To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Individual Right to Property.
Journal articles on the topic 'Individual Right to Property'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Individual Right to Property.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
KHOMENKO, Mykhailo M., Anatoliy V. KOSTRUBA, and Oleksii O. KOT. "Protection of Non-Property Right." Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 10, no. 3 (2019): 794. http://dx.doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v10.3(41).14.
Full textAbstract:
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 non-material 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 characterised 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.
2
Anatoliy, Kostruba. "Protection of Non-Property Right." Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics X, no. 3(41) (2019): 794–801. https://doi.org/10.14505/jarle.v10.3(41).14.
Full textAbstract:
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.
3
Pandit, B. Nirmal. "Intellectual Property Rights: An Overview." Studies in Indian Place Names 40, no. 49 (2020): 483–87. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5680233.
Full textAbstract:
Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to the creation of the intellect (the term used in studies of the human mind) for which a monopoly (from Greek word monos means single poleis to sell) is assigned to designated owners by law. Intellectual property rights are like any other property right. Intellectual Property Rights are themselves a form of property called intangible property. Property designates those things that are commonly recognized as being the possessions of an individual or a group. A right of ownership is associated with property that establishes the good as being "one's own thing" in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she deems fit, whether to use or not use, exclude others from using or to transfer ownership.
4
Wall, Jesse. "The functional–formal impasse in (trust) property." International Journal of Law in Context 14, no. 3 (2017): 437–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1744552317000295.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper identifies an impasse between two conceptions of ‘property rights’. Formal conceptions explain ‘property rights’ in terms of an alienable right to exclude, that has moral significance in terms of individuals’ preference satisfaction, and describe a trust beneficiary as having a right against the trustees’ right. Functional conceptions explain a ‘property right’ in terms of the entitlements in a resource, which has moral significance in terms of a range of individual and social values, and describe a trust beneficiary as having a share in entitlements in the resource. This impasse has general implications for the normative analysis of property law and particular implications for the practical application of redistributive statutory provisions to discretionary trusts. The solution to this impasse lies in the abandoning the language of ‘property’ when we are concerned with the entitlements in a resource.
5
Chen, Jintao. "The Justification of Data Property Rights." Journal of Economics and Law 1, no. 5 (2024): 90–99. https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202414512.
Full textAbstract:
In today's era of digital economy, data plays a more and more important role in modern society. However, with the wide application of data, the problem of data right confirmation has gradually attracted people's attention. Data as the object of labor, according to Locke's labor property theory can provide a reasonable demonstration of the legitimacy of data property rights. At the same time, data can also be regarded as the object of individual will projection. Kant's will projection theory provides the legal basis for data property rights. In addition, Rawls' distributive justice theory can deeply explain and emphasize the legitimacy of data property rights. This paper emphasizes the legitimacy of data property rights, analyzes the main structure of data property rights, and demonstrates the object of data property rights, including the access and use rights of information, data derivatives and services and data. And expounds the right content of data property rights, including holding right, right of use, right of protection, right of compensation four powers.
6
Narveson, Jan. "Waldron on Private Property." Dialogue 29, no. 1 (1990): 133–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0012217300012828.
Full textAbstract:
Do individuals have a right to private property? That is the question pursued in this lengthy investigation (445 pages). Waldron distinguishes utilitarian arguments from “Right-based” ones. That is hardly an exhaustive distinction, one would think; reliance on its being so would not bode well. But having made such a distinction, he believes that the question comes to whether there are “any good right-based arguments for private property.” This, he thinks, amounts to the question: are any important individual interests served “by the existence of private property as opposed to someother sort of property regime?” The alternative, he thinks, is to turn to utilitarian arguments about property institutions, “rather than having it treated as the basis of right” (p. 5). How we are to measure “importance,” and to whom the proposed regimes are to be important is not discussed. And of course some think that we can, too, have a utilitarian-based theory of rights. And there will be other complaints about Waldron's framework; but we will not be able to go further into such matters here.
7
Chen, Jiayu. "Justification of the Legitimacy of Property Rights in Data." Journal of Economics and Law 1, no. 3 (2024): 131–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.62517/jel.202414320.
Full textAbstract:
In today's digital economy, data plays an increasingly important role in modern society. However, with the widespread use of data, the issue of data rights has gradually attracted attention. As an object of labor, data can provide a reasonable argument for the legitimacy of data property rights based on the Lockean labor property theory. At the same time, data can also be regarded as the projected object of individual will, and Kant's theory of will projection provides a legal basis for data property rights. In addition, Rawls' theory of distributive justice can deeply explain and emphasize the justification of data property rights. This paper emphasizes the legitimacy of data property rights, analyzes the structure of the subject of the right of data property rights, argues the object of data property rights, which mainly includes information, data derivatives and services, and access rights and use rights of data. It also elaborates the content of the right of data property right, which covers four rights: the right to hold, the right to use, the right to protect and the right to compensation.
8
Laín, Bru. "Fiduciary-Republican Property." Historical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques 51, no. 1 (2025): 68–86. https://doi.org/10.3167/hrrh.2025.510105.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Can property ownership be essentially equated with the absolute and individual right to exclude others from a resource? By critically assessing this question, this article reconstructs the republican conception of property, explaining the way it was formerly shaped by the ancient natural law, and then by the Lockean tradition. Both intellectual and conceptual influences molded modern republican's property conception as a kind of fiduciary relationship, namely, as an institutional and juridical agreement between a trustor or principal and its trustees or agents with overlapped and interdependent interests, necessities, and rights. This view differs from the so-called “classical liberal property” commonly understood as an absolute dominium relying on an individual and exclusivist right enabling their holder to freely alienate and freely accumulate material things. The article concludes by suggesting that important legal areas of our contemporary market societies are certainly established in accordance with this republican-fiduciary conception of property rights.
9
Tumanyants, A. R. "Issues of property rights protection in criminal proceedings in the context of the right of access to justice." Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law 4, no. 84 (2024): 136–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2024.84.4.19.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to study of a procedural mechanism for protection of the constitutional right to property in criminal proceedings in the context of the right to access to justice. It is stated that the European Court of Human Rights, in the light of its judgments, has repeatedly emphasized that “interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property must be carried out in compliance with a ‘fair balance’ between the requirements of the general interest of society and the requirements of protection of fundamental rights of an individual.” It is determined that the inviolability of property rights is one of the basic principles of criminal proceeding. The procedural mechanism of initiation or implementation of other appropriate action by an individual (an owner or a legal user of property) whose property has been temporarily seized (unless this person is a suspect) is analysed in order to protect his or her rights and freedoms, to protect his or her property. In particular, it is argued that an owner or legal user of property, who is not endowed with a different procedural status in criminal proceedings, is another individual whose rights or legitimate interests are restricted during the pre-trial investigation, and who has the right to appeal against inaction, which consists in the failure to return temporarily seized property. The author supports the view that, given the normative content of the adversarial principle, a participant in criminal proceedings, who has filed a complaint, must prove each circumstance set forth in it, and an investigator, a detective, and a prosecutor have the right, since it is not their duty to participate in the court hearing, to refute the arguments of the complaint and justify the legitimacy of their procedural behaviour, and the parties are not deprived of the right to present additional arguments in favour of their position that are not set forth in the complaint or in the contested decision. It is noted that the legislator’s restriction of a person’s right to appeal against an investigating judge’s decision may be justified only in respect of appeals against rulings which do not restrict the fundamental rights defined by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and do not impede access to justice. In other cases, individuals should have the right to appeal the relevant ruling of an investigating judge, as ensuring judicial control over all actions and decisions in criminal proceedings that in any way restrict the rights of a person is essential for the compliance of legislation with European standards.
