scholarly journals Public Property in Australia and Russia: The Concept and the Role of the Constitution

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-52
Author(s):  
Vladimir Nizov
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Law System ◽  
Public Property ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Legal Understanding ◽  
Property Regimes

The modern democratic state embodies the concept of the state as a service. For this reason, the administration of public property is one of the major issues related to the efficiency of public authority. Common law countries and post-Soviet countries have completely different legal explanations and bases for public property. This article takes a comparative approach, showing similarities and differences in the public property regimes in these two systems.This article investigates why the two systems have different approaches to public property issues and how the differing experiences result in differing implementation. Australia and Russia have been chosen as examples of a common law system and the post-Soviet system, respectively. In addition to property regimes, this paper also discusses federalism issues.An analysis of these countries’ historical development permits a significant enhancement of the philosophical and legal understanding of property, especially public property. Protection of private property in Russia was very strong by 19th century standards. However, the Russian Empire fell behind in questions of public property compared to its protection of private property, and also compared to other systems outside of Russia. Some aspects of dealing with the most critical natural resources expand public property regulation issues into the constitutional sphere. Public property issues need constitutional justification in both Australia and Russia. However, Russia has constitutional provisions that provide the categories of property rights existing in its domestic law, while a great deal of effort was required in Australia to create the constitutional basis for water resources administration.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HAK PATEN (Studi Komparatif Lingkup Perlindungan di Berbagai Negara)

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 697
Author(s):  
Sutarman Yodo
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
Law System ◽  
United State ◽  
The Difference

AbstractThe differences of the legal system that patent scope protection in various countries, not only importing for new investment but determine the process of transfers of the technology of a state. Widespread protection cause transfers of technology become not easy eventhought less protection cause patent owner quit being lost. Both difference intention results in the need of comparative study on protection scope of the patent in countries. There are two problems should be explored, first what is the difference and similarity scope patent protection in the state's regulation and the second how legal system influenced to the differ occurrence? These problems used research methods that are statute approach and comparative approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. Result research found patent protection in Europe countries, United State, Japan, and Indonesia had similarity in protection requirement regulated such novelty, inventive step, and industrial applied. However, United State protection base on first to invent meanwhile other state based on first to file. Then scope of patent protection there has Germany applied the widest protection, then United State, and Japan, then Netherland. Mean England as the limited protection country. The difference patent protection is influenced by the legal system such common law that more referred to the precedent than civil law system with its codification. Germany is the only one country applied rigid codification on patent protection. Means, Indonesia formulated the of patent protection that is still limited related to the limited cases resolved in court. Keywords: Patent Right, Scope Protection, Comparative Law.AbstrakPerbedaan sistem hukum perlindungan lingkup paten di berbagai negara, tidak hanya mengimpor investasi baru namun juga menentukan proses transfer teknologi suatu negara. Perlindungan yang meluas menyebabkan transfer teknologi menjadi tidak mudah walaupun kurangnya perlindungan karena pemilik paten mengalami kerugian. Kedua perbedaan niat tersebut menghasilkan perlunya studi komparatif tentang cakupan perlindungan paten di negara-negara. Ada dua masalah yang harus dijajaki, pertama apa perbedaan dan kesamaan cakupan perlindungan paten dalam peraturan negara dan yang kedua bagaimana sistem hukum mempengaruhi kejadian yang berbeda? Masalah ini akan menggunakan metode penelitian pendekatan statuta menyeluruh dan pendekatan komparatif, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian menemukan perlindungan paten di negara-negara Eropa, Amerika Serikat, Jepang, dan Indonesia memiliki kesamaan dalam persyaratan proteksi yang mengatur hal baru, langkah inventif, dan penerapan industri. Namun, perlindungan di Amerika Serikat pada awalnya untuk menciptakan sementara basis negara lain berdasarkan berkas pertama. Kemudian ruang lingkup proteksi paten di sana telah ada Jerman menerapkan proteksi terluas, kemudian Amerika Serikat, dan Jepang, lalu Belanda. Berarti Inggris sebagai negara perlindungan terbatas. Perbedaan proteksi paten dipengaruhi oleh sistem hukum common law yang lebih mengacu pada precedent daripada civil law dengan kodifikasinya. Jerman adalah satu-satunya negara yang menerapkan kodifikasi yang kaku terhadap perlindungan paten. Berarti, Indonesia merumuskan cakupan proteksi paten yang masih terbatas yang terkait dengan terbatasnya kasus yang diselesaikan di pengadilan. Kata kunci: Hak Paten, Perlindungan Ruang Lingkup, Hukum Komparatif

scholarly journals PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN MUTLAK (STRICT LIABILITY) DALAM HUKUM PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ratna Artha Windari
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Law System ◽  
Common Law System ◽  
Civil Law System

