The Responsibility of the Successor State for War Debts

1950 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 477-487
Author(s):  
Hans J. Cahn
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Successor State ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Debts

It is the unalterable fate and the inevitable risk of any debt that its value is closely connected with the fate and actions of the debtor whose assets are subject to the liability. This applies especially to the public debts of a belligerent state whose wealth and resources, and sometimes its very existence, are at stake. The domestic laws of almost every civilized country protect the creditor against the effects of legal changes and of non-remunerative mutations affecting all or an important portion of the property subject to the liability. This liability remains with the transferred property. To a certain extent it is legally vested in the person who succeeds to the property rights.

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

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

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

scholarly journals 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 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 620-644
Author(s):  
Tamás Korhecz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Cash Transfer ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

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.

Mafia Origins, Transplantation, and the Paradoxes of Democracy

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Varese
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Market Economy ◽  
Market Transition ◽  
Local Markets ◽  
The Public ◽  
Social Tension ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Late Transition ◽  
General Perspective

This chapter outlines a general perspective of mafia emergence and transplantation, and offers some considerations on the relation between democracy and mafias. Recent studies have shown that mafias emerge in societies that are undergoing a sudden and late transition to the market economy, lack a legal structure that reliably protects property rights or settles business disputes, and have a supply of people trained in violence who become unemployed at this specific juncture. However, not all mafias have developed during times of market transition. Mafias may well emerge within functioning market economies, and for reasons other than to ensure the protection of property rights. The best way to fight the presence of a mafia is to drain the demand for its services. It is not enough to reform the public administration or liberalize markets, or let booms go unchecked. Liberalization should be accompanied by effective measures aimed at preventing the formation of cartels in local markets and easing the effect of liberalization on the local workforce to avoid social tension.

International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: Special Refrence with Intangible Properties and Copyright Laws.

LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit P Singh ◽  
Shiv Kumar Tripathi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
International Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Rapid Pace

In view of the rapid pace of technological, scientific and medical innovations in India and abroad, the intellectual property rights i.e., copyright, patent and other neighboring rights, have been recognized in Indian and foreign jurisdiction. Moreover, its scope and content have expanded pursuant to statutory amendments over the years. Growing recognisiont, expansion and protection of IPRs needs to harmonised with the public interest. Within this backdrop, copyright law, patent law etc. have made elaborate provisions and endeavours have also been made at international level to strike a balance between protection of individual’s IPRS and social interest. The present article tries to examine the contours of protection of IPRS at national and international levels with special reference to copyright law.

The Analysis of 2008 Global Crisis in Terms of the Sustainability of Public Debt Stock and Budget Deficits of PIIGS Countries Panel Data Analysis

2015 ◽  
pp. 329-336
Author(s):  
Binhan Elif Yilmaz ◽  
Ferda Yerdelen Tatoglu ◽  
Sinan Ataer
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Panel Data ◽  
Public Debt ◽  
Economic Condition ◽  
Panel Data Analysis ◽  
Budget Deficits ◽  
Global Crisis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sustainability Of Public Debt ◽  
Public Debts

In this chapter, we have focused the impacts of 2008 global crisis on the debt policies and the sustainability of debts in the PIIGS Countries. For that, the circumstances of the global crisis are examined, and the economic condition before the crisis is handled. As a main objective, the public debt indicators of PIIGS Countries are pointed out. The ratios and budget units are evaluated in terms of sustainability of debts. While making these evaluations and examinations our method was panel data analysis which can be found at the end of this chapter. In this method, public debt ratios and the sustainability conditions of the public debts in the PIIGS Countries are used as the determinants of public debts sustainability.

