Bundle of Rights

Cet ouvrage de droit et d'anthropologie pose des bases pour décrire la terre, les territoires et les formes de la propriété dans le monde romain. Il pose le principe que le monde romain est celui du pluralisme juridique et que le droit des conditions agraires et des controverses agraires est le meilleur outil pour rendre compte de l'hétérogénéité des statuts.
Révision en 2020 du livre publié en 2010 "La terre dans le monde romain. anthropologie, droit, géographie"

For much of the twentieth century, legal academics conceptualized property as a bundle of rights. But property theory today is deeply divided between theorists who focus on property’s ends, i.e., its reflection of values such as democracy or human flourishing, and those who focus on property’s means, i.e., its use of qualities such as modularity and exclusion to manage complexity in a cost-effective way. The bundle-of-rights conceptualization has been swept up into the controversy, becoming the particular target of means-focused theorists, who argue that the bundle conceptualization obscures critical features of the property system, most notably its use of strategies of exclusion, in rem rights, and indirectness. These theorists assert that, twentieth century wisdom notwithstanding, property is not a bundle of rights but rather is a law of things.Contrary to these theorists, this Article argues that the bundle-of-rights conceptualization remains useful both descriptively and normati...

Before long, the fragmented, uncoordinated, and geographically dispersed paper records in which our medical information is currently recorded will be replaced by integrated, longitudinal, networked electronic health records (“EHRs”). Though nominally confidential, the information in EHRs, like other information collected about individuals in cyberspace, is as vulnerable as it is valuable. Health law, privacy, and intellectual property scholars have all suggested that the river of information created by EHRs and other data systems present a problem of “control,” and many of these scholars have proposed that “property” might provide the control individuals want and need. These arguments for control rights in personal information test contemporary understandings of what property is and reveal fault lines in modern property theory. If property rights exist at all in dephysicalized, digitalized information, those rights are unlikely to be consolidated in a single person, to operate in re...

For nearly a century, most persons who have studied or written about property have conceived of it as a bundle of rights or, colloquially, as a bundle of sticks. In the mid 1990s, several philosophically minded academic lawyers questioned whether property should be thought of as a bundle at all. The impact of their work is reflected in Merrill and Smith (2007), a highly regarded and intellectually challenging casebook used in many U.S. law schools. Merrill and Smith emphasize that property is centrally a right to exclude and is generally held _in rem_, that is, is good against all the world. They find bundle theories of property defective for various reasons. This essay argues to the contrary. There are solid grounds for holding on to at least some bundle theories, which facilitate the careful analysis of the complexity of property. Moreover, Merrill and Smith's criticisms are often misguided or ineffective. Lastly, their account gives an overly simple picture of property and v...

For much of the twentieth century, legal academics conceptualized property as a bundle of rights. But property theory today is deeply divided between theorists who focus on property’s ends, i.e., its reflection of values such as democracy or human flourishing, and those who focus on property’s means, i.e., its use of qualities such as modularity and exclusion to manage complexity in a cost-effective way. The bundle-of-rights conceptualization has been swept up into the controversy, becoming the particular target of means-focused theorists, who argue that the bundle conceptualization obscures critical features of the property system, most notably its use of strategies of exclusion, in rem rights, and indirectness. These theorists assert that, twentieth century wisdom notwithstanding, property is not a bundle of rights but rather is a law of things.Contrary to these theorists, this Article argues that the bundle-of-rights conceptualization remains useful both descriptively and normati...

Ce livre réunit deux parties. 1. Une étude du système foncier anglais médiéval, autour de deux dimensions fondamentales, paramontal et manorial. 2. Une série d'études des trames parcellaires dont les trames coaxiales médiévales dans plusieurs régions de l'Angleterre.

Beginning with theories of absolute property, this introduction considers the merits of a more composite view, namely the ‘bundle of rights’ concept. Anthropologists discuss the relationships between people at the heart of property regimes, but personhood must also be seen as embedded in the things owned. The ideas of rules and control are key, and the concept of control at a distance provides useful conceptual purchase. Property is a complex idea to articulate, and natural law, religious and political frameworks of property are interwoven. Moreover, property is shaped by economic prerogatives, and its management shapes the relationship between the individual and the community, and the preservation of common resources. Property is, then, thoroughly embedded in social contexts, which in turn can render property highly unstable and contingent. It is precisely because of these kinds of tensions that legalism is so often invoked in order to manage and even create property relations.