scholarly journals Bundle of Rights Reversed: Anticommons in a Japanese Common Property Forest Due to Legalization

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 259-275
Author(s):  
Gakuto Takamura ◽  
Takashi Nishide ◽  
Yusuke Kanazawa ◽  
Masahide Hayashi
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Bundle Of Rights

Mammalian Bone Marrow Acetylcholinesterase

1982 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 44-45
Author(s):  
Ezzatollah Keyhani
Keyword(s):  
Central Nervous System ◽  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Nervous System ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Extracellular Medium ◽  
The Central Nervous System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Mammalian Bone

Acetylcholinesterase (EC 3.1.1.7) (ACHE) has been localized at cholinergic junctions both in the central nervous system and at the periphery and it functions in neurotransmission. ACHE was also found in other tissues without involvement in neurotransmission, but exhibiting the common property of transporting water and ions. This communication describes intracellular ACHE in mammalian bone marrow and its secretion into the extracellular medium.

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON GONO GINI'S ASSETS DUE TO A DEATH ACCORDING TO THE ISLAMIC LAW AND POSITIVE LAW

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pardan Syafrudin
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Community Property ◽  
Communal Property ◽  
Islamic Jurisprudence ◽  
Legal Restriction ◽  
The Common ◽  
Husband And Wife

The Common properties (community property) is an asset that the husband and wife acquired during the household lifes, which both of them is agree that after united through marriage bonds, that the property produced by one or both of them will be common property. It shows, that if there's an agreement between husband and wife before marriage (did not to unify their property), then the property produced both will not become a joint treasure. Thus, if a husband or wife dies, or divorces, then the property owned by both of them can be distributed in accordance with their respective shares, another case when the two couples are not making an agreement, then the property gained during marriage bonds can be divided into types of communal property. In Islamic law, this kind of treasure is not contained in the Qur'an or Sunnah. Nor in Islamic jurisprudence. However, Islamic law legalizes the existence of common property as long as it is applicable in a society and the benefit in the distribution of such property. In contrast to the positive law, this property types have been regulated and described in the Marriage Law, as well as the Islamic Law Compilations, which became the legal restriction in the affairs of marriage in force in Indonesia. In this study, the author tries to compile the existence of common property according to the Islamic law reviews and positive law.

Vickers Hot Springs

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Bernstein
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Hot Springs ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Common Property Resource ◽  
Resource Conflict ◽  
Social Ecological ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Local Residents ◽  
The Common

Vickers Hot Springs is located near the rural Southern California town of Ojai, and local residents have long enjoyed soaking in the sulfuric pools. But as knowledge of the springs spread, the area saw increases in fights, traffic, burglaries, and drug use. In response, two residents purchased the land and committed to restore the property while allowing limited public access, subsequently generating a great deal of controversy within the community. Privatizing Vickers Hot Springs follows the archetypical lesson of Garrett Hardin's 1968 essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Hardin stated that the problem for common-pool resources was that a finite amount of services are demanded by a potentially infinite number of users, who have little to gain by sacrificing for the common good. But Hardin's theory does not always apply. Many communities have come together to manage resources, often without government oversight. Thus, the question is not whether or not Hardin's theory is accurate, but rather “under what conditions it is correct and when it makes the wrong predictions.” Case studies provide nuance to the broad brushstrokes of a theory, and whether Hardin's parable is applicable depends on the particularities of the common property resource conflict. Employing the frameworks established by Hardin, Dietz et al., and Ostrom, this paper examines the management of Vickers Hot Springs within its broader social, ecological, and political context, asking whether the particular circumstances of this resource use conflict made privatization the most predictable outcome.

Keadilan Distributif atas Pembagian Harta Bersama dalam Perkawinan bagi Keluarga Muslim di Indonesia

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-48
Author(s):  
Siah Khosyi’ah
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Married Couples ◽  
Dropping Out ◽  
Legal Cases ◽  
Islamic Jurisprudence ◽  
Marital Property ◽  
Joint Property ◽  
Husband And Wife ◽  
Muslim Scholars

The division of marital joint property after the breakup of marriage, whether dropping out of marriage due to divorce or due to death, is a new thing in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh). This is because the concept of mutual treasure is not known in the books of classical Islamic jurisprudence of Muslim scholars of the schools at their times, in which their work are always made as referral in the legal cases up to the present days. In Indonesia, the distribution of common property is regulated in the Compilation of Islamic Laws Articles 96 and 97, which stipulate the rules of distribution of joint property for married couples whose married are off as a result of divorce or death. Article 97 of the Compilation of Islamic Law actually provides an overview of the flexibility of the distribution of common marital property, including in certain cases because the article is regulating (regelen) rather than forcing (dwigen), so that the division is not absolutely divided equally between husband and wife, and casuistically the provisions of that article may be disregarded.

Property Rights: A Re-Examination

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. E Penner
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
Natural Right ◽  
Kantian Theory ◽  
Bundle Of Rights ◽  
Vexed Question ◽  
The Right ◽  
Jural Relations

Ranging over a host of issues, Property Rights: A Re-Examination pinpoints and addresses a number of theoretical problems at the heart of property theory. Part 1 reconsiders and refutes the bundle of rights picture of property and the related nominalist theories of property, showing that ownership reflects a tripartite structure of title, the right to immediate, exclusive, possession, and the power to licence what would otherwise be a trespass, and to transfer ownership. Part 2 explores in detail the Hohfeldian theory of jural relations, in particular liberties and powers and Hohfeld’s concept of ‘multital’ jural relations, and shows that this theory fails to illuminate the nature of property rights, and indeed obscures much that it is vital to understand about them. Part 3 considers the form and justification of property rights, beginning with the relation an owner’s liberty to use her property and her ‘right to exclude’, with particular reference to the tort of nuisance. Next up for consideration is the Kantian theory of property rights, the deficiencies of which lead us to understand that the only natural right to things is a form of use- or usufructory-right. Part 3 concludes by addressing the ever-vexed question of property rights in land.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document