The Justification of Property Rights

Author(s):  
J. E Penner

This chapter concerns the justification of property rights, and makes the argument that we do have ‘natural’ or ‘pre-legal’ rights to the use of things, a kind of usufructory right. The Kantian theory of property rights, most thoroughly and convincingly developed by Arthur Ripstein is discussed in detail. Various aspects of the theory are criticized, in particular Kant’s view of right to appropriate unowned things and his famous ‘assurance’ argument. In explaining his differences with the Kantian theory, the author expounds what has been called an ‘instrumentalist’ view of law in general and property law in particular, a view most closely associated with the private law writings of John Gardner.

Author(s):  
J. E. Penner

This chapter discusses property law. It considers the idea that property had a “nominalist” ontology, and it was in danger of “disintegration” as a working legal category for that very reason. Nominalism about property has had a significant impact in U.S. case law. The concern here, however, is whether it is a helpful stance to take as a theorist of property. The chapter argues that it is not. There are indeed “high” level abstractions about property which one cannot plausibly do without if one is to understand property rights and property law doctrine. Moreover, the “bundle of rights” (BOR) challenge does not assist one in making sense of these abstractions. The chapter then looks at the conceptual failure of BOR and the New Private Law as it relates to property. BOR is generally regarded as being underpinned by what might be called the Hohfeld-Honoré synthesis. The synthesis rests upon a fairly serious mistake, which is that while the Hohfeldian examination of jural norms is analytic if it is anything, Honor’s elaboration of the incidents making up ownership is anything but—it is functional. This means that Honoré describes the situation of the owner not principally in terms of his Hohfeldian powers, duties, and rights vis-à-vis others, but in terms of the social or economic advantages that an owner has by virtue of his position, and the terms and limitations of those advantages.


Author(s):  
Marcin Tomasiewicz

The article aims to present the background of changes in the transition from medieval fief property to more individualized modern model. Conciliarism is considered to be an important factor supporting these changes. The conciliarist idea was presented on the basis of De squaloribus Curiae Romanae by Matthew from Cracow. Fiefdom ownership has been characterized as a legal construct where private legal rights are combined with the prerogatives of public authority. In turn, modern property resembles more structures known from Roman law, which are characterized by far-reaching sovereignty in disposing of property rights. In the course of the argument, it was shown that the issues determining the changes in the area of private law were the conciliarist ideas, such as the superiority of the Ecumenical council’s authority over the pope, the binding of public authority by law, and the separation of private law from the prerogatives of public authority.


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Sohaib Mukhtar

Protection of trademark in Islamic Law is covered under verses of the Holy Quran and traditions of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Trademark is one of the component of Intellectual Property Law, which is protected under Islamic Law. Islamic law are those teachings which were revealed on the last prophet Muhammad ﷺ, for the betterment of human beings in both worlds. Islamic Law protects rights of an individual whether they are material like property rights or immaterial like Intellectual Property rights. Protection of wealth is one of the Maqasid-ul-Sharia, which is the public right and are fully preserved under an Islamic Law. Almighty Allah says in the Holy Quran that “Do not eat the property of another with unlawful means except with a valid agreement, solemnized with a valid consent from both sides”. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said that he who copies another’s work is not one of us. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ went to Syria as a trader with the wealth of his preceding wife Hazrat Khadija RA. Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Bukhari used to work as traders besides their exceptional works in Fiqh and Hadith. All types of trade and investment activities are valid, legal and protected under Islamic Law unless clearly prohibited by Almighty Allah in the Holy Quran or by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in the Sunnah. The transaction must be clear from Riba/Interest; which is an excess that has no corresponding consideration in exchange of property for property. The subject matter of the transaction must not be uncertain, and the purpose of the transaction and the activities governed under the contract must be legal under the light of the Holy Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Intellectual Property is protected under Islamic Law, which is that area of law, which concerns legal rights, associated with creative efforts, commercial reputation and good will. Intellectual Property Law includes patent for the protection of inventions, copyright for the protection of literary and artistic works and trademark for the protection of marks, signs, words and trade names, which distinguishes goods and services of one undertaking from goods and services of other undertakings, which must be distinctive and non-descriptive because an undescriptive trademark is a unique trademark which is easy to be registered and adhered by the public at large. The purpose of trademark is to provide an opportunity to the public to distinguish goods and services of one undertaking from goods and services of other undertakings and to adhere the source of goods and services. Trademark is protected under Islamic Law, but it does not allow the right holder to held illegal activities under a legal trademark. The trademark which is protected under Islamic Law is that trademark which is used for the promotion of legitimate goods and services.


