Equità, efficienza e diritti di proprietà

1989 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-190
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Clerico

Abstract Because of the market failures private property rights not always are such to obtain socially acceptable outcomes through the exchange. To guarantee social welfare the policy maker usually limits the property rights. Such limitations concern: the existence of the private property rights in itself; the right of transferring and exchanging the above mentioned; the right of discretionary use of the private property.The restrictions to private property rights are motivated by efficiency and equity. On the efficiency side the public policy can be set up by three reasons: presence of externalities; existence of imperfect information; difficulties to coordinate economic activity and exchange.Efficiency and equity are obviously affected by any restriction of the property rights. We face the fact that often the equity aim is not a universal aim but instead a particular one restricted to some social group. On the equity side public policy claims its right to intervene particularly when the right holder earns pure profits limitative of the consumer welfare and exploits his market power.Any restriction to private property rights is either a source of benefits for people not paying the relative cost or a cause of cost for people not enjoying any benefit. Ideally it would be necessary either to levy a tax or to give a subsidy in order to bring back the initial welfare conditions. This rarely happens above all because of tangled effects and transaction costs.

2020 ◽  
pp. 57-64
Author(s):  
L.D. Rudenko ◽  
O.L. Orlov

The article has substantiated the process of the de facto replacement of the right of private property by the rights of use; distinguished stages in the development of the private property institution in Ukraine; specified grounds for the emergence and termination of the right of private property and the rights of use; refined sense and scope of responsibility of the private owner and the holder;identified the main instrument of substitution of the right of private property by the rights of use; traced preconditions for passing inconsistent judgements on property protection by the ECHR; and analyzed possible consequences of further substitution of the right of private property by the rights of use. Regard to findings of the study it was considered about instability of the private property institution; identity between unofficial grounds for the termination of the right of private property and unofficial grounds for the emergence of the rights of use; existence of the direct threat to owner status in Ukraine; absence of legal grounds for increasing the sense of owner responsibility, including taxation of the private property; transformation of the feudal law into the modern rights of use combined with the right of possession; possibility of establishing a real type of polity and prospects for its development by ways of regulation of the ownership relations. The article has also considered about creating preconditions for restoring the feudal law and replacing democratic polity by a monarchy in Ukraine and other countries owing to severe restrictions on the right of private property, above all, through taxation of the privateproperty, and its de facto replacementby the rights of use.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-425
Author(s):  
Tamar Megiddo ◽  
Eyal Benvenisti

AbstractThis Article examines the authority of states to settle individual private property claims in post–conflict negotiations towards settlement. We analyze this question by exploring the limits of states’ authority to take or limit private property rights for the public good. We argue that this authority rests on two cumulative justifications: the inclusion of the property owners among the public that stands to benefit from the public good, and their representation by the government that decides on the taking of the property. In post–conflict settlement, the negotiating states may redistribute both private property and the public good between and within their respective communities. Their authority to redistribute continues to rests on the same justifications of inclusion and representation. Hence, their authority extends only to the redistribution of property of owners who are members of the respective communities that negotiate the agreement, and who are represented by a negotiating government.


Author(s):  
Dian Khoreanita Pratiwi ◽  

The state is responsible for protecting the entire Indonesian nation through the implementation of housing and settlement areas so that people are able to live and live in decent and affordable houses in a healthy, safe, harmonious and sustainable environment throughout Indonesia. Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution stipulates that everyone has the right to live in physical and spiritual prosperity, to have a place to live, and to have a good and healthy environment and have the right to obtain health services. Then Article 28H paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution states that everyone has the right to have private property rights and these property rights may not be taken over arbitrarily by anyone. The research method used is empirical juridical research, which is to see the extent of the government's ability to provide housing for the poor. As for the results of the research, that the implementation of government programs in meeting housing needs for the poor, where the government has launched several programs, which include the construction of flats, special houses, assistance for the construction of infrastructure, facilities and utilities, housing financing assistance, and self-help housing stimulus assistance. Even though there have been many programs, not all residents have a decent place to live.


Google Rules ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 65-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Elizabeth Gray

This chapter provides an examination of Google’s US copyright case law, covering disputes over Google’s use, without permission, of copyrighted content in Google Search, Google Images, Google Books, YouTube, and its phone operating system Android. When resolving Google’s copyright disputes, US courts have considered the public benefits of Google’s services and have exhibited a willingness to limit private property rights in favor of the public interest in accessing information and content. These decisions have legitimized Google’s activities, and they have gifted Google private gains that fuel its information empire.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-448
Author(s):  
Yavuz Guloglu

