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
In Nils Christie’s “Conflicts as Property”, Christie develops an argument in which depicts the concept of perceiving conflict as property and the measure that it impacts individuals and the legal system. This summary will further examine and comply with Christie’s perception, that conflict can be seen as property. In order to examine the argument and perspective of the author, understanding his implementation is of great importance. The ways in which professionals in the area of law can be perceived as “professional thieves”, and the example of laws pertaining to domestic violence, will be further discussed to validate the key concept of conflict as property. In summary; Christie believes that conflict is adverse to growth of the society
According to John Locke everyone has natural rights. John Locke came up with natural rights, by thinking about what they could be for a long and vigorous time. Locke said that natural rights are “life, health, liberty, and possessions” (9). Life is something that no one can take away from anyone. Locke said, “no ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possession” (9). Life is not an absolute right. An example of this is if there was a train full of ten thousand people about to hit a rock, and you are by the switch that could save the ten thousand people, but if you use the switch you are killing a twelve-year-old girl on the other track. Liberty is doing what ever someone wants to do, and they can’t be punished for
the next. In this way, when Chuck sells his land in the 3 plots, each
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ in their description of the result of such a desire. Locke sees the need and purpose of society to protect property as something sacred to mankind, while Rousseau sees property as the cause of the corruption and eventual downfall of society. Although Rousseau raises interesting and applicable observations, Locke’s argument triumphs because he successfully shows the positive and essential effect of property on man.
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.
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.
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).
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.”
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 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.
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
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?
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 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.
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