What We Learned from Mediated Embodiment Experiments and Why It Should Matter to Policymakers

When people embody a virtual or a robotic avatar, their sense of self extends to the body of that avatar. We argue that, as a consequence, if the avatar gets harmed, the person embodied in that avatar suffers the harm in the first person. Potential scenarios involving physical or psychological harm caused to avatars gives rise to legal, moral, and policy implications that need to be considered by policymakers. We maintain that the prevailing distinction in law between “property” and “person” categories compromises the legal protection of the embodied users. We advocate for the inclusion of robotic and virtual avatars in a double category, property–person, as the property and the person mingle in one: the avatar. This hybrid category is critical to protecting users of mediated embodiment experiences both from potential physical or psychological harm and property damage.

Property, Property Solvency of Spouses and Their Joint Debts

In the Russian legal terminology, the term "property relations" is widely used. However, the category "property" in terms of its constituent elements, due to the absence of its legal definition in the Civil and Family Codes of the Russian Federation, is explained in different scientific contexts. In theory, debts are often named as one of the elements internally forming the property, along with things and property rights, and the relations of common property of spouses are no exception. The prospect of legalization of debts as a structural element of the property of spouses is considered in the draft Federal Law No. 835938-7 that proposes to make appropriate amendments to Art. 34 of the Civil Code of the RF IC, which gives rise to a special concern in identifying the legal nature of common debts. The solution to this problem determines the need to analyze the current legislation and scientific publications devoted to property relations, property rights and its objects. Due to the fact that the debts of the spouses represent unfulfilled civil legal obligations arising from participation in relations with the third parties, their merger with family legal property relations of the spouses’ property is unacceptable. Debts do not have the qualities of objects of property rights that cumulatively form the property belonging to spouses and existing in the common property regime. Thus, it cannot be added up from an asset and a liability. Regarding legal regulation of property relations, we only can compare, on the one hand, the totality of property objects belonging to spouses on the ground of common property and, on the other hand, the objects of execution of their common obligations with respect to creditors expressed in single value units. To indicate the result of the comparison, it is advisable to use the concept of "property solvency of spouses", which allows us to assess their property status for participation in civil transactions, their real property responsibility, as well as in ensuring the interests of creditors. In support of these conclusions, the author provides detailed arguments.

Pectinolytic lyases: a comprehensive review of sources, category, property, structure, and catalytic mechanism of pectate lyases and pectin lyases

Pectate lyases and pectin lyases have essential roles in various biotechnological applications, such as textile industry, paper making, pectic wastewater pretreatment, juice clarification and oil extraction. They can effectively cleave the α-1,4-glycosidic bond of pectin molecules back bone by β-elimination reaction to produce pectin oligosaccharides. In this way, it will not generate highly toxic methanol and has the advantages of good enzymatic selectivity, less by-products, mild reaction conditions and high efficiency. However, numerous researches have been done for several decades; there are still no comprehensive reviews to summarize the recent advances of pectate lyases and pectin lyases. This review tries to fill this gap by providing all relevant information, including the substrate, origin, biochemical properties, sequence analysis, mode of action, the three-dimensional structure and catalytic mechanism.

PROPERTY IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY: CERTAIN PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION IN UKRAINE

The article examines the definition of the term «property» in management sphere, analyses the existing definitions of the term «property» in management sphere. On this basis, the different approaches are identified and a process approach to the interpretation of a specific category is proposed. Regarding the classification of the types of property and sources of its formation, the use of terms and concepts that have expired in the legislation has been established. It is proposed to eliminate the identified differences and contradictions in the interpretation of the terms of legal regulation of property relations in management sphere in Ukraine in view of the types of property and sources of its formation. The definition of the category «property» in management sphere, which is available in current legislation and modern scientific sources, is considered. The approaches to the definition of the term «property» in management sphere are singled out, namely: property is things, assets, property of a certain type, classification-based approach and combined approach. The definition of the essence of the term «property» in management sphere is proposed to be considered according to the process approach, which is initially considered resources, which later acquire the characteristics of assets and further property. The differences and ramifications in the classification types of property under the current legislation are analysed, the ways of their elimination are offered, which will lead to the increase of efficiency of the use of the created property of the economic entity. According to the process approach, which assumes that a certain set of resources acquires the characteristics of assets, which, in turn, are part of the property of a particular entity. A distinctive feature of the proposed approach is that the property in management sphere is defined as a set of assets that are formed through a number of resources. The use of the provided proposals and elimination of identified contradictions in the classification of property types and sources of its formation will promote the intensification of various management functions of economic activity in the part of implementing economic mechanisms and regulators to optimize property formation and increase of its efficiency.

PHENOMENOLOGY OF PROPERTY TAXATION

Introduction. The ownership encompasses the subject’s ownership of a tangible or intangible object with all the formalized or informal manifestations of the phenomenon. Therefore in the process of property taxation it is necessary to take into account all the features of ownership, to consider this process from the standpoint of imposing tax on the owner in inseparable relationship with its property, social characteristics and impact on economic interests. The purpose of the article is to scientifically substantiate the essence and determine the criteria of the phenomenological approach to the property taxation. Results. The essence of the category “property” in the reference literature is investigated, its key features are substantiated, on the basis of which the own vision of the essence of this definition is presented. The concept of “property taxation” is defined from the standpoint of taking into account the characteristics of the category “property”. Criteria for the implementation of the phenomenological approach to property taxation are proposed. Ways to minimize tax liabilities in the process of property taxation are covered. Conclusions. The concept of “property taxation”, taking into account its features and in accordance with the content of the taxation process, we have defined as the imposition of taxes on entities in the process of possession of tangible or intangible goods, acquisition of property rights and its termination.

THE PROBLEM OF " PROPERTY" IN ECONOMIC THEORY

The article reveals the modern problem of "property" as an economic category. "Property" is both an economic and legal (legal) attitude. There are contradictions between the economic relation of ownership and the legal (legal) relation of ownership, often they do not coincide. Modern understanding of property cannot do without the concept of “intellectual property.” Property in general terms is not only the appropriation of material goods, but also spiritual values.

Property as a category of economic comparativistic

The idea of the category ‘property’ is diverse and it is studied by economists, philosophers, lawyers, politologists and other experts. It is one of the basic categories in researching economic systems, especially economies being transformed as well as transitional ones. The subject is undoubtedly acute. Property is a category, which is filled by specific terms of different sciences, it is changeable in view of public expediency, economic and political situation and it becomes a key one in economic comparativistic. The goal of the article is to study and compare opinions of Russian and overseas scientists, academic schools and at the same time to investigate archive materials and academic works by present day academics dealing with the topic. The novelty of the article is connected with the multi-sided research of the category ‘property’. Theoretical and methodological foundation of the article was formed by principles of historism, system and comparative analysis, which support investigation of phenomena in their development and can be used with due regard to historical-retrospective and comparative-historical approach to such a phenomenon as property. On the basis of historical-genetic method it is possible to define the substantial content of the phenomenon. The authors also provide definitions of the notion ‘comparativistic’.

CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES TO PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION: POLITICAL - ECONOMICAL ASPECT

Topicality. Property is a difficult complex system category, which in its development underwent significant continuous quantitative and qualitative changes. The problem of different interpretations of the economic category �property� aggravated by the fact that scientists lack a unanimous approach to identifying types, kinds and forms of ownership, which indicates the diversity of approaches to the classification of property. Aim and tasks. of the article is to substantiate the theoretical approaches to the definition of the economic content of property in the process of its transformation and development and the study of the classification of types and forms of ownership in particular from the point of viev of traditional and modern classification. Research results. The article analyzes the approaches of outstanding scientists to the theoretical concept of the category "property" in different eras of the development of economic science. The study showed that at present it is advisable to distinguish between classical and modern classification of property. Therefore, the authors have formed a classical classification that includes two types of property: private, which exists in two forms: simple private property and capitalistic private property, and public property, which has two types � collective and state property. The modern classification based on modern views and trends in the evolution of property relations in society, based on the position that it is incorrect to single out only private and public types of ownership, because in this approach a separate individual and a work collective are identified, which may include tens, hundreds or more workers. Conclusions. Therefore, in the modern classification of property, types of ownership are collective (group), private, which are combined into a group of non-state types of ownership, as well as public (state) and supranational which form a group of state ownership types. In spite of the fact that there are no species in the modern classification of property and in the classification according to the legislation, practical experience indicates that there are still varieties of property. Therefore, it is advisable to classify property not only by types and forms, but divided into types according to various classification criteria, namely by objects of ownership, by subjects of ownership, depending on the type of property, by the number of owners, by features of objects, by levels of privatization.