Abstract
The mere fact of defining the legal essence of the act of nationalisation by no means exhausts the theoretical and practical problems raised by nationalisation. The difficulties are, on the contrary, merely beginning. Indeed, nationalisation, by transferring to the community the ownership of the means of production and exchange, and by orienting their utilisation towards the collective interest, not only radically transforms the conditions of economic life, both in appearance and in reality, but also makes drastic changes in its legal structure. It is desirable to consider, in the light of what we have so far found in respect of the introduction and legal essence of nationalisation, its fundamental repercussions on the major branches of the legal system.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
“To take away private property is, so far as the law is concerned, relatively easy; to exploit it is more difficult.”
G. Ripert, Le Régime démocratique et le Droit civil moderne, Paris, 1948, p. 246.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
M. Byé, op. cit., Introduction, p. 3.
Fr. Luchaire, op. cit., p. 254.
Luchaire, op. cit., p. 306: “To sum up, the public undertaking seems to us to permit a new State activity.”
J. Desazars de Montgailhard, Les Caractères de l’Entreprise publique. Droit social, 1949, No. 1, p. 12.
M. Waline, op. cit., Traité, p. 296.
See below, p. 190; Escarra, op. cit., p. 555; G. W., La Compétence du Conseil d’Etat en matière de Services publics économiques. Droit social, 1948, No. 9, p. 315.
K. Katzarov, L’Etat Commerçant, op. cit., p. 35: “The question of the justification for a special character for commercial law must therefore be reconsidered.”
G. Vedel, La Technique des Nationalisations, op. cit., pp. 97–98.
Escarra, op. cit., p. 555.
See below, p. 339 et seq.
Fawcett, Legal Aspects, op. cit., p. 44; Katzarov, Nouveaux Aspects, op. cit., p. 437 et seq.
Vedel, La Technique des Nationalisations, op. cit., p. 95: “In the first place they have in common one feature, of a negative character, that they cannot be classified in any of the previously recognised legal categories.”
Vedel, La Technique, op. cit., p. 97.
Ch. Pineau, Sur la Gestion des Sociétés nationales, Revue Banque et Bourse, 1950, No. 65, p. 256.
See further details below, p. 239 et seq.; on the “denationalisation” of the steel industry in the United Kingdom, see below, p. 241; see also Chenot, Les Entreprises nationalisées, op. cit., p. 123.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1964 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Katzarov, K. (1964). Introduction. In: The Theory of Nationalisation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1055-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1055-4_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0425-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-1055-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive