Commons as Possessions: The Path to Protection of the Commons in the ECHR System

U. Mattei, Rocco Alessio Albanese, Ryan J. Fisher
{"title":"Commons as Possessions: The Path to Protection of the Commons in the ECHR System","authors":"U. Mattei, Rocco Alessio Albanese, Ryan J. Fisher","doi":"10.1111/eulj.12320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ‘commons’ is not mentioned in the texts of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P‐1). This essay argues that ‘possessions’ — which does appear in the latter — should be interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to protect commons against national governments' undue interferences. The argument comprises two parts. First, we analyse the polysemic term ‘possessions’ to show how the current understanding of this category is marred by flawed assumptions and by false dichotomies. Then, we propose an ‘ecological’ construction of legal relationships between subjects and objects. We find support in the ECtHR case law on Article 8. We argue this approach should be extended to Article 1 P‐1: once disentangled from possessive individualism and market paradigms, ‘possessions’ encompass the commons and the category offers a solid legal basis toward the justiciability in Strasbourg of privatisations","PeriodicalId":82443,"journal":{"name":"Real property, probate, and trust journal","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Real property, probate, and trust journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The ‘commons’ is not mentioned in the texts of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P‐1). This essay argues that ‘possessions’ — which does appear in the latter — should be interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to protect commons against national governments' undue interferences. The argument comprises two parts. First, we analyse the polysemic term ‘possessions’ to show how the current understanding of this category is marred by flawed assumptions and by false dichotomies. Then, we propose an ‘ecological’ construction of legal relationships between subjects and objects. We find support in the ECtHR case law on Article 8. We argue this approach should be extended to Article 1 P‐1: once disentangled from possessive individualism and market paradigms, ‘possessions’ encompass the commons and the category offers a solid legal basis toward the justiciability in Strasbourg of privatisations
公地即占有:ECHR制度下公地保护之路
在《欧洲人权公约》(ECHR)或《第一议定书》(P‐1)第1条的文本中没有提到“公地”。本文认为,欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)应该对“占有”——确实出现在后者中——进行解释,以保护公地免受国家政府的不当干预。该论点包括两部分。首先,我们分析了多义词“占有”,以显示当前对这一类别的理解是如何被有缺陷的假设和错误的二分法所破坏的。在此基础上,提出了主体与客体法律关系的“生态化”构建。我们在欧洲人权法院判例法第8条中找到了支持。我们认为这种方法应该扩展到第1条P‐1:一旦从占有性个人主义和市场范式中解脱出来,“占有”就包含了公地,这一类别为斯特拉斯堡私有化的可诉性提供了坚实的法律基础
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信