The Proprium of Property Law

Jan Felix Hoffmann
{"title":"The Proprium of Property Law","authors":"Jan Felix Hoffmann","doi":"10.1515/eplj-2021-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Classical property law is not only losing economic relevance with the progressing dephysicalization of economic processes but is also increasingly perceived as a static field of private law, pursued by specialized lawyers working with rather inaccessible national concepts and dogmas that seem to have no significant relevance for the development of a digital economy. The mostly codification-driven comparative research on property law continues in the tradition of national property law codifications primarily addressing tangible objects. The research on property law should not restrict itself to this rather pragmatic approach, because in the end this arbitrarily delimits the concept of property law and reinforces the impression of classical property law only dealing with tangibles. Comparative property law should look beyond issues of codification and address the question of what is the essence of property law. Property law deals with the erga omnes effects of rights. It therefore not only addresses full-fledged property rights over movables or immovables but also covers partially absolute rights over these assets on the threshold to contract law. Property law also addresses absolute rights with regard to intangibles. This awareness should on one hand demand from any discussion on creating new (partially) absolute property rights to take notice of the state of the art of current (comparative) property law. It should on the other hand incite classical property lawyers to take part in these debates and to question the traditional concepts and principles in light of the new developments. Classical institutions of property law should be reconsidered from this point of view.","PeriodicalId":338086,"journal":{"name":"European Property Law Journal","volume":"125 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Property Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2021-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Classical property law is not only losing economic relevance with the progressing dephysicalization of economic processes but is also increasingly perceived as a static field of private law, pursued by specialized lawyers working with rather inaccessible national concepts and dogmas that seem to have no significant relevance for the development of a digital economy. The mostly codification-driven comparative research on property law continues in the tradition of national property law codifications primarily addressing tangible objects. The research on property law should not restrict itself to this rather pragmatic approach, because in the end this arbitrarily delimits the concept of property law and reinforces the impression of classical property law only dealing with tangibles. Comparative property law should look beyond issues of codification and address the question of what is the essence of property law. Property law deals with the erga omnes effects of rights. It therefore not only addresses full-fledged property rights over movables or immovables but also covers partially absolute rights over these assets on the threshold to contract law. Property law also addresses absolute rights with regard to intangibles. This awareness should on one hand demand from any discussion on creating new (partially) absolute property rights to take notice of the state of the art of current (comparative) property law. It should on the other hand incite classical property lawyers to take part in these debates and to question the traditional concepts and principles in light of the new developments. Classical institutions of property law should be reconsidered from this point of view.
财产法的所有权
古典物权法不仅随着经济过程的不断去物质化而失去了经济上的相关性,而且也越来越被认为是私法的一个静态领域,由专门的律师从事相当难以接近的国家概念和教条的工作,这些概念和教条似乎与数字经济的发展没有显著的相关性。主要由法典驱动的物权法比较研究延续了主要针对有形对象的国家物权法法典的传统。对物权法的研究不应局限于这种相当实用的方法,因为这最终武断地界定了物权法的概念,并强化了经典物权法只处理有形财产的印象。比较物权法应该超越法典化问题,解决物权法本质是什么的问题。物权法处理权利的普遍效应。因此,它不仅涉及动产或不动产的全面产权,而且还涵盖了合同法门槛上对这些资产的部分绝对权利。物权法还规定了与无形资产有关的绝对权利。这种意识一方面要求任何关于创造新的(部分)绝对产权的讨论都要注意当前(比较)物权法的现状。另一方面,它应该激发传统的财产律师参与这些辩论,并根据新的发展对传统的概念和原则提出质疑。从这一观点出发,我们应该重新审视物权法的经典制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信