The social function of property: A comparative perspective introduction

Fordham Law Review

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 1003-1015

  Foster, Sheila R ^a   Bonilla, Daniel ^b  

^a FORDHAM UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES   (Colombia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855510381     PISSN: 0015704X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (54)

1. LOREN LOMANSKY, PERSONS, RIGHTS, AND THE MORAL COMMUNITY 111-51 (1987).
2. Eric Mack, Self-Ownership and the Right of Property, 73 MONIST 519 (1990).
3. Richard A. Epstein, Property Rights and the Rule of Law: Classical Liberalism Confronts the Modern Administrative State 6-10 (Aug. 5, 2009) (Hoover Inst. Task Force on Property Rights), http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm-dlvl/groups/ public/@nyu-law-website-academics-colloquia-legal-political-and-social- philosophy/documents/documents/ecm-pro-062726.pdf
4. See JOHN CHRISTMAN, THE MYTH OF PROPERTY: TOWARD AN EGALITARIAN THEORY OF OWNERSHIP 125-84 (1994);
5. JEREMY WALDRON, THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY ch. 12 (Oxford Univ. Press 1990) (1988).
6. See P. J. PROUDHON, WHAT IS PROPERTY: AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLE OF RIGHT AND OF GOVERNMENT (Benjamin R. Tucker trans., 1876).
7. See KARL MARX, THE ECONOMIC AND PHILOSOPHIC MANUSCRIPTS OF 1844, at 93-114 (Foreign Languages Publ'g House 1961) (1844).
8. See Patricia J. Williams, On Being the Object of Property, in FEMINIST LEGAL THEORY: READINGS IN LAW AND GENDER 165, 165-80 (Katharine T. Bartlett & Rosanne Kennedy eds., 1991).
9. See generally MICHAEL OTSUKA, LIBERTARIANISM WITHOUT INEQUALITY (2003);
10. Peter Vallentyne, Libertarianism and the State, 24 SOC. PHIL. & POL'Y 187 (2007).
11. See generally M. C. Mirow, The Social-Obligation Norm of Property: Duguit, Hayem, and Others, 22 FLA. J. INT'LL. 191 (2010).
12. León Duguit (1859-1928) was a professor of public law at the University of Bordeaux beginning in 1886. For biographical information on Duguit, see José Luis Monereo Pérez & José Calvo Gonzalez, Léon Duguit (1859-1928): Jurista de una Sociedad en Transformación, 4 REVISTA DE DERECHO CONSTTTUCIONAL EUROPEO 483, 483-86 (2005).
13. Duguit is considered to be the father of the social function of property. See UGO MATTEI, BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PROPERTY LAW: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL AND ECONOMIC INTRODUCTION 31 (2000);
14. Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer, Florida's Property Rights Protection Act: Does It Inordinately Burden the Public Interest?, 48 FLA. L. REV. 695, 701 (1996);
15. David Schneiderman, Constitutional Approaches to Privitization: An Inquiry into the Magnitude of Neo-liberal Constitutionalism, LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS., Autumn 2000, at 83, 92.
16. See LEÓN DUGUIT, LAS TRANSFORMACIÓNES DEL DERECHO PÚBLICO Y PRIVADO (Editorial Heliasta 1975)
17. [hereinafter DUGUIT, LAS TRANSFORMACIÓNES].
18. Some of Duguit's works translated into English are LEÓN DUGUIT, LAW IN THE MODERN STATE (Frida Laski & Harold Laski trans., 1919)
19. and Léon Duguit, Changes of Principle in the Field of Liberty, Contract, Liability, and Property, reprinted in THE CONTINENTAL LEGAL HISTORY SERIES, THE PROGRESS OF CONTINENTAL LAW IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 65 (Layton Bartol Register & Ernest Bruncken trans., Little, Brown, & Co. 1918).
20. DUGUIT, LAS TRANSFORMACIÓNES, supra note 11, at 236.
21. For an analysis of Duguit's anti-formalist positions, see Mauricio García-Villegas, Comparative Sociology of Law: Legal Fields, Legal Scholarships, and Social Sciences in Europe and the United States, 31 LAW & SOC. INQUIRY 343, 349-56 (2006).
22. DUGUIT, LAS TRANSFORMACIÓNES, supra note 11, at 172.
23. CODE NAPOLEON arts. 544-545 (Fr.).
24. DUGUIT, LAS TRANSFORMACIÓNES, supra note 11, at 178.
