Suchergebnisse

Despite the absence of a comprehensive global pact on the subject, the human right to property protection—a right of property but only rarely to specific property—exists and is recognized in 21 human rights instruments, including some of the most widely ratified multilateral treaties ever adopted. The Cold War's omission of property rights in the two principal treaties on human rights, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, has been overtaken by events. But that reality continues to be resisted by legal scholars, including human rights advocates, as well as by many across the political spectrum from many on the left (who associate property rights with misguided "Western" models for economic development) to some on the right (who see it as yet another intrusion on sovereign discretion sought by global elites). It is also resisted by U.S. courts which continue to assert that international law regulates the treatment of foreign property but not of "domestic takings" involving actions directed at a state's own citizens. This Article surveys the reality of internationalized property rights protections outside the usual context in which it is addressed, namely to protect the property of foreign investors in the host states in which they operate. It canvasses the policy and jurisprudential objections to the idea of a treaty-based human right of property, addresses how the U.S. has contributed to the internationalization of this human right, and contrasts the property caselaw of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with the ways U.S. courts have largely resisted the idea that the international human right of property exists. It addresses how human rights treaties respond to objections to property rights writ large and uses, inter alia, the property rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to advance a non-instrumentalist defense of the human right to property protection based on "moral intuitions" of what human dignity requires. Finally, the Article defends the fragmented nature of the distinct international regimes that protect property from those who would seek to harmonize its contours either through a global agreement or by recognizing its status as customary law.

The standard neoclassical model of economics is incapable of explaining why one form of organisation arises over another. It is a model where transaction costs are implicitly assumed to not exist; however, transaction costs are here defined as the costs of strengthening a given distribution of economic property rights, and they always exist. This book presents a study of how individuals organise resources to maximise the value of their economic rights over these resources. It offers a unified theoretical structure to deal with exchange, rights formation, and organisation that traditional economic theory often ignores. It explains how transaction costs can be reduced through reorganisation and, in the end, how the distribution of property rights that exists is the one that maximises wealth net of these transaction costs.

"José swung the gate open, hopped back into the bed of the truck, and tapped the window to the cab gently with the butt of his rifle. Iván cut the headlights and put the truck in gear. We inched forward along the bumpy road that carved through the broad southern Venezuelan plains, the dust rising in a thick cloud just behind us. In a low voice, I asked José: "Wouldn't it be easier to find capybara with the headlights on?" "I'll tell you tomorrow," he whispered in reply. "You'll see, on a night like tonight, the moonlight reflects off their eyes.""

International audience ; In the modern world, the significance of non-property right is very high because they are preconditions of providing the real freedom of ownership, freedom of agreement, freedom of entrepreneurship and all other rights in the material sphere of society.The article studies characteristic features of personal non-property rights of individuals. The notion of personal non-property rights of individuals has been formulated taking into account the features of this group of subjective civil rights, as well as their purpose. The main issues to be addressed in the study are the clarification of the specifics (features) of the object of protection, as well as the peculiarities of the protection of the named rights, the jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional forms of protection of personal non-property rights that ensure the natural existence of an individual. In the article, the notions of personal nonmaterial benefit and personal non-property right have been formulated; the personal non-property rights, which provide the natural existence of an individual who is the object of protection, have been characterized in details; propositions regarding addressing certain legislative and practical gaps and contradictions have been presented. Also, the specific features and concepts of the protection of personal non-property rights that provide the natural existence of an individual have been determined.

Featherbedding is the term used by management to describe what it considers an unearned increment for work not done or uselessly performed. The worker has never denied that management is entitled to a day's work that taxes the limit of the worker's psychol'al & physiological energies short of ill health. Discussions of featherbedding, therefore, have been couched in the language of health & safety. A close analysis of the collective bargaining process, however, reveals a fundamental conflict between manag & the worker over what the worker unconsciously regards as a property right, namely, his job. The notion of a job as a property right has not yet been received as part of US mores. Analysis of the legislative & judicial treatments of featherbedding discloses the futility of such efforts. At the present time, severance payments are gaining currency for the jobs that are abolished. Such payments are regarded as consolation money by the unions; they tend to be regarded by employers as blackmail to persuade the worker to relinquish what was not his in the first place. One proposed solution to the p problem is the establishment of voluntary arbitration tribunals to define a concept in labor-manag relations parallel to the concept of eminent domain in private real estate. Such tribunals would recognize the worker's property right to his job & would define the degree to which the worker could capitalize the loss of his earning opportunity. Soc efficiency would thereby be freed of the burden of obsolete performances insisted upon by the worker who must protect his earning capacity. AA.

This article analyzes the development of property rights (PR) for intellectual property (IP). There is a fundamental tension between competition policy and IP. IP rights confer a certain degree of monopoly power on the owner of IP rights. Some authors found that there are too many patents in Biotechnological or Internet industry. The regulation of intellectual property has expanded dramatically in many countries in recent years and competition authorities are increasingly asking for methodological help in determining the duration and scope of patents. The issue has taken on an increased importance and visibility in the wake of the numerous high profile court cases in the pharmaceutical and internet industry. This paper analyzes a model of PR development for IP. We consider an environment where two agents (researchers) decide whether to determine the allocation of PR or work without establishment of property rights. Both agents may be involved both in research and "political" fight for intellectual property. PR can improve the incentive of one party and worsen the incentive of another party. The main results are: 1) PR do not always emerge and; 2) their emergence is more probable when the more productive party has poor political skills.

AbstractBart Wilson argues that property is based on custom, not rights. Wilson (2022) further argues for the primacy of property over property rights. Wilson's research, including the recent book, The Property Species: Mine, Yours, and the Human Mind (2020), is a significant and arguably pathbreaking contribution to the vast literature on property and property rights. It also falls into the trap of economic arguments that unnecessarily devalue legal rights. I ague that we can all agree that ideas about property are always important to understanding property rights but that property rights still rule. This is in part because those who have property typically care most about property rights. I also argue that Wilson's concept of property is too focused on private ownership, rather than shared ownership or even government ownership of property. I suggest that considering the idea of sharing and other legitimate forms of property ownership alongside private ownership would generalize Wilson's constructivist theory of property and improve our ability to explain the diversity of property rights.