scholarly journals WYBRANE ZAGADNIENIA WŁASNOŚCI ZABYTKÓW I DZIEŁ SZTUKI W PRAWIE PRL-U

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicja Jagielska-Burduk
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
The Public ◽  
Common Heritage ◽  
Works Of Art ◽  
The Common

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.

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
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Property ◽  
Commercial Code ◽  
Paleontological Heritage ◽  
Recent Reform ◽  
Regulatory Powers

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.

Immaterial cultural property and the private owner: how copyright and trade law might address access and preservation

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 262-281
Author(s):  
Susan Corbett
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Property A ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trade Law

Private owners of culturally significant works are legally entitled to refuse to permit third parties, including cultural heritage institutions (CHIs), to access those works. This situation is particularly problematic for CHIs when the cultural works at issue are immaterial works that are supported on unstable physical platforms, such as cellulose acetate film, cellulose tapes or early computer software. Ideally, these cultural works should undergo urgent digital preservation processes in order to preserve and protect the public interest in accessing its cultural heritage. If property is culturally important, a private owner's ability to withhold it from third party access may conflict with the human right to participate in cultural life, as affirmed in international human rights law. Noting however that human rights law also provides that ‘no-one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property’, a balance between the property rights of the owner and the public interest in culture is essential. This article proposes amendments to copyright law and domestic trade law as possible ways to provide this balance. This article focuses on New Zealand law and its earliest immaterial cultural works, but the arguments could be extended to other cultural works and to other jurisdictions.

The Art of Decolonization: The Battle for Algeria’s French Art, 1962–70

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 625-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Bellisari
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
Post Colonial ◽  
Works Of Art ◽  
French Art ◽  
The Common ◽  
Nationalist Government

In May 1962 French museum administrators removed over 300 works of art from the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Algiers and transported them, under military escort, to the Louvre in Paris. The artwork, however, no longer belonged to France. Under the terms of the Evian Accords it had become the official property of the Algerian state-to-be and the incoming nationalist government wanted it back. This article will examine not only the French decision to act in contravention of the Evian Accords and the ensuing negotiations that took place between France and Algeria, but also the cultural complexities of post-colonial restitution. What does it mean for artwork produced by some of France’s most iconic artists – Monet, Delacroix, Courbet – to become the cultural property of a former colony? Moreover, what is at stake when a former colony demands the repatriation of artwork emblematic of the former colonizer, deeming it a valuable part of the nation’s cultural heritage? The negotiations undertaken to repatriate French art to Algeria expose the kinds of awkward cultural refashioning precipitated by the process of decolonization and epitomizes the lingering connections of colonial disentanglement that do not fit neatly into the common narrative of the ‘end of empire'.

scholarly journals The Principle of Sustainable Development as the Basis for Weighing the Public Interest and Individual Interest in the Scope of the Cultural Heritage Protection Law in the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 3985
Author(s):  
Adam Kozień
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Individual Interest ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Environmental Aspect ◽  
The Public

The concept of sustainable development is widely used, especially in social, environmental and economic aspects. The principle of sustainable development was derived from the concept of sustainable development, which appears in legal terms at the international, EU, national and local levels. Today, the value of cultural heritage that should be legally protected is indicated. A problematic issue may be the clash in this respect of the public interest related to the protection of heritage with the individual interest, expressed, e.g., in the ownership of cultural heritage designates. During the research, scientific methods that are used in legal sciences were used: theoretical–legal, formal–dogmatic, historical–legal methods, as well as the method of criticism of the literature, and legal inferences were also used. The analyses were carried out on the basis of the interdisciplinary literature on the subject, as well as international, EU and national legal acts—sources of the generally applicable law. Research has shown that the interdisciplinary principle of sustainable development, especially from the perspective of the social and auxiliary environmental aspect, may be the basis for weighing public and individual interests in the area of legal protection of cultural heritage in the European Union. It was also indicated that it is possible in the situation of treating the principle of sustainable development in terms of Dworkin’s “policies” and allows its application not only at the level of European Union law (primary and secondary), but also at the national legal orders of the European Union Member States.

scholarly journals The influence of common property rights on forest management policy: a case study in Sardinia region, Italy

2012 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Paletto ◽  
Isabella De Meo ◽  
Fabrizio Ferretti
Keyword(s):  
Forest Management ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Local Development ◽  
Management Policy ◽  
Private Forests ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common