10
Rianti, Novia. "STAN PASAR SEBAGAI JAMINAN BERDASARKAN PERJANJIAN TENTANG PEMBERIAN HAK MEMAKAI RUANG (STAN) DI BANK CENTRAL ASIA." Legality : Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 26, no. 2 (2019): 190. http://dx.doi.org/10.22219/jihl.v26i2.7796.
Full textAbstract:
Space rights agreement is a part of lease agreement. Leasing is an agreement that gives a right called individual rights. It is because the right to lease arises from an agreement between one legal subject to another. Thus, this right can only be accountable to the opponent of the contract in accordance with the principle of privity of contrac. A lease agreement aims at providing the right only to use the property, and not to own it. Therefore, lease agreement only gives individual rights, not property rights. On the other hand, as we know, fiduciary provides object guarantees, which is included in constitutum possessorium (the object transferred remains within the control of the fiduciary giver). The air rights, the market stall, from the agreements of rights granting, are clearly included in individual rights, rather than property, which should not be imposed on fiduciary guarantees. This research is conducted by applying doctrinal research. It adapts statute approach, conceptual approach, and case study for its methodological problem approach. This study analyzes the market stall usage rights as an object from the perspective of security laws and Fiduciary on the usage rights upon a market stall by banks. The results of the research showed that by reviewing it further using air rights perspective, the air rights upon a market stall were included in lease rights. The right to use the stall is not property rights, but is an individual right. It is based on the law of lease rights. In addition, the debtor, as the tenant, only controls the leased objects to make use of it, not for the purpose of owning it. In that way, the lease itself does not result in property rights. However, if it is reviewed further based on the air rights, this can be categorized as an object with security laws, because the air rights fulfill the requirements as an object that can be guaranteed. It is because it has economic value and can be transferred, even though it is approved by another party. Since the air rights are individual right, it cannot be used as a guarantee for pawn, mortgage, and Fiduciary.
11
Beeko, E. Kwadwo Odame. "The Dual-Relationship Concept of Right-Ownership in Akan Musical Tradition: A Solution for the Individual and Communal Right-Ownership Conflicts in Music Production." International Journal of Cultural Property 18, no. 3 (2011): 337–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0940739111000191.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThere are apparently two legal systems of “rights ownership” in Ghana, which are (1) the individuals' rights—a system that overemphasizes the exclusive protection of the individual musicians' rights to ownership, and (2) the communal or governmental rights—a system that provides an exclusive protection of the government's (or community's) rights to ownership. Thus, for while the first are the inalienable rights that empower the autonomous musician universally, and are seen as a “private property” of mutually independent individuals; the second are the inalienable rights that empower the collective rights of the community/government, which are seen as a “public property” for a group, with cultural, communal or linguistic rights; systems that are contrary to the Akan systems of right ownership. My aim in this essay contest is to discuss the Akan “individual-communal” dual-relationship with respect to ownership that embraces these two seemingly unrelated concepts of “rights-ownership.”
12
Andrew, Edward. "Inalienable Right, Alienable Property and Freedom of Choice: Locke, Nozick and Marx on the Alienability of Labour." Canadian Journal of Political Science 18, no. 3 (1985): 529–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008423900032443.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article attempts to illuminate a contradiction at the heart of the notion of natural rights. Natural rights are commonly thought to be both inalienable and the property of individuals. As the right or the law is privatized as my rights, her rights, our rights or their rights, rights come to be viewed as personal properties. A distinction is made between personal possession and private property (which entails the title to alienate what is owned) in order to speak significantly of our possession of inalienable rights. For Locke, we possess an inalienable right to life and liberty precisely because we do not own our lives and liberties. Moreover, we can alienate our person, or our ability to labour, precisely because it is our private property. For Nozick, rights are individual properties. Thus, for Nozick as distinct from Marx, one has the right to sell anything (one's life, liberty, labour or soul) at the market price.
13
Biryukova, A. G., and D. S. Salo. "Some aspects of protection of the right to the image of an individual as a personal non-property right." Legal horizons, no. 23 (2020): 16–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.21272/legalhorizons.2020.i23.p16.
Full textAbstract:
The article devoted to the analysis of the institute of protection of the right to the image of an individual as a personal intangible right. The paper examines the features of protection of the right to the image of an individual, the features of the image itself as an object of intellectual property rights, its main features, and so on. Interest in the chosen topic arose due to the fact that in modern times is gaining popularity photos and videos (personal photo shoots, professional photo shoots, the use of video clips for advertising, to promote certain content or use in social networks). However, in the process of exercising the right to an image of an individual, it is necessary to determine what opportunities an individual has in case of violation of his right to image, use and disclosure without his permission, and what actions an individual can take to protect his personal non-property right. At the same time, civil legislation, which should regulate the protection of the person and contain effective means of protecting the rights of persons to their image, does not sufficiently provide for this. Therefore, the main purpose of this article was first: to identify the features of the right to an image as an object of intellectual property rights; secondly: to analyze the legislation governing copyright in images; thirdly: to analyze domestic and international practice of protection of the right to images; fourthly: to identify ways to protect the right to depict an individual as a personal non-property right. When studying and analyzing both legal acts and works of legal scholars dealing with the problem of copyright protection, including the right to images, it became clear that the right to images contains several powers that may need protection, namely: the right to conduct photo, film, television or video shooting; the right to use the image; the right to distribute the image; the right to individuality, etc. Therefore, the right to an image is a set of powers, each of which may need protection in case of violation. Thus, in this paper we try not only to identify and outline the problem of application of remedies for the right to the image of an individual, but also to provide recommendations for the implementation of such a right.
14
OKSANIUK, Oleh. "Property rights of the spouses: concept and content." Economics. Finances. Law 2/2024, no. - (2024): 111–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.37634/efp.2024.2.23.