2020 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 211-226
Author(s):  
Magdalena Ossowska

The numerus clausus of property rights indicates that a mandatory closed catalogue of property rights exists in a given legal system; the content (method of creation, conveyance, expiration) of a right falling within this closed list is strictly specified and cannot be changed by the parties. In this way, the state consciously limits the activity of the parties in this regard, indicating the socially and legally acceptable types of property rights they can use. An insightful look at the development and explanation of this principle over the centuries and now seems to be necessary with the advancing unification of private law in Europe. The present article discusses the dogmatic basis of the concept of numerus clausus and outlines its history and economic reasoning behind it. Then, the main models of the numerus clausus in European legal orders as well as the functioning of this principle in Polish property law are presented. Subsequently, the strengths and weaknesses of the numerus clausus are examined. This provides us with general conclusions concerning the harmonization of this area of private law.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inggrit Fernandes

Batik artwork is one of the treasures of the nation's cultural heritage. Batik artwork is currently experiencing rapid growth. The amount of interest and market demand for this art resulted batik artwork became one of the commodities in the country and abroad. Thus, if the batik artwork is not protected then the future can be assured of a new conflict arises in the realm of intellectual property law. Act No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright has accommodated artwork batik as one of the creations that are protected by law. So that this work of art than as a cultural heritage also have economic value for its creator. Then how the legal protection of the batik artwork yaang not registered? Does this also can be protected? While in the registration of intellectual property rights is a necessity so that it has the force of law to the work produced


Author(s):  
J. E Penner

Ranging over a host of issues, Property Rights: A Re-Examination pinpoints and addresses a number of theoretical problems at the heart of property theory. Part 1 reconsiders and refutes the bundle of rights picture of property and the related nominalist theories of property, showing that ownership reflects a tripartite structure of title, the right to immediate, exclusive, possession, and the power to licence what would otherwise be a trespass, and to transfer ownership. Part 2 explores in detail the Hohfeldian theory of jural relations, in particular liberties and powers and Hohfeld’s concept of ‘multital’ jural relations, and shows that this theory fails to illuminate the nature of property rights, and indeed obscures much that it is vital to understand about them. Part 3 considers the form and justification of property rights, beginning with the relation an owner’s liberty to use her property and her ‘right to exclude’, with particular reference to the tort of nuisance. Next up for consideration is the Kantian theory of property rights, the deficiencies of which lead us to understand that the only natural right to things is a form of use- or usufructory-right. Part 3 concludes by addressing the ever-vexed question of property rights in land.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-191
Author(s):  
Sabrina Praduroux

Abstract In the late 1950 s René Savatier foretold that the qualification of economic value itself as property (bien) would have been the ultimate evolution of the theory of property rights. This prediction has come true with regard to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU). This paper investigates the implications of the understanding of property developed by the two European Courts on the concept of expropriation itself as well as for the principles governing expropriation law. Hence, the paper illustrates the role played by both the ECtHR and the CJEU in laying down the parameters of legitimacy for national law, including property law. Within this context, the focus falls on cases in which the Courts characterize the facts as deprivation of property requiring for compensation, even though the relevant property could not be the object of expropriation under the domestic law of the defendant State. My contribution brings new insights into the current transformation of the traditional property categories and suggests the reinterpretation of some key concepts of expropriation law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document