Throughout our class discussion on Leif Wenar’s argument on the topic of property rights, the Clean Hands Trust that he proposes stood out to me. Although his proposal may seem ideal when written on paper, I had several questions regarding the execution of this Trust, should we ever attempt to realize it. First, would the tariffs impose enough damage on developed countries to have them reconsider trade agreements with developing countries who are stealing natural resources from its people? Take the China-Sudan example into consideration. Wenar discussed how participating countries would impose tariffs on Chinese imports until they have raised the same amount of money that China had bought oil from Sudan for ($3 billion). However, as China is one of the top exporters in the …show more content…
Exactly, over how long of a period are countries participating in the Clean Hands Trust expected to hold the money raised from tariffs? And are the countries participating in the Clean Hands Trust willing to offer any humanitarian aid to the developing countries in which they are run by an unjust government/dictator? Wenar states that the money from the Trust will be returned to the people as soon as “they can replace the regime that is looting them with a decent, unified government”. If most of the developing countries have a rating of 6-7, how should we expect the people to overthrow their government by themselves? Are we to just wait around until the dictatorial regime depletes a bit in its resources/funds and give up? Or watch while the people, who are already living in a very oppressed environment, attempt to overthrow their government to no avail? Although the economic side & incentive to Wenar’s Clean Hands Trust seems like a good idea, I think that without an outside humanitarian aid aspect, it will not work. Or else, in the end, the developed countries would just continue to hold on to the money for an indefinite period of
Assessment of the Statement that Property is a Power Relationship Between People Property is the right to possess, enjoy or use a determinant thing, and includes the right of excluding others from doing the same. The concept of ownership or property has no single or widely accepted definition. Like any other concept it has great weight in public discourse and the popular usage varies broadly. Property is frequently conceived as a 'bundle of rights and obligations.' Property is stressed as not a relationship between people and things, but a relationship between people with regard to things.
Throughout John Locke’s, Second Treatise of Government, he uses several methods to substantiate his claims on the natural right to property. Locke’s view on property is one of the most fundamental and yet debated aspects of his works within his respective view on politics. Locke views property as one of humankind 's most important rights, contending with the right to life and the right to liberty. However, certain claims made by Locke regarding property are may be unfeasible, which could be deduced from the time period in which he lived. Some of Locke’s arguments appear to be carefully considered and well executed, while others lack the equality that Locke strives towards. John Locke’s theory of property, is a somewhat well supported claim
The Utilitarian theory of property looks to maximize utility for all people when property decisions are made. The common statement for the Utilitarian property theory is that in making a property the decision should do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. The problem with this theory comes in the definition of utility and aggregating this utility in a cost-benefit analysis. A popular unit of measure of utility, using the welfarist economics utilitarian view is using an economic measure, usually the price a person is willing to pay in the marketplace to analyze decisions through a cost-benefit mechanism. However, a strict welfarist utilitarian decision will not work in this instance as because welfarisim looks more towards
It has been generally acknowledged that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel has much in common with common intention constructive trusts, i.e. those that concern the acquisition of an equitable interest in another person’s land. In effect, the general aim is the recognition of real property rights informally created. The similarity between the two doctrines become clear in a variety of cases where the court rely on either of the two doctrines. To show the distinction between the doctrines, this essay will analyse the principles, roots and rationale of both doctrines. With reference to the relevant case law it will be possible to highlight the subtle differences between the doctrines in the cases where there seems to be some overlap. Three key cases where this issue surfaced were the following: Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset (1991), Yaxley v. Gotts (1999) and Stack v. Dowden (2007). This essay will describe the relevant judgements in these cases in order to show the differences between the two doctrines.
Essay title: “In Stack v Dowden, the majority of the House of Lords gave legal effect to context and considered that special rules should apply to determine beneficial ownership of the [family] home.”