Full textAbstract:
In the paper the property rights of spouses are studied, their specific features are identified, as well as the features of individual property rights of spouses. On the basis of the conducted scientific research, the author came to the conclusion that the property rights of spouses are those powers of a property nature, which are defined by family legislation or other sources of family law, arise in connection with the state registration of marriage and can be exercised by the spouses or one of them as bearers of these rights; rights that arise in connection with the exercise of the right of joint ownership of the property of the spouses or the right of personal private ownership of the property of one of the spouses or from alimony obligations of the other spouse. The paper highlights the general and special features of property rights of spouses, including that can be alienated in a contractual manner (regarding rights to proper property), inalienability and personal character (regarding the right to maintenance). The property rights of spouses include: property rights of spouses arising from the right of personal private ownership of certain property, property rights of spouses arising from the right of joint ownership of property acquired during marriage, the right of one of the spouses to enter into an agreement with the other person regarding the disposal of their a share of the right of joint co-ownership of the spouses in the case of its determination and allocation in kind or determination of the procedure for using joint property, the right of the spouses to divide the property that is the object of the right of joint co-ownership, as well as to determine the methods and procedure for dividing the corresponding property, the right to dispose of joint property and determine its legal regime after the death of one of the spouses and both of them by concluding a will of the spouses, the right to maintenance in the event that the disabled spouse needs financial assistance, the right to maintenance of the wife during pregnancy, the right to maintenance of one of the spouses with whom the child lives, the right to determine the methods of providing maintenance to one of the spouses.
15
Niyazi-Yusuf, Mirem. "PROPERTY REGISTRY. CREATION AND CONTENT." Journal Scientific and Applied Research 24, no. 1 (2023): 5–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.46687/jsar.v24i1.361.
Full textAbstract:
The property register is a data system for real estate on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria and consists of the lots of individual properties. It contains the acts that recognize, transfer, amend or terminate the right of ownership or other real right to real estate. The foreclosures and mortgages of NI are included in the property register. The register shows the status of the specified circumstances after the last entry and makes it possible to follow chronologically the changes in the entered circumstances, as well as the entered acts. In the Property Register inquiries can be made about the ownership of the properties, the owners and the real rights and restrictions on them. Inquiries in the register can be made on-site at the registration offices in the country or via the Internet after payment of a fee specified in the price list and registration of the user.
16
Coval, S., J. C. Smith†, and Simon Coval‡. "The Foundations of Property and Property Law." Cambridge Law Journal 45, no. 3 (1986): 457–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197300118458.
Full textAbstract:
Explicit rights and freedoms such as those of thought, assembly, life, liberty and security of person occur in constitutional charters because they are activities and states which are necessary for any successful action. It is through the protection of its necessary conditions that freedom of action is itself protected. Moreover, without the inference that freedom of action is the basic value being protected we cannot justify the above rights and freedoms. If we accept this hypothesis about the justificatory structure of constitutions it provides us with a test of the completeness of the list of explicit rights and freedoms. We argue that no charter could justifiably include the usual explicit rights and freedoms and not include the right of the individual to property since the latter is no less a condition of free action than are the former.
17
Mytsa, Yurii. "Spatial Property: World Approaches and the National Law of Ukraine." Teisė 124 (September 28, 2022): 156–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/teise.2022.124.13.
Full textAbstract:
The article considers the analysis of construction of spatial (floor) property, which assumes the existence of real property rights to individual premises in buildings in relation to such rights with the right to the building as a whole.
18
Loghinescu, Petru. "Guarantees in case of deprivation of property under the law of the European Convention on Human Rights." Journal of the National Institute of Justice, no. 4(63) (December 2022): 51–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.52277/1857-2405.2022.4(63).09.
Full textAbstract:
From the content of the property right, the guarantees of protection against arbitrary or disproportionate forms of interference in the exercise of this fundamental right of the person result. Such interference may take the form of deprivation or limitation of rights. Every individual has the right to own property and to use the goods in his possession. Depriving the person of his property can only take place in the case of the existence of a public necessity. If these circumstances occur, the state is obliged to ensure fair compensation. Both governments and others are prohibited from assigning property without justification. In this article, we propose to analyze the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the general principles established by the European Court of Human Rights in cases where deprivation of property is invoked.
19
Odajiu, Stanislav. "The special confiscation institution analysis in the crimes of smuggling in accordance with the national practice and the european court of human rights." Revista Naţională de Drept 4-6 (June 16, 2018): 41–46. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3369941.
Full textAbstract:
Under established case law, the right to property is recognized as an integral part of the general principles of law and it is observed and ensured by the Court in the light of the domestic law of the member states. However, the right to property is not an absolute prerogative, but it must be taken into account from the inlight of its function in society. Consequently, the use of right to property can be limitated, if it effectively meets the goals of general interest and does not constitute an excessive and intolerable interference of the intended goal, which would strain the guaranteed right. Therefore, with regard to the limitation of the right to property, the general requirement of proportionality represents the maintaining of a fair balance between the requirements of the general interest of society and the restrictions of protecting the individual interest.
20
Sukron, Mahmud, and Roisah Kholis. "The Concept of IPR Ownership in the Context of the Copyright Legal System and Indonesian Society's Cosmology." International Journal of Social Science And Human Research 06, no. 08 (2023): 4706–11. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8215769.
Full textAbstract:
Ownership is conceptualized as a human right that gives the authority to order something that is owned. As a legal state, Indonesia regulates intellectual property rights, including copyright. In this study, normative legal research is used, which is descriptive-analytical. Copyright is an exclusive right or right owned by the creator of certain information and ideas to reproduce and regulate his work. The concept of ownership in copyright gives creators economic and moral rights automatically protected by the state through copyright law. In contrast, the principle of customary law is the concept of communal ownership. Customary law is more concerned with the interests of society than individual interests. In the cosmology of Indonesian society, most do not recognize individual ownership, but the concept of ownership in the culture of society only recognizes communal property rights or shared property, so the concept of IPR is not known in the culture of Indonesian society.
21
GOODHUE, RACHAEL E., and NANCY McCARTHY. "Traditional property rights, common property, and mobility in semi-arid African pastoralist systems." Environment and Development Economics 14, no. 1 (2009): 29–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1355770x08004555.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTTraditional pastoralist land management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa have been stressed by an increasing human population and related forces, including private enclosure of grazing land; government-sponsored privatization; and the increasing prevalence of violent conflicts and livestock theft. We model the incompleteness and flexibility of traditional grazing rights using fuzzy set theory. We compare individual and social welfare under the traditional system to individual and social welfare under a private property system and a common property system. Whether the traditional system is preferred to private property depends on whether the value of mobility, as defined by the traditional system, is more valuable than the right of exclusion inherent in private property. We find that under some conditions the imprecision which characterizes traditional rights can result in higher social returns than a common property regime characterized by complete symmetric rights across all members of the user group and complete exclusion of non-members.
22
Korhecz, Tamás. "The right to peaceful enjoyment of property and the security measure of the forfeiture of cash in the jurisprudence of the Serbian Constitutional Court: Certain uncertainty." Pravni zapisi 11, no. 2 (2020): 620–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-28803.