Abstract The property rights and the type of ownership (private owners, public domain and commons) are two fundamental concepts in relationship to the local development and to the social and environmental sustainability. Common forests were established in Europe since the Middle Ages, but over the centuries the importance of commons changed in parallel with economic and social changes. In recent decades, the scientific debate focused on the forest management efficiency and sustainability of this type of ownership in comparison to the public and private property. In Italy common forests have a long tradition with substantial differences in the result of historical evolution in various regions. In Sardinia region the private forests are 377.297 ha, the public forests are 201.324 ha, while around 120.000 ha are commons. The respect of the common rights changed in the different historical periods. Today, the common lands are managed directly by municipalities or indirectly through third parties, in both cases the involvement of members of community is very low. The main objective of the paper is to analyse forest management differences in public institutions with and without common property rights. To achieve the objective of the research the forest management preferences of community members and managers were evaluated and compared. The analysis was realized through the use of the principal-agent model and it has been tested in a case study in Sardinia region (Arci-Grighine district). The analysis of the results showed that the categories of actors considered (members of community, municipalities and managers) have a marked productive profile, but municipalities manage forests perceiving a moderate multifunctionality. Moreover, the representatives of the municipalities pay more attention to the interests of the collectivity in comparison to the external managers. They also attribute high importance to environmental and social forest functions.

Actions on the case for nuisance

2019 ◽  
pp. 640-668
Author(s):  
John Baker
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common

This chapter shows how actions on the case were used both to supplant the assize of nuisance and to provide remedies for types of nuisance not within the assize. The King’s Bench allowed case to overlap with the assize, but this was opposed by the Common Pleas until 1601, when the King’s Bench view prevailed. The assize was chiefly concerned with easements and profits. But there were new difficulties over the extent to which neighbours had to put up with disagreeable activities and processes which disturbed their comfort. These were discussed in a case of 1569 concerning ancient lights in London, and in a leading case of 1629 concerning the use of sea-coal by a London brewery. The 1629 case seems to have resulted in judicial deadlock, but the judges agreed on the principle of ‘necessity’, meaning that activities which were desirable in the public interest should be protected.

Privacy in the 21st Century

2015 ◽  
pp. 1638-1652
Author(s):  
Panagiotis Kitsos ◽  
Aikaterini Yannoukakou
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Focal Point ◽  
Personal Information ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
Patriot Act ◽  
The Public ◽  
Personal Data Protection ◽  
The Common

The events of 9/11 along with the bombarding in Madrid and London forced governments to resort to new structures of privacy safeguarding and electronic surveillance under the common denominator of terrorism and transnational crime fighting. Legislation as US PATRIOT Act and EU Data Retention Directive altered fundamentally the collection, processing and sharing methods of personal data, while it granted increased powers to police and law enforcement authorities concerning their jurisdiction in obtaining and processing personal information to an excessive degree. As an aftermath of the resulted opacity and the public outcry, a shift is recorded during the last years towards a more open governance by the implementation of open data and cloud computing practices in order to enhance transparency and accountability from the side of governments, restore the trust between the State and the citizens, and amplify the citizens' participation to the decision-making procedures. However, privacy and personal data protection are major issues in all occasions and, thus, must be safeguarded without sacrificing national security and public interest on one hand, but without crossing the thin line between protection and infringement on the other. Where this delicate balance stands, is the focal point of this paper trying to demonstrate that it is better to be cautious with open practices than hostage of clandestine practices.

Antitrust as Public Interest Law: Redistribution, Equity, and Social Justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-101
Author(s):  
Dina I. Waked
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Allocative Efficiency ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Interest Law ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
History Of ◽  
Do So

This article proposes the use of antitrust law to reduce poverty and address inequality. It argues that the antitrust laws are sufficiently malleable to achieve such goals. The current focus of antitrust on the efficiency-only goals does not only lead to increasing inequality further but is also inconsistent with the history of antitrust. This history is presented through the lens of the public interest that emerges into the balance between private property and competition policy. Tracing the public interest at different historical moments, we get to see how it has been broad enough to encompass social welfare concerns. Over time, the public interest concern of antitrust was narrowed to exclusively cover consumer welfare and its allocative efficiency. Once we frame antitrust as public interest law, in its broadest sense, we are empowered to use it to address inequality. A proposal to do so is exposed in this article.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document