25. Ugo Mattei, The Peruvian Civil Code, Property and Plunder: Time for a Latin American Alliance to Resist the Neo Liberal Order, 5 GLOBAL JURIST TOPICS 1, 8 (2005), http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 1149&context=gj;
26. Ngai Pindell, Finding a Right to the City: Exploring Property and Community in Brazil and in the United States, 39 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 435 (2006);
27. See, for example, the German constitution of 1949, Article 14 (2). GRUNDGEZETZ FÜR DIE BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND [GRUNDGESETZ] [GG] [BASIC LAW], art. 14, sec. 2 (Ger.);
28. GREGORY S. ALEXANDER, THE GLOBAL DEBATE OVER CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY: LESSONS FOR AMERICAN TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE 1-2 (2006);
29. Rebecca Lubens, The Social Obligation of Property Ownership: A Comparison of German and U. S. Law (bepress Legal Series, Working Paper No. 1607, 2006), http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1607;
30. Flavia Santinoni Vera, The Social Function of Property Rights in Brazil (Latin Am. & Caribbean Law. & Econ. Ass'n (ALACDE) Annual Papers, Berkeley Program in Law & Econ. 2006), available at http://www.escholarship. org/uc/item/0tp371xs.
31. M. C. MIROW, LATIN AMERICAN LAW: A HISTORY OF PRIVATE LAW AND INSTITUTIONS IN SPANISH AMERICA 205-06 (2004).
32. CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS [C. P.], 5 de Febrero de 1917, art. 27.
33. CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA DE COLOMBIA [C. P.] art. 58.
34. CONSTITUICAO FEDERAL [C. F.] [CONSTITUTION] art. 5, XXIII (Braz.).
35. Thomas T. Ankerson & Thomas Ruppert, Tierra y Libertad: The Social Function Doctrine and Land Reform in Latin America, 19 TUL. ENVTL. L. J. 69, 95 (2006).
36. See generally HANOCH DAGAN, PROPERTY: VALUES AND INSTITUTIONS (2011);
37. JOSEPH WILLIAM SINGER, ENTITLEMENT: THE PARADOXES OF PROPERTY (2000);
38. Gregory S. Alexander, The Social-Obligation Norm in American Property Law, 94 CORNELL L. REV. 745 (2009);
39. Jedediah Purdy, A Freedom-Promoting Approach to Property: A Renewed Tradition for New Debates, 72 U. CHI. L. REV. 1237 (2005);
40. Jedediah Purdy, People as Resources: Recruitment and Reciprocity in the Freedom-Promoting Approach to Property, 56 DUKE L. J. 1047, 1054-56 (2007).
41. Hanoch Dagan, The Social Responsibility of Ownership, 92 CORNELL L. REV. 1255, 1259 (2007).
42. See, e.g., RICHARD POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW 55-56 (6th ed. 2003);
43. Thomas W. Merrill, The Economics of Public Use, 72 CORNELL L. REV. 61, 81-82 (1986).
44. Alexander's robust conception of community, and the individual's relationship within it, was developed first in his work with Eduardo Peñalver. See generally Gregory S. Alexander & Eduardo M. Peñalver, Properties of Community, 10 THEORETICAL INQUIRIES L. 127 (2009).
45. See Duncan Kennedy, Form and Substance in Private Law Adjudication, 89 HARV. L. REV. 1685, 1737 (1976) (classical legal theory is concerned with identifying "core" individual freedoms and a "periphery" of limitations on those freedoms).
46. See Henry E. Smith, Mind the Gap: The Indirect Relation Between Ends and Means in American Property Law, 94 CORNELL L. REV. 959, 964-67 (2009).
47. See, e.g., Gregory S. Alexander, Reply: The Complex Core of Property, 94 CORNELL L. REV. 1063 (2009);
48. See Gregory S. Alexander, Pluralism and Property, 80 FORDHAM L. REV. 1017 (2011).
49. See Nestor M. Davidson, Sketches for a Hamiltonian Vernacular as a Social Function of Property, 80 FORDHAM L. REV. 1053 (2011).
50. See Eduardo M. Peñalver, Property's Memories, 80 FORDHAM L. REV. 1071 (2011).
51. See Colin Crawford, The Social Function of Property and the Human Capacity to Flourish, 80 FORDHAM L. REV. 1089 (2011).
52. See Daniel Bonilla, Liberalism and Property in Colombia: Property as a Right and Property as a Social Function, 80 FORDHAM L. REV. 1135 (2011).
53. See Alexandre dos Santos Cunha, The Social Function of Property in Brazilian Law, 80 FORDHAM L. REV. 1171 (2011).
54. See M. C. Mirow, Origins of the Social Function of Property in Chile, 80 FORDHAM L. REV. 1183 (2011).