Law Commons^™

The Public Pore Space: Enabling Carbon Capture And Sequestration By Reconceptualizing Subsurface Property Rights, James Robert Zadick

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Property Rights In Land, Agricultural Capitalism, And The Relative Decline Of Pre-Industrial China, Taisu Zhang

San Diego International Law Journal

Scholars have long debated how legal institutions influenced the economic development of societies and civilizations. This Article sheds new light on this debate by reexamining, from a legal perspective, a crucial segment of the eighteenth and nineteenth century economic divergence between England and China: By 1700, English agriculture had become predominantly capitalist, reliant on managerial farms worked chiefly by hired labor. On the other hand, Chinese agriculture counterproductively remained household-based throughout the Qing and Republican eras. The explanation for this key agricultural divergence, which created multiple advantages for English proto-industry, lies in differences between Chinese and English property right regimes, …

Introduction: Comparative Property Rights, Lynda L. Butler

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Possession, Custom And Social Order: Property Rights In A Fragile State, Daniel Fitzpatrick

Daniel Fitzpatrick

Lawyers trained in stable socio-political contexts tend to overlook or underestimate the importance of social order in considering fundamental concepts of property such as possession. This article argues that the evolution and effect of possessory rules is closely linked to systems of authority and their relationship with social order. In fragile state environments, different types of possessory rules will have different effects on competitive racing for rights or authority relating to land. While complex or ambiguous rules will increase opportunities for rent-seeking by state actors, they may also serve to channel claimants away from violent contests over land. Conversely, while …

A Foxy Hedgehog: The Consistent Perceptions Of Carol Rose, Jedediah Purdy

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Presented at the 2010 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference.

Response, Carol M. Rose

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Presented at the 2010 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference.

The Inevitable Trend Toward Universally Recognizable Signals Of Property Claims: An Essay For Carol Rose, Robert C. Ellickson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Presented at the 2010 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference.

The Backwards Gesture: Historical Narratives In Carol Rose's Property Scholarship, Daniel J. Sharfstein

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Presented at the 2010 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference.

Rose's Human Nature Of Property, Henry E. Smith

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Presented at the 2010 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference.

Government Property And Government Speech, Joseph Blocher

William & Mary Law Review

The relationship between property and speech is close, but complicated. Speakers use places and things to deliver their messages, and rely on property rights both to protect expressive acts and to serve as an independent means of expression. And yet courts and scholars have struggled to make sense of the property-speech connection. Is property merely a means of expression, or can it be expressive in and of itself? And what kind of “property” do speakers need to have—physical things, bundles of rights, or something else entirely?

In the context of government property and government speech, the ill-defined relationship between property …

Kelo, Conservation Easements, And Forever: Why Eminent Domain Is Not A Sufficient Check On Conservation Easements' Perpetual Duration, Derrick P. Fellows

William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review

No abstract provided.

Property And Collective Undertaking: The Principle Of Numerus Clausus, Avihay Dorfman

Avihay Dorfman

Property rights are subject to the principle of numerus clausus, which is a restriction that means that it cannot be up to the contracting parties - or private persons, more generally - to create new forms of property right, but only to trade rights that take existing forms. What can explain this peculiar limitation? All the answers offered so far by property theorists have marshaled functional explanations either in favor of or against the numerus clausus principle (hereinafter: NC). In this paper I shall set out to articulate a novel explanation of this principle. My argument develops two general claims. …