The Law and Economics Analysis of Intellectual Property: Paradigmatic Shift From Incentives to Traditional Property

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli M. Salzberger
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Physical Property ◽  
Microeconomic Theory ◽  
General Notion ◽  
Technological Revolution ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Commons

This paper focuses on the normative analysis of intellectual property rights, in light of the technological revolution of the Internet and accompanying technologies. After a brief overview of the various philosophical justifications for awarding intellectual property rights, it identifies two major Law and Economics paradigms for the analysis of intellectual property: the incentives paradigm, which is founded upon the public goods analysis of neo-classical microeconomic theory, and the tragedy of the commons literature, which is based on the economic analysis of externalities. The paper raises several points of critique towards both frameworks of analysis and especially towards their inability to point to the desirable extent of intellectual property rights (IPR) and the direction of their reform required as the result of the recent technological revolution. It further criticizes the dominant contemporary Law and Economics writings in this field as shifting to a new proprietary paradigm that pre-assumes information to be an object of property, overlooking its fundamental differences from physical property and focusing on its management rather than on its initial justifications. The paper is concluded with some tentative thoughts on the general notion of “Property Rights” in light of the contemporary approach concerning intellectual property.

Contemporary Views on Economics of Patents

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shubha Ghosh
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
The Public ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
Patent Landscape ◽  
Patent Rights ◽  
Exclusive Right

A patent is a legal right to exclude granted by the state to the inventor of a novel and useful invention. Much legal ink has been spilled on the meaning of these terms. “Novel” means that the invention has not been anticipated in the art prior to its creation by the inventor. “Useful” means that the invention has a practical application. The words “inventor” and “invention” are also legal terms of art. An invention is a work that advances a particular field, moving practitioners forward not simply through accretions of knowledge but through concrete implementations. An inventor is someone who contributes to an invention either as an individual or as part of a team. The exclusive right, finally, is not granted gratuitously. The inventor must apply and go through a review process for the invention. Furthermore, a price for the patent being granted is full, clear disclosure by the inventor of how to practice the invention. The public can use this disclosure once the patent expires or through a license during the duration of the patent. These institutional details are common features of all patent systems. What is interesting is the economic justification for patents. As a property right, a patent resolves certain externality problems that arise in markets for knowledge. The establishment of property rights allows for trade in the invention and the dissemination of knowledge. However, the economic case for property rights is made complex because of the institutional need to apply for a patent. While in theory, patent grants could be automatic, inventions must meet certain standards for the grant to be justified. These procedural hurdles create possibilities for gamesmanship in how property rights are allocated. Furthermore, even if granted correctly, property rights can become murky because of the problems of enforcement through litigation. Courts must determine when an invention has been used, made, or sold without permission by a third party in violation of the rights of the patent owner. This legal process can lead to gamesmanship as patent owners try to force settlements from alleged infringers. Meanwhile, third parties may act opportunistically to take advantage of the uncertain boundaries of patent rights and engage in undetectable infringement. Exacerbating these tendencies are the difficulties in determining damages and the possibility of injunctive relief. Some caution against these criticisms through the observation that most patents are not enforced. In fact, most granted patents turn out to be worthless, when gauged in commercial value. But worthless patents still have potential litigation value. While a patent owner might view a worthless patent as a sunk cost, there is incentive to recoup investment through the sale of worthless patents to parties willing to assume the risk of litigation. Hence the phenomenon of “trolling,” or the rise of non-practicing entities, troubles the patent landscape. This phenomenon gives rise to concerns with the anticompetitive uses of patents, demonstrating the need for some limitations on patent enforcement. With all the policy concerns arising from patents, it is no surprise that patent law has been ripe for reform. Economic analysis can inform these reform efforts by identifying ways in which patents fail to create a vibrant market for inventions. Appreciation of the political economy of patents invites a rich academic and policy debate over the direction of patent law.

scholarly journals TOWARDS A TAXONOMY FOR PUBLIC AND COMMON PROPERTY

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Property Interest ◽  
Public Property ◽  
New Strategies

AbstractThis article argues that public property rights should be recognised as a separate category of property interest, different and distinct from private and common property interests and conferring distinctive rights and obligations on both “owners” and members of the public. It develops a taxonomy to differentiate private, public and common property rights. The article concludes that it is a mistake to think in terms of “private property”, “common property” or “public property”. The division and allocation of resource entitlements in land can result in private, common and public property rights subsisting over the same land simultaneously, in different combinations and at different times. The categorisation of property interests in land (as private, common or public) may also shift and change from time to time. The article considers the importance of distinguishing between private, common and public property interests for developing new strategies for environmental governance, and for implementing the effective protection of natural resources.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document