International succession, lex successionis, lex rei sitae, lex registrationis, the scope of the aplicable law, rights in rem, property rights, legatum per vindicationem y per damnationem 



Author(s):  
Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan

This chapter turns to the various approaches for addressing overlaps and resolving conflicts previously summarized. A range of specific conflict rules, the general conflict of norm principles referred to in the ILC Fragmentation Report, as well as alternatives such as conflict-of-laws concepts and the substantive law method are explored and applied to the rule relations assessed throughout prior chapters. The chapter then offers a birds-eye perspective on the relations within the international intellectual property (IP) system, those to alternative systems for protecting IP assets in international law, and to other global legal orders that interface the protection of IP. This perspective cannot claim to be objective and of course does not offer any sort of absolute truth. However, the chapter attempts to present this perspective as one that goes beyond the traditional realm of ‘international intellectual property law’ and truly engages with other rule systems in international law.



2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 311-312
Author(s):  
Rochelle Dreyfuss

I would like to thank the American Society of International Law for asking me to convene the Fifth Annual Detlev F. Vagts Roundtable on Transnational Law. When I was chosen back in 2019, I was very pleased to learn that the Society and the Vagts family were interested in hearing about international intellectual property law. As it has turned out, that choice was prescient. Given the current pressure to find and rapidly distribute treatments and vaccines to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, intellectual property rights have become a major focus of international concern. On the one hand, these rights encourage innovation. However exclusivity can also raise costs and pose obstacles to widespread distribution of the fruits of technological progress.



1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 376-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
FG Fechner

The law of cultural property is primarily based on the interests of the states concerned. If a cultural object is of high monetary or identificatory value, states will contest the ownership, and many of these cases are resolved by compromise. If a cultural object is of less monetary or identificatory value, states often neglect its preservation. Yet the law for protection of cultural property should not only be a method for the arbitration of national interests but should also take into account the interests of humankind in general, including preservation of the object in its original context, public accessibility, and the scientific, historic and aesthetic interests that can be associated with an object. While some states are unable to protect their cultural heritage, especially in times of war, public international law does not prevent a state from destroying its cultural heritage. Cultural heritage law is developing rapidly, and national laws and international conventions are in the process of creation. At this time, the author posits, it is therefore necessary to consider the reasons for the protection of cultural objects.



Author(s):  
Wian Erlank

Elsewhere in "Rethinking Terra Nullius and Property in Space", I have argued that due to the changing circumstances of access to space by private entities rather than governments, the current legal situation with regard to ownership in space should be reconsidered. As it stands, ownership in space is governed by international law and currently private and even national ownership of celestial bodies is prohibited.While (controversially) arguing for the recognition of private ownership in space, I constantly have to field questions surrounding the pragmatic assertion that since international law and United Nations treaties and conventions prohibit ownership in space, there can be no development that will allow for this. Hence, while not abandoning my purely property law-oriented arguments for recognising private ownership in and on celestial bodies, I will maintain my arguments for property rights in space and analyse a number of differing options available to private entities who would like to acquire property rights in space. As such, I purposefully avoid the maligned terminology of "ownership", and rather look at various other options that still give the intrepid celestial entrepreneur some sort of property right, or even a property-like protection of their interests in space. Some examples include concessions, mining licences, prospecting rights, and certain contractual rights that could benefit from property-like protection.The thesis is that even if ownership of celestial objects is not accepted due to the existence of various problematic dogmatic viewpoints, one would still be able to achieve much the same effect by using other property mechanisms. 



2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
JONATHAN W KUYPER

AbstractThis article analyses how, and under what conditions, a systemically-pluralist structure of international law provides a springboard for global democratization. I argue that contestation and deliberation – core values of democracy – can and do arise within systemic pluralism. Specifically, I contend that institutional heterarchy between legal orders and forum shopping by different actors provide a means to engender these democratic values. I maintain that democratization can be sought on both horizontal and vertical planes: the former being the sphere of multilateral negotiations; the latter being governance which links individuals directly to sites of public power. In making this argument, I analyse recent developments within global intellectual property law, establishing and treating the multiple jurisdictions in this issue-space as an instantiation of systemic pluralism. This article thus provides a normative strategy for ongoing democratization of international law. Systemic pluralism must still prove its merits in terms of stability, the rule of law, and other values. However, I provide a method to advance transnational democracy that takes seriously empirical realities and competing normative visions.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document