Industrialized nations operate using a tariff structure referred to as tariff escalation. This is characterized by rising rates that give greater protection to intermediate and finished products than to primary commodities. Raw materials may be imported at a low tariff rate but both the nominal and effective tariff rates increase at every stage of production. Tariffs often rise with the level of processing in industrial countries. To the developing nation, it must seem it is better off not industrializing (116).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx both had the similar notion that property was the root of inequality, even though they both lived in different eras. Rousseau, who lived during the 18th century, was a staunch proponent of the idea that property gave rise to inequality, due to its unequal distribution. Similarly, Marx, who lived during the 19th century, contended that property gave rise to inequality because it created a class conflict between that of the upper class bourgeoisie, and the working class proletariat. However, for Rousseau, there was an underlying force that gave rise to property and that was amour propre. In simplest terms, amour propre is the vanity and self-love that leads one to seek personal gain, even if it may be at the expense of others (Rousseau 63). Rousseau argued that amour propre and private property were the sources of inequality because they drove man away from his natural state where he was equal amongst others.
the next. In this way, when Chuck sells his land in the 3 plots, each
Men have a right to create and enjoy their property. Property belongs to own men and own men have a natural right to property and private ownership. According to Macpherson's interpretation, Locke has three restrictions on the accumulation of property.
In the Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, he writes about the right to private property. In the chapter which is titled “Of Property” he tells how the right to private property originated, the role it plays in the state of nature, the limitations that are set on the rights of private property, the role the invention of money played in property rights and the role property rights play after the establishment of government.. In this chapter Locke makes significant points about private property. In this paper I will summarize his analysis of the right to private property, and I will give my opinion on some of the points Locke makes in his book. According to Locke, the right to private property originated when God gave the world to men.
In fact, Sachs was victorious in extending Africa’s health problem to World Health Organization (WHO) other organizations and successfully treated various diseases and even some donors increases their donations to show their solidarity for the people in Africa. Minghui says, “Over US$ 12.9 billion was pledged for the next three years, nearly US$ 1 billion more than at the previous replenishment conference in 2013” (Minghui, 2016). However, not all these strategies he mentioned are applicable in every poor country because of graft and corruption, no transparency and the aid becomes a waste money. Africa, for instance is rich in natural resources and they can use all of these for economic growth but because the government has no control over graft and corruption, they do not succeed.
Land Law The understanding and basis of land law in this country today largely stems from the substantial amount of legislation, which was developed in, and around 1925. It is important to note that reforms aimed to simplify and rationalise substantive law. Over the years there have been many developments and adjustments to the 1925 legislation, but the essential framework has all in all remained the same until 2002. When the Land Registration Act 2002 was enacted and implemented in October 2003. The policy objectives of the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 2002 was to simplify conveyancing by registering all titles to land in a central register.
In the state of nature, land is considered to be a public good; “The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being” (Locke, 2nd Treatise, Section 26), meaning that the resources provided by the earth, are given to mankind as a whole. However, our right to own property is not an inalienable right, but rather a conventional right. With the formation of society, and “acceptance” of government, the definition of property changes, thus the right to it becomes conventional. A true inalienable right would remain so, despite the status of government.
Bonzi found a necklace while staying at a hotel that is owned by Alpha Corp, and the question, “to whom does the necklace belong?” is asked. First of all, the type of property involved, from a legal perspective is personal property, and more specifically, tangible personal property because the necklace is a physical object that can be moved and touched. In determining who the necklace belongs to, the legal decision that needs to be made in relation to Bonzi is: who has legal ownership of the necklace?
the record shows, that without good institutions, in a recipient developing country, aid have a detrimental impact on the quality of governance. In the absence of these strong institutions, we should dedicate assistance efforts to improve the quality of governance before they can be effectively devoted to any economic development effort. Although more progress has been made over the course of the last 50 or so years in alleviating poverty than during any comparable period of time in history, poverty remains a huge global challenge. Over one billion of the world’s people live in conditions of poverty, surviving on less than $1 a day. What donors want aid buys (such as political support and economic advantage) The rich countries need to show that they support poor countries ,then certainly greater risk: accept fairer trade rules, adapt rapidly to climate change and resource scarcity we limit our consumption, accept the employment consequences of a more just arms trade, clamp down on tax havens and force our international companies to abide by social, environmental and accounting norms. Being so generous requires rich countries to undergo fairly profound changes in the way they have lived for the last few decades. The notion that giving away our loose change is embarrassingly generous would be an odd one to poor people around the world trying