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui konsep pertanggungjawaban mutlak (strict liability) dalam sistem common law dan civil law, serta bentuk pertanggungjawaban mutlak (strict liability) dalam hukum perlindungan konsumen di Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan jenis penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perbandingan (comparative approach) dan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan (statute approach). Pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui studi pustaka dan studi dokumen. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa dalam common law system, strict liability merupakan transformasi dari pertanggungjawaban atas dasar perjanjian (contractual liability), yang sama sekali tidak mensyaratkan adanya unsur kesalahan, sedangkan konsep pertanggungjawaban dalam civil law system keberadaan unsur kesalahan masih terkandung didalamnya, akan tetapi dilakukan pengalihan beban pembuktian unsur kesalahan tersebut dari penggugat kepada tergugat (shifting the burden of proof). Bentuk pertanggungjawaban dalam hukum perlindungan konsumen di Indonesia berdasarkan Undang-undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen menganut strict liability sebagai derivasi dari pertanggungjawaban berdasarkan perbuatan melawan hukum (tortious liability), dimana terjadi pengalihan beban pembuktian kesalahan dari konsumen kepada pelaku usaha. Kata Kunci: Strict liability, perlindungan konsumen.

scholarly journals Peran Yurisprudensi dalam Sistem Hukum di Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Simanjuntak
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Civil Law System

Karakteristik sistem hukum common law adalah hukum yang berorientasi kepada kasus (case-law), sedangkan sistem civil law, hukum berorientasi kepada undang-undang (codified-law). Namun peraturan perundang-undangan sebagai basis legalitas hukum dalam tradisi Rechtstaats, memiliki keterbatasan tersendiri. Peraturan perundang-undangan tidak pernah mengatur secara lengkap dan detail bagaimana pemenuhan aturan hukum dalam setiap peristiwa hukum, oleh karenanya yurisprudensi lah yang akan melengkapinya. Selain untuk mengisi kekosongan hukum, yurisprudensi merupakan instrumen hukum dalam rangka menjaga kepastian hukum. Tulisan ini berusaha mengkaji kedudukan yurisprudensi dikaitkan dengan tugas dan fungsi MK sebagai pengawal konstitusi, bukan sebagai penegak undang-undang. Metode analisis yang digunakan adalah studi pustaka dengan pendekatan perbandingan. Kesimpulan yang didapat dalam penelitian ini adalah bahwa yurisprudensi merupakan salah satu sumber hukum yang penting dalam tradisi civil law. Setiap diskursus tentang yurisprudensi dalam tradisi civil law mengisyaratkan bahwa tradisi civil law mengakui hukum selain yang tertuang dalam bentuk undang-undang, juga terdapat hukum yang bersumber dari hukum hakim (judge made law) (rechtstersrecht) yang lebih dikenal dengan nama yurisprudensi (jurisprudentierecht).The characteristics of the common law legal system are case-law, whereas the civil law system, the law is codified-law. However, legislation as the basis of legal legality in the tradition of Rechtstaats, has its own limitations. Legislation never regulates in full and detail how compliance with the laws in every legal circumtances, therefore it is jurisprudence that will complement it. In addition to filling a legal vacuum, jurisprudence is a key legal instrument in order to maintain legal certainty. This paper seeks to examine the position of jurisprudence associated with the duties and functions of the Constitutional Court as a guardian of the constitution, not merely as statute enforcement. The analytical method used is a literature study with a comparative approach. The conclusion obtained in this study is that jurisprudence is an important source of law in the civil law tradition. Any discourse on jurisprudence in the civil law tradition implies that the civil law tradition recognizes law other than those contained in statutes, there is also a law that comes from judge made law (rechtstersrecht) better known as jurisprudence (jurisprudentierecht).

Reconciling Rights and Obligations

2003 ◽  
Vol 20 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 140-172
Author(s):  
Pernille Ironside
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Common Law ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Northern Nigeria ◽  
Law System ◽  
Constitutional Legality ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Criminal Matters

This article examines the debate concerning the recent reinstatement of Shari`ah law with respect to criminal matters in Northern Nigeria. The discussion explores the inherent challenges in reconciling the equally entrenched and passionate views of pro-Shari`ah supporters on their right to freedom of religion with those that question its application in terms of human rights norms and obligations, and its constitutional legality. The analysis concludes that Shari`ah laws can coexist with Nigeria’s common law system and remain relevant in the context of Islam, provided that its principles are adapted and modernized to comport with international standards for due process and are interpreted and applied consistently.

Common Law Constitutionalism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Profession ◽  
Legal Institutions ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common Law System

This chapter shows how common law pleading, the use of common law vocabulary, and substantive common law rules lay at the foundation of every colony’s law by the middle of the eighteenth century. There is some explanation of how this common law system functioned in practice. The chapter then discusses why colonials looked upon the common law as a repository of liberty. It also discusses in detail the development of the legal profession individually in each of the thirteen colonies. Finally, the chapter ends with a discussion of the role of legislation. It shows that, although legislation had played an important role in the development of law and legal institutions in the seventeenth century, eighteenth-century Americans were suspicious of legislation, with the result that the output of pre-Revolutionary legislatures was minimal.

Cold-War Commons: Tragedy, Critique, and the Future of the Illiberal Problem Space

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 457-488
Author(s):  
Monica Eppinger
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Problem Space ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Social Theories ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Political Dimensions ◽  
A Site ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Property Regimes

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document