Full textAbstract:
The right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a first-generation human right, protected by the international and domestic law of the highest rank. This is not an absolute right - the European standards of protecting property rights allow possible interferences prescribed by law. The interferences can be made in the public interest but only under the assumption that the proportionality between the public interest and property rights of individuals at stake is established. Forfeiture of undeclared cash the individuals are transferring across state borders, together with imposing fines for a misdemeanor, represent an interference with individuals' property rights. The EU Member States do not share an identical system of sanctions for this petty offense, but there is a tendency of unification related to the monitoring, registering, and sanctioning of undeclared, cross-border, individual cash transfer. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has established rather precise criteria for distinguishing permitted from unpermitted interferences in cases of undeclared cross-border cash transfers. The Serbian Constitutional Court has been faced with several constitutional complaints regarding alleged unconstitutionally of the imposed security measure amounting to the forfeiture of undeclared cash physically transferred across the state borders. The Constitutional Court has ruled inconsistently on the matter. Although it has regularly referred to the European Court of Human Rights' relevant decisions, it fails to be consistent in following the Strasbourg Court's rulings. In this article, the author has suggested that the legal certainty principle requires the Constitutional Court to consistently interpret the constitutional rights and be systematic in following Strasbourg. Only in this way, the Constitutional Court can help regular courts effectively to harmonize the interpretation and application of laws with the constitutional and international human rights standards regarding property rights.
23
Dr., Shetkar Hirkan Channappa. "Intellectual Property Rights in Commerce." International Journal of Advance and Applied Research S6, no. 13 (2025): 181–84. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14958890.
Full textAbstract:
<em>The property which designates those things that are commonly recognized as being the possessions of an individual or a group of persons, property right of ownership is associated with property that establishes the goods as being ones own thing in relation to other individuals or groups of person. Assuring the owner the property right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she deems fit, whether to use or not use, exclude others from using or to transfer ownership to other.</em> <em>Properties or assets are of two types tangible property and intangible property.one that is in physical form and the other which is not in any physical form Land, building, farm, car, cash money, jewellery, objects which has length, width, height are tangible property. Intellectual property is one of the forms of intangible property which commands a material value which can also be higher than the value of a tangible property patent, trademark, copyright, geographical indication, industrial design, trade secret, plant variety and farmers protection right, lay out design and integrated circuit are intellectual properties.</em>
24
Kachalov, Egor V. "International legal and constitutional framework for restricting the rights and freedoms of participants in criminal proceedings." Ugolovnaya yustitsiya, no. 19 (2022): 39–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/23088451/19/7.
Full textAbstract:
The restrictions of individual rights in criminal proceedings are legally based on provisions of international acts on human rights, provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The main goals for the achievement of which the rights and freedoms of the individual may be restricted include the satisfaction of the just requirements of morality, public order and general welfare; protection of the constitutional order, health, rights and legitimate interests of other people, ensuring the defense of the country and the security of the state. The rights which can be restricted under the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and which are implemented in the course of criminal proceedings, include the right to liberty and security of person; the right to privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraphic and other communications; the right to privacy of home. The constitutional rights that can be restricted in criminal proceedings on the basis of the law without a direct indication in the relevant article of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are the right to private property (when seizing property) and the right to labour (in case of temporary suspension from office). Detention and house arrest in criminal proceedings may limit such constitutional rights as the right to freely seek, receive, transmit, and disseminate information; the right to peaceful assembly, rallies and demonstrations, marches and picketing; the right to access public service; the right to participate in the administration of justice; the right to education; the right to use cultural institutions, to access cultural property. The limits of individual rights can only be determined based on clear and justified criteria, providing for a balance of private and public interests (legality, reasonableness, proportionality). Legality implies that law establishes the restriction of human rights; the law cannot be arbitrary or unreasonable. Reasonableness means that the degree and nature of the restrictions correspond to those socially significant goals for the provision and protection of which they are introduced, and the grounds for the restriction correspond to the actual circumstances. Proportionality implies that socially significant interests can be placed above the rights of an individual only if they correspond to socially significant legitimate goals, and the scope of restrictions does not exceed the level necessary to protect public interests.
25
Heri, Corina. "The Human Right to Land, for Peasants and for All: Tracing the Social Function of Property to 1948." Human Rights Law Review 20, no. 3 (2020): 433–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa026.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACT In 1948, Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) pioneered a right to (individual and collective) ownership of property. Today, the right to property—specifically the social function of property, which was a mainstay of the discussions—can be linked to the idea of a human right to land, which has been particularly prevalent in the discourse concerning the creation of human rights protections specific to peasants. The peasant rights process highlights a number of normative and implementation gaps in international human rights law, including relating to land use and tenure. The present contribution will argue that the claims made in this context are neither new nor niche but relate to universal human rights entitlements and have existed at least since the drafting of the UDHR. They are not only an iteration of an age-old class struggle but are at the forefront of a contemporary critique of the existing international legal system as a whole. While existing human rights, including the right to property, can be part of a response to these critiques, however, neither peasant rights nor the activists who promote them can be expected to resolve them alone.
26
Yutanti, Trinda, Trinas Dewi Hariyana, and Moch Wahid Hasyim. "TINJAUAN YURIDIS PEMECAHAN TANAH LEBIH DARI LIMA BIDANG UNTUK HAK MILIK PERORANGAN." Jurnal Magister Hukum Perspektif 15, no. 1 (2024): 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.37303/magister.v15i1.93.
Full textAbstract:
The emergence of a regulation of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning or the Head of the National Land Agency on the prohibition of land division of more than five parcels for individual property rights is a way to overcome the rampant housing or disguised lots that have sprung up so far. The regulation is stipulated in Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning or Regulation of the Head of the National Land Agency Number 16 of 2021 concerning the Third Amendment to Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs or Head of the National Land Agency Number 3 of 1997 concerning Provisions for the Implementation of Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration. The purpose of this writing is to find out how the juridical review of land splitting of more than five parcels for individual property rights and what the legal consequences are for individuals who split more than five parcels of land. This research uses normative juridical approach with legislation. The result of this research is that the ownership of property rights to individual land or the division of individual land parcels is not allowed to exceed five parcels except if the base of the right comes from the transfer of inheritance rights or the base of the right with the building rights certificate. Apart from that, the division of more than five parcels must also be balanced with permits from the authorized agency, and usually with the base of the Building Rights Title, but in the current era there are still many Individual Property Rights whose ownership exceeds five parcels. However, with the emergence of the Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning or Regulation of the Head of the National Land Agency Number 16 of 2021, the regulation is more strictly applied in practice. Keywords: Land Division of More than Five Parcels, Agrarian.
27
Loucaides, Loukis G. "THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53, no. 3 (2004): 677–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iclq/53.3.677.
Full textAbstract:
The right to property was accorded the status of a human right as a result of its incorporation in international human rights instruments in the second part of the twentieth century. The right has acquired special importance as part of the freedom of the individual, his economic autonomy in modern democratic societies and generally as a significant element for the development of the individual's personality.1 Its recognition as a separate human right and its legal protection on an international level was the result of gradual efforts. It is still in the process of further legal elaboration, as regards both its scope and effect, by legal theory and jurisprudence.
