Suchergebnisse

The economic analysis of Roman law has enormous potential to illuminate the origins of Roman legal institutions in response to changes in the economic activities that they regulated. These two volumes combine approaches from legal history and economic history with methods borrowed from economics to offer a new interdisciplinary approach.

Ancient Rome is the only society in the history of the western world whose legal profession evolved autonomously, distinct and separate from institutions of political and religious power. Roman legal thought has left behind an enduring legacy and exerted enormous influence on the shaping of modern legal frameworks and systems, but its own genesis and context pose their own explanatory problems. The economic analysis of Roman law has enormous untapped potential in this regard: by exploring the intersecting perspectives of legal history, economic history, and the economic analysis of law, the two volumes of Roman Law and Economics are able to offer a uniquely interdisciplinary examination of the origins of Roman legal institutions, their functions, and their evolution over a period of more than 1000 years, in response to changes in the underlying economic activities that those institutions regulated. Volume I explores these legal institutions and organizations in detail, from the constitution of the Roman Republic to the management of business in the Empire, while Volume II covers the concepts of exchange, ownership, and disputes, analysing the detailed workings of credit, property, and slavery, among others. Throughout each volume, contributions from specialists in legal and economic history, law, and legal theory are underpinned by rigorous analysis drawing on modern empirical and theoretical techniques and methodologies borrowed from economics. In demonstrating how these can be fruitfully applied to the study of ancient societies, with due deference to the historical context, Roman Law and Economics opens up a host of new avenues of research for scholars and students in each of these fields and in the social sciences more broadly, offering new ways in which different modes of enquiry can connect with and inform each other. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/1246/thumbnail.jpg

Ancient Rome is the only society in the history of the western world whose legal profession evolved autonomously, distinct and separate from institutions of political and religious power. Roman legal thought has left behind an enduring legacy and exerted enormous influence on the shaping of modern legal frameworks and systems, but its own genesis and context pose their own explanatory problems. The economic analysis of Roman law has enormous untapped potential in this regard: by exploring the intersecting perspectives of legal history, economic history, and the economic analysis of law, the two volumes of Roman Law and Economics are able to offer a uniquely interdisciplinary examination of the origins of Roman legal institutions, their functions, and their evolution over a period of more than 1000 years, in response to changes in the underlying economic activities that those institutions regulated. Volume II covers the concepts of exchange, ownership, and disputes, analysing the detailed workings of credit, property, and slavery, among others, while Volume I explores Roman legal institutions and organizations in detail, from the constitution of the Republic to the management of business in the Empire. Throughout each volume, contributions from specialists in legal and economic history, law, and legal theory are underpinned by rigorous analysis drawing on modern empirical and theoretical techniques and methodologies borrowed from economics. In demonstrating how these can be fruitfully applied to the study of ancient societies, with due deference to the historical context, Roman Law and Economics opens up a host of new avenues of research for scholars and students in each of these fields and in the social sciences more broadly, offering new ways in which different modes of enquiry can connect with and inform each other. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/1247/thumbnail.jpg

Perjanjian nominee merupakan perjanjian yang menyatakan suatu tindakan penyelendupan hukum yang dibuat Warga Negara Asing (WNA) yang bertujuan untuk mempunyai hak milik atas tanah yang ada di Indonesia. Dengan membuat akta perjanjian nominee untuk melindungi hak-haknya dan membenarkan tindakannya agar tidak menyalahi peraturan hukum yang diterapkan di Indonesia. Tindakan penyelundupan hukum tujuannya menyiasati aturan hukum bangsa dan politik hukum yang melarang kepemilikan tanah secara hak milik untuk bangsa asing. Keabsahan akta hak milik daripada tanah dan penguasaannya oleh " warga Negara asing "(WNA) yang dilakukan Notaris dengan akta otentiknya/ (PPAT) secara hukum formil tidak bertentangan dengan aturan hukum. Tetapi pemilikan hak atas tanah oleh WNA itu secara hukum materiil , hukum tidak bisa melindungi ,karena bertentangan dengan pasal 26 ayat 2 UUPA karena upaya penyelundupan hukum untuk mengalihkan hak milik atas tanah dari bangsa Indonesia / WNI untuk bangsa asing / WNA. Keabsahan akta perjanjian nominee bertentangan dengan hukum yang ada jadi sesuai syarat sahnya perjanjian ,secara otomatis dikatakan batal demi hukum, sedangkan secara formil sah menurut hukum yuridis , namun hal tersebut dianggap tidak pernah ada pemilihkan hak .maka akta yang dibuat oleh notaris batal demi hukum. Sedangkan tanggung jawab notaris selaku pejabat umum yang mempunyai kewenangan membuat akta auntentik , dianggap mengerti dengan aturan hukum yang ada di Indonnesi. Jika diketahui notaris memberi solusi sehingga terjadi tindakan penyelundupan hukum maka notaris bisa dikenai sanksi adminitrasi bahkan sanksi pidana jika benar –benar unsur–unsur melawan hukum terkandung dalam pembuatan akta yang dibuatnya.Kata kunci : Perjanjian Nominee, Penyelundupan Hukum Dan Keabsahaan Akta.

We distinguish among three types of actions that can be taken to alleviate the consequences of natural disasters: precautionary efforts (made ex ante), relief efforts (made in the immediate aftermath of a disaster), and recovery efforts (made ex post). We argue that recognizing this distinction lessens many of the problems that the literature attributes to government intervention and hence expands the scope of government action following disasters. Relief is less likely than recovery to generate over‐supply by the government and over‐reliance by victims.