Zoning plans are drawn and written texts prepared as a result of planning activities according to the characteristics of the region in order to meet the social, cultural, human and economic needs of a settlement and to show a safer and more regular development of the place. The property rights of individuals can be restricted by means of the plans prepared by the administration to create livable, orderly and modern living spaces. While the zoning plans are being prepared, the immovables allocated for public services should first be selected from public lands and if these immovables are not sufficient for the places to be allocated to the public service areas, the immovables subject to private property should be allocated to the public service and these areas should be expropriated by the administrations to be allocated on their behalf. The Zoning Law No. 3194 in Turkey is the basic regulation of the zoning law. In the Zoning Law, there is a regulation that the parcels allocated to public services in the zoning plans will be expropriated within five years. However, if the expropriation of the immovables is not completed within the time specified in the legal regulation, the owner who is deprived of his right to dispose of the immovable, is unfairly burdened with a heavy burden. The concept of "legal confiscation" emerges when the property right of the owner of the immovable is restricted for many years only by allocating privately owned immovables to public space in the zoning plans without any actual intervention by the administration. Since the administrations responsible for expropriation mostly avoid this obligation, the procedures established by the administration for planning constitute a disproportionate and unfair intervention in the property rights of the immovable owners. In this study, the definition of the concept of legal confiscation in Turkey, its elements, the remedies for ending the interference with the right to property will be explained, the procedures and principles to be considered during the judgement will be explained by giving examples from the judicial case-law and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and solution proposals will be presented.Keywords: Legal Confiscation; Construction Plan; Property; Contravention Tuntutan Hukum sebagai Permasalah Hak Properti di Turki Abstrak.Undang-undang Zonasi No. 3194 di Turki adalah peraturan dasar dari undang-undang zonasi. Dalam UU Zonasi, ada aturan bahwa persil yang dialokasikan untuk layanan publik dalam rencana zonasi akan diambil alih dalam waktu lima tahun. Akan tetapi, jika pengambilalihan barang-barang tidak bergerak itu tidak selesai dalam waktu yang ditentukan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan, maka pemilik yang dirampas haknya untuk membuang barang-barang tidak bergerak itu, dibebani secara tidak adil dengan beban yang berat. Konsep "sita hukum" muncul ketika hak milik pemilik barang tidak bergerak dibatasi selama bertahun-tahun hanya dengan mengalokasikan barang-barang milik pribadi ke ruang publik dalam rencana zonasi tanpa intervensi nyata dari pemerintah. Karena sebagian besar administrasi yang bertanggung jawab atas pengambilalihan menghindari kewajiban ini, prosedur yang ditetapkan oleh administrasi untuk perencanaan merupakan intervensi yang tidak proporsional dan tidak adil dalam hak milik pemilik tak bergerak. Dalam penelitian ini akan dijelaskan pengertian dari konsep sita hukum di Turki, unsur-unsurnya, upaya penyelesaian untuk mengakhiri campur tangan terhadap hak milik akan dijelaskan, prosedur dan prinsip-prinsip yang harus dipertimbangkan selama penilaian akan dijelaskan dengan memberikan contoh-contoh dari kasus hukum peradilan dan keputusan Pengadilan Hak Asasi Manusia Eropa, dan proposal solusi akan disajikan.Kata Kunci: Penyitaan Hukum; Rencana Pembangunan; Properti; Kontravensi Юридическая конфискация как проблема права собственности в Турции Абстрактный.Закон о зонировании № 3194 в Турции является основным постановлением закона о зонировании. В Законе о зонировании есть положение, согласно которому участки, выделенные для общественных услуг в планах зонирования, будут экспроприированы в течение пяти лет. Однако, если отчуждение недвижимой вещи не завершено в сроки, указанные в правовом регулировании, на собственника, лишенного права распоряжаться недвижимой вещью, несправедливо возлагается тяжелое бремя. Понятие «юридическая конфискация» возникает, когда право собственности владельца недвижимой вещи ограничивается в течение многих лет только путем отнесения частной недвижимой собственности к общественным местам в планах зонирования без какого-либо фактического вмешательства со стороны администрации. Поскольку администрации, ответственные за экспроприацию, в большинстве случаев избегают этого обязательства, процедуры, установленные администрацией для планирования, представляют собой несоразмерное и несправедливое вмешательство в имущественные права владельцев недвижимого имущества. В этом исследовании будет объяснено определение концепции правовой конфискации в Турции, ее элементы, средства правовой защиты для прекращения вмешательства в право собственности, а также будут объяснены процедуры и принципы, которые должны быть рассмотрены в ходе судебного решения, с помощью примеров из будет представлена судебная практика и решения Европейского суда по правам человека, а также предложения по их решениям.Ключевые слова: Конфискация; План Строительства; Собственность; Правонарушение


Author(s):  
Stuart White

This chapter discusses three liberal philosophies of ownership: right libertarianism, which advocates an expansive conception of private property and which holds that legitimate and strict rights to such property can emerge through the voluntary production and exchange of self-owning individuals on the basis of initial privatizations of external resources that can be very unequal but nevertheless just; left libertarianism, which modifies the right libertarian position by insisting on a (more) egalitarian initial distribution of external resources; and democratic liberalism, which makes all property rights subject to democratic judgements guided by principles of social justice which express an understanding of citizens’ common good. The chapter discusses the implications of each philosophy for cooperatives and mutuals and for the place of public policy in promoting these kinds of enterprises and related institutions.


1983 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Mack

An ongoing tension exists within the Lockean tradition in political philosophy between the claim that each individual is the “Proprietor of his own Person” and the claim that nature is “that which God gave to Mankind in common.” The former claim points to a realm of discrete individual entitlements only formally equal in the sense of each individual having jurisdiction over his own person and not over any other person, while the latter points either to a collective entitlement to nature or to individual entitlements to substantively equal shares of nature. Were the two realms, that of persons and that of extra-personal nature, separate and independent, no tension would arise from the union of these two claims. But the realms are manifestly interconnected. Individuals acquire, use, labor upon, invest their time and energy on, and transform, more or less in accordance with their purposes, elements of extra-personal nature. And Locke and his followers believe that at least certain of these interactions with segments of nature give rise to individual property rights to the segments thereby appropriated, labored upon, transformed, or whatever. The traditional bridging notion is each person's right to his own labor which is seen as part of each person's proprietorship over himself. According to this tradition, if the right of each individual over his own person is to be respected, individual titles to appropriated, labored upon, or transformed nature must also be respected.The task for anyone seeking to embrace all the strands within this Lockean heritage is to reconcile, a) this right to one's own labor and the (or some) system of private property rights tied to it (which system will include historical entitlement principles for legitimating later property configurations) plus the right of self-ownership (or some equivalent) which lies behind the right to one's own labor, with b) some distributionist ideal, at least with regard to natural resources.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document