28
Ananyeva, E. O., and P. V. Ivliev. "On the issue of fictitious bankruptcy of individuals and individual entrepreneurs: the right to property." Аграрное и земельное право, no. 2 (2023): 92–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.47643/1815-1329_2023_2_92.
Full text
29
Yermekbayev, Bauirjan, and Khamid Akmalov. "GUARANTEE OF PERSONAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL INTERESTS DURING SEARCH OR SEIZURE." CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE 3, no. 4 (2023): 40–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.51788/tsul.ccj.3.4./ctws3355.
Full textAbstract:
In this article, the concept of confiscation, which is considered an investigative action in the criminal process, and the issues of procedural guarantees of individual rights and legal interests in the conduct of the investigative action of confiscation are thoroughly analyzed. In this regard, the norms defined in the criminal procedural law and the views of experts and scientists on the concept of confiscation were studied. On the other hand, the different aspects from the concept of search and investigation action have been revealed. In criminal procedural legislation, the investigator is given wide powers to resolve issues related to the rights, freedoms, and interests of the individual during the seizure, and this article analyzes the conditions that the investigator and participants must follow during the investigation process. Due to the fact that the prosecution process is directly related to the right of individuals to privacy of property, the article researches the national and international legislation on guaranteeing the right to privacy of property in the implementation of this investigative action.
30
Ilkiv, Oleh. "Easement as a burden for the owner`s property." Legal Ukraine, no. 12 (October 30, 2020): 28–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.37749/2308-9636-2020-12(216)-3.
Full textAbstract:
The article analyzes the features of such a legal category as easement, namely the concept, content and characteristics of easement as a way of exercising property rights in terms of civil law of Ukraine and formulates proposals for improving the civil law regulation of easement. Emphasis is placed on the study of not only theoretical problems but also issues of a practical nature. The signs of servitude rights, the grounds for private and public interests are investigated. The legal aspects of the servitude are clarified, as well as the individual-normative character is monitored. Positions on concretization of the ratio of the terms «encumbrance» and «restriction» of property rights through the prism of the provisions of easement rights are substantiated. The author clearly concludes that the property right in the form of an easement gives the owner the opportunity to effectively use their property, and also provides the right to satisfy the intangible interests of others whose property right to another’s property is not related to property rights. In the conditions of development and domination of market relations in the society the question of creation of such legal forms which would provide a possibility of a certain participation of one person in the property right of another irrespective of simple personal consent of the last becomes actual. Due to the involvement of land in the civil turnover, the system of easements is a rather complex legal phenomenon. Scientific and theoretical analysis of the construction of easements, methods of their acquisition, the practice of application of relevant legislation indicates the relevance of this institution of property law, especially in the development of land and agrarian reform, the development of legislation on property rights to real estate. Key words: easement, ownership, property rights, limits and restrictions.
31
Nine, Cara. "Do territorial rights include the right to exclude?" Politics, Philosophy & Economics 18, no. 4 (2018): 307–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470594x18788345.
Full textAbstract:
Do territorial rights include the right to exclude? This claim is often assumed to be true in territorial rights theory. And if this claim is justified, a state may have a prima facie right to unilaterally exclude aliens from state territory. But is this claim justifiable? I examine the version of territorial rights that has the most compelling story to support the right to exclude: territorial rights as a kind of property right, where ‘territory’ refers to the public and common spaces included in the domain of state jurisdiction. I analyse the work of A. J. Simmons, who develops the political theory of John Locke into one of the most well-articulated and defended theories of territorial rights as a kind of property right. My main argument is that Simmons’ justification for rights of exclusion, which are derived from individual rights of self-government, does not apply to many kinds of public spaces. An upshot of this analysis is that most Lockean-based theories of territorial rights will have a hard time justifying the right to exclude as a prima facie right held by states against aliens.
32
Hayrullahoğlu, Betül. "Comparative Analysis of Jurisprudence on Interventions to the Right to Property Through Taxation: The Constitutional Court of Türki˙ye and European Court of Human Right." Constitutional Review 10, no. 1 (2024): 67. http://dx.doi.org/10.31078/consrev1013.
Full textAbstract:
Fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals are guaranteed in both constitutions and international treaties. One of the most important treaties protecting fundamental rights and freedoms is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Türkiye, which adopts a monist understanding, is one of the countries that are party to the ECHR. Since it was founded in 1959, Türkiye has been one of the three countries that are subject to the most judgments by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In order to make this bad record better and to protect fundamental rights and freedoms more effectively, the individual application mechanism to the Constitutional Court has been entered into force in Türkiye since 2012. This paper argues whether the case law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye, which is necessary to reduce the applications made to the ECtHR against Türkiye and the violation decisions given by the ECtHR, is compatible with the case law of the ECtHR. The paper analyses the right to property, which is one of the most related rights to taxes, and focuses only on tax interventions to this right. The right to property is important not only because it is directly related to taxes, but also because it is the second most violated right among the violation decisions made by the ECtHR against Türkiye between 1959-2022, after the right to a fair trial. The methodology employed is based on a comparative jurisprudential analysis of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye and ECtHR. In this way, the similarities and differences between the way the two courts dealt with the cases in the interventions to the right to property through taxes can be analyzed. As a result, it is understood that both Courts treat the right to property in the same way, but the Turkish Constitutional Court adopts a stricter and more protective interpretation than the European Court of Human Rights in terms of legality criteria.
33
Michurin, Ievgen. "CONCERNING THE DISCUSSION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS TO THE DIGITAL THING." Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Series "Law", no. 38 (December 24, 2024): 116–23. https://doi.org/10.26565/2075-1834-2024-38-12.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction. Due to the global process of digitalization of society, various legal relations related to digital technologies arise. Absolute civil rights arise over digital things. Their legal nature, features, and the possibility of applying real property rights to digital things require further clarification. Therefore, the study of absolute rights to digital things is relevant. Civil relations regarding digital things need proper legal regulation. The purpose of the article is to develop a scientific approach to the features of the absolute right to a digital thing. The following research methods were used. Formal-logical – in identifying types of absolute rights to a digital thing. The system-structural method was applied in clarifying the features of absolute rights and property rights in its structure. The dialectical method was used when comparing property rights with other absolute rights. Summary of the main results of the study. Not all objects of digital technologies are digital things: the former are a variety of the latter. A digital thing has property value. Individual objects of digital technologies (digital signature) are not a digital thing. They have no property value. It is possible to apply the regime of legal regulation of property rights in relation to digital things, taking into account their legal nature. The effectiveness of legal regulation of objects with real property value is significant, as it has been tested by time. Contradictions in the legal regulation of a digital thing by property law may arise due to its specificity, which is not identical to things. This makes the right in rem an imperfect construction of an absolute right to a digital thing. A digital thing is different from a material thing: they have different properties, substance, nature. A person has a right to a digital thing or other object of digital technologies. The absolute right to a digital thing is exercised through the right of access to the digital thing. Conclusions. Ukrainian civics is on the way to building the concept of an absolute right to a digital thing. At the first stage, it can be the application of the rules on property law, taking into account the legal nature of digital things. In the future, this specificity may turn out to be such that it will lead to the formation and regulatory consolidation of an absolute right to a digital thing, different from the right of ownership.
