Natural Property Rights: An Introduction

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
Eric R. Claeys
{"title":"Natural Property Rights: An Introduction","authors":"Eric R. Claeys","doi":"10.37419/jpl.v9.i4.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article introduces a symposium hosted by the Texas A&M University Journal of Property Law. The symposium is on a forthcoming book, and in that book the author introduces and defends a theory of property relying on labor, natural rights, and mine-run principles of natural law. Parts I and II of the Article preview the main claims of the book, summarizing part by part and chapter by chapter.
 The rest of the Article illustrates how the theory introduced in the book applies to a contemporary resource dispute. The Article studies an ongoing lawsuit styled Campo v. United States, now pending in federal court. In Campo, oyster producers are suing the United States for inverse condemnation. The class plaintiffs seek $1.6 billion in just compensation for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers having (allegedly) killed oysters they were raising when it diverted water from the Mississippi River through a spillway into the Gulf Coast.
 The Campo case repays study for two reasons. Labor and natural rights are already at play in the Campo litigation. The U.S. government moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims to property in oysters, and when the presiding judge denied that motion he relied in part on natural rights and the labor theory John Locke introduced in his Second Treatise of Government. Separately, the underlying dispute fairly tests any general theory of property. The dispute raises questions about: whether oysters should be private property; whether people should be allowed to claim private property in coastal water bottoms; how property in oysters and water bottoms should be reconciled with public interests in shoreline protection; why have an institution like eminent domain; and how nuisance law should apply to a government-sponsored water diversion into coastal areas. If a theory of property can shed helpful light on all of those issues, it applies broadly enough to constitute a general theory of property, and the theory introduced in this Article satisfies that standard. Along the way, this Article also shows how a labor- and rights-based property theory differs from justifications for property and regulation influential in contemporary law, policy, and scholarship.","PeriodicalId":44529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37419/jpl.v9.i4.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Article introduces a symposium hosted by the Texas A&M University Journal of Property Law. The symposium is on a forthcoming book, and in that book the author introduces and defends a theory of property relying on labor, natural rights, and mine-run principles of natural law. Parts I and II of the Article preview the main claims of the book, summarizing part by part and chapter by chapter. The rest of the Article illustrates how the theory introduced in the book applies to a contemporary resource dispute. The Article studies an ongoing lawsuit styled Campo v. United States, now pending in federal court. In Campo, oyster producers are suing the United States for inverse condemnation. The class plaintiffs seek $1.6 billion in just compensation for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers having (allegedly) killed oysters they were raising when it diverted water from the Mississippi River through a spillway into the Gulf Coast. The Campo case repays study for two reasons. Labor and natural rights are already at play in the Campo litigation. The U.S. government moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims to property in oysters, and when the presiding judge denied that motion he relied in part on natural rights and the labor theory John Locke introduced in his Second Treatise of Government. Separately, the underlying dispute fairly tests any general theory of property. The dispute raises questions about: whether oysters should be private property; whether people should be allowed to claim private property in coastal water bottoms; how property in oysters and water bottoms should be reconciled with public interests in shoreline protection; why have an institution like eminent domain; and how nuisance law should apply to a government-sponsored water diversion into coastal areas. If a theory of property can shed helpful light on all of those issues, it applies broadly enough to constitute a general theory of property, and the theory introduced in this Article satisfies that standard. Along the way, this Article also shows how a labor- and rights-based property theory differs from justifications for property and regulation influential in contemporary law, policy, and scholarship.
自然产权:导论
本文介绍了由德克萨斯农工大学物权法期刊主办的一个研讨会。研讨会是关于一本即将出版的书,在那本书中,作者介绍并捍卫了一种基于劳动、自然权利和自然法则的矿山经营原则的财产理论。文章的第一部分和第二部分预演了本书的主要主张,逐篇逐章地总结。文章的其余部分说明了书中介绍的理论如何适用于当代资源争端。本文研究了正在进行的一项名为坎波诉美国的诉讼,目前正在联邦法院审理。在坎波(Campo),牡蛎生产商正起诉美国政府,要求进行反谴责。集体原告要求16亿美元的公正赔偿,因为美国陆军工程兵团(据称)在将密西西比河的水通过溢洪道引到墨西哥湾沿岸时杀死了他们饲养的牡蛎。坎波案值得研究有两个原因。劳工和自然权利已经在坎波的诉讼中发挥了作用。美国政府采取行动驳回原告对牡蛎财产的要求,当首席法官驳回这一动议时,他部分地依赖于自然权利和约翰·洛克在他的《政府论第二篇》中引入的劳动理论。另外,潜在的争议公平地检验了任何一般的财产理论。这场争论引发了以下问题:牡蛎是否应该是私有财产;人们是否应该被允许在沿海水域拥有私有财产;牡蛎和水底的财产应如何与保护海岸线的公众利益相协调;为什么要设立土地征用权这样的制度?以及妨害法应该如何适用于政府资助的向沿海地区调水。如果一种财产理论能够阐明所有这些问题,那么它的适用范围就足够广泛,足以构成一种一般的财产理论,本文介绍的理论满足这一标准。在此过程中,本文还展示了以劳动和权利为基础的财产理论与影响当代法律、政策和学术的财产和监管的理由是如何不同的。
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
114
×
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