34
Balyuk, T. M. "Legal nature of individual proceedings in cases of granting the right to marriage." Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law, no. 64 (August 14, 2021): 88–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2021.64.16.
Full textAbstract:
The scientific article is devoted to the study of the legal nature of separate proceedings in cases of granting the right to marry.It is established that a separate proceeding as a type of non-litigious civil proceedings is characterized by: 1) the absence of a dispute about the right, which, at the same time, does not exclude the existence of a dispute about the fact; 2) a special object of judicial protection – a legally protected (legitimate) interest, which is the needs and aspi-rations to use a specific material and (or) intangible asset, which may or may not be mediated by a certain subjective right. Protection of legally protected (legal) interest is carried out by the court by deciding on the presence or absence of legal facts relevant to the protection of rights, freedoms and interests of a person or creating conditions for the exercise of personal non-property or property rights or confirmation of the presence or absence of undisputed rights.It is determined that a separate proceeding in cases of granting the right to marry is a type of non-litigious civil proceedings for consideration of applications for confirmation of the presence or absence of legal facts that are im-portant for creating conditions for a person’s right to marry.
 It is substantiated that the legal nature of separate proceedings in cases of granting the right to marry is a set of substantive grounds for granting the right to marry and features of the procedural form of consideration by the court of relevant applications that mediate changes in family law. The court, establishing the presence or absence of legal facts, decides to grant a person the right to marry, thereby expanding the family law capacity of such a person due to the ability to exercise the right to marry before reaching marriageable age or marry between the adopter’s adopted child and the adopted child, as well as between children who have been adopted by an adoptive parent.
35
Anna, Ioannidou. "Το ατομικό δικαίωμα της ιδιοκτησίας στα ελληνικά επαναστατικά Συντάγματα". Archive 12 (2 грудня 2016): 6–13. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4485434.
Full textAbstract:
The purpose of this paper is to present the constitutional framework for the protection of the individual right to property during the revolutionary period, where the effort is being made to organize and form the Greek state according to the bourgeois liberal European model. Property in the period under study, due to its great social and economic importance, is placed at the center of political upheavals, both at national and European level.
36
Miklósi, Zoltán. "Association, property, territory: What is at stake in immigration?" Filozofija i drustvo 28, no. 1 (2017): 53–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/fid1701053m.
Full textAbstract:
It is often claimed that states have territorial rights, and that these rights include the right to exclude people who seek admission to their territory. In this paper I will examine whether the most defensible account of territorial rights can provide support to the right to exclude. I will discuss three types of theories of territorial rights. The first account links the right of states to exclude to the prior right of individuals to freedom of association, which is said to include the right not to associate and to dissociate. The second is a Lockean theory that grounds the territorial rights of states, and hence their right to exclude, in the prior right of individuals to private property in the land that constitutes the territory of the state. I argue that these accounts have independently implausible implications, regardless of their implications for the immigration debate. The third account is a Kantian theory that bases the territorial jurisdiction of states on individuals? duty to create, sustain and submit themselves to a shared system of law that is a necessary condition of guaranteeing their rights and of discharging their duties towards one another. I will argue that the Kantian account is superior to its current alternatives. However, I also suggest that it cannot ground a broad right to exclude.
37
Jiayi, Wu. "Definition of the scope of property exempted from the localized personal insolvency regime." Global Academic Frontiers 3, no. 2 (2025): 38–46. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15582032.
Full textAbstract:
With the development of commodity economy, borrowing and lending consumption is more and more common. In this consumption pattern, the debtor is very easy to fall into the vicious circle of insolvency. In the individual, the society is a great impediment to the development of exempted property is the most constructive, one of the most innovative approach to personal bankruptcy, its emergence helps the debtor to get rid of the debt dilemma, and promotes a fresh cycle of the social economy. At this point, the definition of the scope of the exempted property is crucial, and it is essentially a product of the game between creditors and debtors around their own interests. Since there are differences in defining the scope of exempted property in different countries due to the level of economic development, politics, history and other factors, it is necessary to draw on extraterritorial legislation and base on China's national conditions when constructing the system of defining the scope of exempted property in China in order to effectively safeguard the balance between the interests of the debtor and the creditors. The main purpose of the exemption system is to ensure that the debtor's basic living and production activities can be sustained. Based on this purpose, balance and flexibility fit the necessary nature of our national conditions, while at the same time safeguarding the property of the debtor's personal exclusivity, in order to respect the basic rights of the debtor as an independent individual. There are a number of possible routes for specifying the scope of exempted property. One is to adopt a single amount, directly setting a fixed amount as the standard amount of exempted property. The second is to combine the type of property with the amount, starting from the type of property and matching the corresponding amount with the characteristics of different types of property. The third is to set a special amount for specific properties, that is, for some special properties, special planning for a specific amount of range. In practical application, each country should be allowed to flexibly choose the method of determining the amount that suits the actual situation of the country based on its own national conditions, legal system and socio-economic situation and other factors.
38
Yang, Victoria. "Land Tenure Rights in India: an analysis of the failure of amendments to the Hindu Succession Act." SURG Journal 5, no. 1 (2011): 49–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.21083/surg.v5i1.1329.
Full textAbstract:
The right to a minimum standard of living as a basic human right is recognized internationally. As Hernando DeSoto argues in his book, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, a clear, legal definition of property rights is essential in an owner’s realization of return to their capital [1]. This would enable an individual in a developing country to raise their standard of living, thus contributing to the recognition of the right to property as a basic human right [2]. The implementation of property rights has become a priority for governments, NGOs, and international development agencies in many countries. While the right to property legally applies to both sexes, it is not extended to women in practice. Amendments to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 legitimized land ownership and inheritance for Indian women [4]. However, the 2006 Agricultural Census indicates that only 10.7% of Indian landowners are women [5]. The failure of implementation of legal changes regarding property rights and women can be attributed to cultural and religious opinions of women, traditional land tenure systems established before British colonial rule, and government bias within legislation. The Indian government must consider preexisting cultural norms and de facto property rights in the employment of new legislations, as they may impose costs on women. In order for changes in legislation to be effective, they must be inclusive of all women of different religious backgrounds, and simultaneous changes across government sectors must be enacted.
39
Green, Cole, and Alejandro Hernandez. "PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE DECEASED." MEST Journal 9, no. 1 (2021): 15–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.12709/mest.09.09.01.03.
Full textAbstract:
While the libertarian theory of property rights has been thoroughly studied, there has been minimal research done in regard to a deceased person’s ability to dictate the future of the property he owned in life. In this paper, we attempt to develop a theory of the property rights of deceased people consistent with libertarian principles. We analyze the legitimacy of contracts between two individuals after one individual dies, ownership of the cadaver, the deceased’s right to decide which actions are permissible to perform on the said cadaver, and the status of the deceased property when a will both has and has not been written. While there has been no explicit commentary made regarding these topics, outside from the will, the authors extrapolated current libertarian theories on property rights and applied them accordingly. While the authors of the paper ultimately do not reach a consensus agreement on some of the issues discussed in the paper, this exploratory work on the property rights of the deceased is intended to open further discussion and research on the matter to further contribute to the formulation of a concise libertarian legal theory.
40
Zarubin, A. V. "Team of Co-Owners as a Subject of the Right to Joint Shared Property." Actual Problems of Russian Law, no. 7 (August 25, 2019): 49–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2019.104.7.049-056.
Full textAbstract:
The author focuses on the similarity between relations of joint shared property and corporate relations, and proposes a “collective (a team of co-ownwers)” concept of joint property rights that is designed to solve the main problems of relations in question, including the definition of the subject of the right to joint shared property. From the point of view of the “collective” concept, the right to joint property is uniform. If the ownership of individual participants was extended to the whole thing, everyone’s will would be decisive in determining the fate of the thing, but the actual situation is not like this. In addition, possession is an external manifestation of ownership. At the same time, none of co-owners has the opportunity to appropriate the whole thing or even its part. He has only the right to claim possession. The general rule applies to the thing that is the object of the right to joint property. The right to joint property belongs to the team of co-owners as a non-entity community. There is no contradiction in the fact that the right belongs to an unauthorized association (a non-entity community), since the right can be attributed to the person whose will and domination is recognized by law, even if the law denies it as the subject (participant) of civil law relations.
41
Buzova, N. V. "Personal Non-Property Rights of the Performer in Modern Conditions." Lex Russica, no. 5 (May 24, 2022): 30–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2022.186.5.030-044.
Full textAbstract:
Individuality and personal qualities manifistation is characteristic not only for authors when they create works, but also for performers. Performing a work, a performer leaves an imprint of his understanding of this work. Such an individual contribution gives grounds for the recognition of performers’ personal non-property rights to their performance. The personal non-property rights of the performer not only indicate the connection between the performer and the result of intellectual activity (performance) created by him, but they also allow the performer to terminate the actions of third parties affecting the personal interests of the performer.The paper provides a comparative analysis of the provisions of Russian and foreign legislative acts in the field of intellectual property concerning the personal non-property rights of performers. It is pointed out that the approaches applied to the protection of personal non-property rights of performers in the states of the Romano-German and Anglo-American legal systems have some differences. Thus, in the USA, provisions on unfair competition, privacy, etc. are applied to protect the non-property rights of performers. In Russia, when creating the provisions of legislation concerning the personal non-property rights of the performer, the provisions on similar rights of the author are taken as a basis, but in comparison with the authors, the rights of performers are more limited in scope. The author examines some problematic aspects indicating the expediency of studying the possibility of expanding the scope of the rights granted to the performer. In addition, it seems that the performer could have personal non-property rights that are not related to intellectual rights, for example, the right to an individual appearance and the right to vote.
42
Tesón, Fernando R. "THE MYSTERY OF TERRITORY." Social Philosophy and Policy 32, no. 1 (2015): 25–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0265052515000060.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract:This essay argues that the territorial rights of states derive from the property rights of the individuals that make up those states. The argument draws from the Lockean tradition of justification of political powers. Persons in the state of nature have natural rights. Those rights are first-order substantive rights (the right to property), and second-order executive rights (the right to enforce the right to property.) In the social contract, individuals transfer to the state their executive rights, not their substantive rights. The state can thus define the boundaries of property rights and adjudicate property disputes, but does not legitimately own land itself. The article discusses and rejects, for deontic and consequentialist reasons, positions that justify collective and state ownership of territory. Some important consequences follow from the argument: First, no actual state has territorial rights, since no actual state wields delegated powers in land. Second, notwithstanding the preceding conclusion, actual states have an obligation to exercise their (putative) territorial powers consistently with the respect for private property.
43
Salmanova, K. V., and S. V. Diachenko. "THE RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO DONATE AS A PERSONAL NON-PROPERTY RIGHT. JUDICIAL PROTECTION." SOCIOLOGY OF LAW, no. 1 (2020): 69–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.37687/2413-6433.2020-1.11.
Full text
44
Beigzadeh, Safar, and Behrooz Rasuli. "Ownership Right to Student's Theses or Dissertations in Terms of Intellectual Property Rights (Comparative Study)." Information Management 2, no. 3 and 4 (2016): 144–68. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14000498.
Full textAbstract:
Theses and dissertations from graduate programs are among the most significant research outcomes of graduates in these fields. The main idea in these works originates from the student; however, the advisory group and educational institutions also play a role in completing the work. Nevertheless, the material and moral rights of each individual or entity involved in the completion of these works remain unclear. This study aims to examine this issue in Iran from a legal perspective. The primary objective of this research is to conduct a comparative study of the relevant legal texts in Iran and two developed countries, namely the United States and Canada. Intellectual property rights are fundamental to the collection, organization, and dissemination of student theses and dissertations, making research in this area essential. The approach to addressing the research questions is qualitative, and the research method is "document analysis." The study's population includes regulations related to copyright, particularly concerning theses and dissertations in the selected countries. The findings of the research indicate that the attention given to copyright issues related to theses and dissertations in the regulations of universities in the United States and Canada is greater than that of Iranian institutions. Despite the influence of advisors, consultants, and reviewers on the thesis, the student is always considered the owner of the "work" and the rights arising from it, as defined by copyright law.
45
ANTONOV, Artem. "Property rights and ownership as legal categories." Economics. Finances. Law 2, no. - (2023): 5–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.37634/efp.2023.2.1.
Full textAbstract:
The existence of human society is unthinkable without a huge variety of social relations that arise between individual individuals, groups, classes, nations, etc. in connection with their existence and life activity. A special place among all social relations is given to relations related to the property sphere, which, due to objective and subjective factors, are in a dominant position over all others. The need for their regulation by legal means, taking into account the dynamics of property relations in society and the importance that property acquires in theoretical and practical terms, creates complex legal problems. Despite the importance of the regulation of property relations, researchers of theoretical and practical problems of these relations have repeatedly emphasized the fact that science has not developed uniform interpretations of the category «property» and «property right» that would fully reflect the essence of the given category. This circumstance only actualizes research devoted to property and the right to property as legal categories. The purpose of the study is to analyze the «status» of property and property rights as legal categories. It was established that ownership should be understood in two senses: «de jure» and «de facto». «De jure» property is a legal shell (form) that mediates economic property relations for the purpose of their legal regulation. "De facto" characterizes the practical application of ownership, shows that its legal understanding is reflected in practice. If the subject owns property and has specific authority over it, then it is considered that the subject acts as the owner of the property based on the right of ownership. Ownership, unlike ownership (which is a form), is content. The right of ownership must be defined as the right of the subject (owner), aimed at satisfying his desire to own, use and dispose of a certain thing, taking into account the interests of other persons, regulated by legal norms. The owner exercises authority at his discretion, that is, the will of the owner is based directly on the law and exists independently of the will of other subjects. The will of these subjects is not only based on the law, but also depends on the owner's will and is determined by it. This is a characteristic inherent only to the right of ownership as an absolute property right.
46
Figueiredo Júnior, Carlos Magno Alhakim, and Vinicius Ribeiro Cazelli. "A Função Social como Fato Limitador ao Direito de Propriedade." REVISTA INTERNACIONAL CONSINTER DE DIREITO 14, no. 14 (2022): 417–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.19135/revista.consinter.00014.19.
Full textAbstract:
This study aims to analyze the social function of property as a limiting factor for property rights in Brazil and Portugal. Since the concept of private property created in the beginning of time, it no longer reflects all the complexity of contemporary property law. The hypothesis consists in questioning the social function of property as a limiting factor or not of the exercise of the individuality of the right to property. The approach method used in the study is the deductive-hypothetical. For research purposes, the methodology was based on literature and bibliographic research, analyzing the doctrine, legislation and jurisprudence on the evolution of society in face of the idea of property and the individual's right over it. In this context, basic concepts of property law, the social function of property were studied, and some specific characteristics of Brazilian law and Portuguese law that led to the understanding that the social function of property came to be seen as a norm that aims to regulate, in the best way, the exercise of the right of property, and not as a limiting norm in its origin. As a result, it was concluded that although there are specific characteristics between the legislations, the social function of the property seeks to be a regulating norm that, even maintaining the individual character, aims at the adequate use of the exercise of the right to property in order to reduce social inequality.
47
Abel Idagu, Ushie, and Ushingio Peter Ushingio. "The Right To Private Property In John Locke And Humanising The Human Nature." Global Journal of Social Sciences 23, no. 1 (2024): 89–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/gjss.v23i1.7.
Full textAbstract:
This research work attempts to give an expose of the right to private property in John Locke and its relevance to Nigeria regarding humanizing the human nature. The right to Private property is a perennial issue. It is one of the major issues in social and political philosophy that great philosophers across different philosophical epochs (from ancient to contemporary epochs) have preoccupied themselves with. Every philosophy, hitherto, arises and develops out of a particular situation and in a context. The philosophy of private property, therefore, arises from the fundamental human right. This is where this work takes its bearing from to address the challenges of human violations where life and property are not given their right place. In Nigeria for instance, we see the tussle between the government, multinational companies and individuals, where individual properties are being destroyed by the government and multinationals without due consultation and compensation thereby dehumanising humanity. Against the backdrop of the negation and violation of the right to private property, Locke who is considered to be the philosopher of private property holds that the right to private property is natural and just and anyone who mixes his/her labour with nature deserves the right to ownership of private property. It is the utmost desire and sure hope of this work that it shall go a long way to bring into the subconscious of our whole society, the relevance of the right to private property, the maintenance of life and the importance of self-development resulting to re-humanising. The method of this research work is therefore expository, analytical and descriptive.
48
Matu, Doris. "Walking the Tight Rope: Balancing the Property Rights of Individuals with the Right to Housing of Informal Settlers." Strathmore Law Review 1, no. 2 (2016): 95–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.52907/slr.v1i2.78.
Full textAbstract:
The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 provides for the right to property in Article 40. Further, in Article 43 (1)(b), it provides for the right to accessible and adequate housing. The purpose of this article is to show the conflict that arises between the right to property for owners of land and the right to housing of the informal settlers living on these privately owned lands. The main objective is to investigate the concept of illegal forced evictions and the legal framework that surrounds the practices that render such evictions against the principle of human dignity and the right to accessible and adequate housing in the context of informal settlements. The 2010 Constitution states that every person shall enjoy the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights to the greatest extent consistent with the nature of the right or fundamental freedom. This renders important the concern that arises when persons informally settle onto land that they have no legal title to; what is the balance to be maintained between property rights and housing rights as provided for in the Bill of Rights.
49
Maharani, Diah Pawestri, Afifah Kusumadara, Hanif Nur Widhiyanti, and Reka Dewantara. "Revisiting personal data : Ownership theories and comparative legal perspectives from Europe, Indonesia and the United States." Journal of Data Protection & Privacy 7, no. 3 (2025): 274. https://doi.org/10.69554/zmlg9061.
Full textAbstract:
The growing importance of personal data in the digital era has sparked global debates on whether it should be treated as property or a fundamental right. Different jurisdictions adopt varying approaches to personal data ownership, resulting in significant legal, regulatory and operational challenges. The US, through the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), treats personal data as a tradable asset, allowing businesses to monetise it with limited consumer rights. In contrast, the European Union (EU) General Data Protect Regulation (GDPR) frames personal data as an inalienable right, prioritising individual control and privacy. Indonesia’s Personal Data Protection Law (PDP Law) takes a hybrid approach, recognising personal data as a fundamental right while permitting regulated cross-border transfers. This study employs a qualitative and comparative legal analysis to examine the implications of these differing approaches. It explores property ownership theories, such as first occupancy, labour, utility, libertarian and personality theories, to assess their applicability to personal data. The findings suggest that traditional property concepts are insufficient to address the complexities of personal data, as it is inherently tied to individual identity and autonomy. Instead of being commodified, personal data requires robust legal protections to safeguard privacy and individual rights. The study highlights key challenges, including regulatory fragmentation, compliance complexities and consumer protection disparities. It underscores the need for greater harmonisation of data protection laws and stronger international cooperation to balance economic interests with the fundamental right to privacy. The insights provided aim to inform policy makers, businesses and legal practitioners in developing ethical and effective data governance frameworks.
50
SAVU, Vlad-Ionuț. "RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION - HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE." Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov Series VII Social Sciences • Law 14(63), no. 2 (2021): 453–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.31926/but.ssl.2021.14.63.2.30.
Full textAbstract:
In this scientific approach, we will focus on the historical dimension of the right of pre-emption. This paper is structured in three chapters highlighting the most important historical aspects underlying the right of pre-emption. Etymologically, pre-emption comes from the Latin words pre (before) and emptio (sale). The first notions of the right of protimis appear in Roman law, where property and inheritance are treated as religious derivations. The great French historian Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges (1830 - 1889), in his work Cité Antique (Ancient City), stated that property appears to be of divine origin.It belongs to a family, which includes the protective gods, the dead and the continuators of the family cult, i.e. those who are alive or those who will be born. Each individual of the family is considered a temporary possessor of the property with the obligation to pass these rights on to the descendants in order to continue the family's domestic cult.