Abstract
This chapter shows a historical review on property and its sharing communal use from the times of ancient Rome, Middle Ages until today. It will give the historical context of the human rights declarations while demonstrating that property limits have always existed in past legislation. It will further demonstrate the concept of the commons as a social experience at the end of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century with its own rules and theoretical formalization. This, while giving details on the tragedy of the commons and on Aristotle’s arguments for private property rights against Plato’s ideas favouring the system of common property. It will also demonstrate other possible complexities on with the definition of the commons.
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 subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The next two subtitles and paragraphs are inspired by the intensive research of Prof. Bernard (2017, 57–130), an expert professor on the modern use of property to whom I am grateful for sharing with me his research and allowing to translate it into English.
- 2.
- 3.
See Article 647 of the Civil Code whereby any owner may pass on his inheritance, unless for the exception contained in article 682. The owner can realize the fencing alone, and no one can oppose it in the unilateral exercise of this right. This seems to be the case today. Taken from Bernard (2017, 68–71, 81, fn. 72).
- 4.
Interestingly, this broad interpretation is related to Locke ’s broad meaning of property, including life, liberty, health, person or goods of another (Locke II, 6, 27, 44, 123, 239. For him, all those are covered by the broad definition of property: ‘which I call by the general name, property’ (Locke II, 123).
The articles by Powell and Katz demonstrate the evident link to the inalienable rights to life, liberty and property originating in Locke ’s natural rights (Katz 2003; Powell 1996, 45–52; see also Laslett 1963, 115, 117).
For the clear influence on USA from Locke ’s broad definition of property, see 38 and all references there. See also: Post (1986). For an extended and detailed analysis of the influence of Locke on the founders of the USA, see Dienstag 1996, 842, 993; Hulliung 2007: Cited in Eicholz 2009, 448). Furthermore, those principles are reflected in the second section of the Declaration of Independence (1776). Here too, for the influence of Locke, see the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (Skousen ed. 2006 ed., 413). Pierson 2013 demonstrates the challenges to Locke’s influence on US property law , but he also recognizes that many authors have found him to be the foundation of the US property law ; describe Locke as THE ‘America’s philosopher…from the declaration of Independence onwards’ (see Pierson 2013, 220, 222, 228). For Pierson , Locke is ‘a key figure in the development of British empiricism and liberalism’ (2013, 245).
- 5.
On the general view of intellectual property, Vanbrabant (2005, 89 and on: cited in Bernard 2017, 65, fn. 39, 73–74). The absolute character of property is further counterbalanced in some way by the extension of its content. It is certain, in any case, that the legislator of 1804 did not imagine such a flowering of the restrictive regulations to the level that laws could prohibit certain uses of the right of ownership (Bernard 2017, 65, 73–74).
- 6.
Bentham ’s statement regarding the law of nature refers to his criticism of the declarations of rights issued in France during the revolution, drafted between 1791 and 1795 (published in 1816) (Bentham 1843: Cited in Mill 1833, 392–393). The utilitarian movement is using Bentham’s remark while saying that natural law is ‘nonsense upon stilts’. But Bentham was arguing against conferring natural rights upon humans without any correlating limitations. He insists that ‘rights’ are created by law , and to be meaningful, others cannot interfere with those rights. If there were a ‘right’ without any kind of restraint, anarchy would result (emphasis added).
- 7.
The connection of those limits to Genesis is already partially demonstrated in Hiller Marguerat (2014, 237–239, 252–253).
- 8.
In Hiller Marguerat (2014), I particularly explore the texts of Grotius , Pufendorf and Aristotle that Locke was familiar with, and where one can find similarities on the same limits of property. For example, Grotius and Pufendorf recognize a similar limit to that of no waste . ‘[T]he first one taking possession would have the right to use things not claimed and to consume them up to the limit of his needs’ (emphasis added) (Grotius 1625, Bk. I, Ch. 2, Sec. 1, Para. 5). And ‘[e]ach man could at once take whatever he wished for his own needs, and could consume whatever was capable of being consumed….’ (emphasis added) (Grotius 1625, Bk. II, Ch. 2, Sec. 2, Para. 1). Grotius explicitly states that this is a ‘right to use things not claimed and to use them up to the limit of his needs’ (emphasis added) (Grotius 1625, Bk. I, Ch. 2, Sec. 1, Para. 5). Pufendorf’s state of nature contains a natural law limitation: ‘[T]here was a tacit convention that each man could appropriate for his own use, primarily the fruits of things, what he wanted, and could consume what was consumable’ (emphasis added) (Pufendorf 1749, Bk. IV, Ch. 4, Para. 2; Bk. IV, Ch. 4, Para. 9). So the capacity of consummation is also limited in such a way that the rights of others are not harmed. However, I argue that Locke was less concerned with limits of need because he is clear that it can be used for any purpose and advantage of life , more than needs. The limit is that product or land is actually used/consumed. Some other limits are demonstrated as seen above.
- 9.
American philosopher and political scientist.
- 10.
See, for example, the modern site ‘SHAREABLE’ on this and on other sorts of modern commons sharing ideas, specifically the contribution by McCartney (2011).
References
Alznauer, Mark. Hegel’s Theory of Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Aristotle. Aristotle. Politics. Book I and II. Edited and translated by T. J. Saunders. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Aristotle. The Politics and the Constitution of Athens. Translated by S. Everson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Arnaud, André-Jean. Essai d’analyse structurale du Code civil français. Paris (1973): 181.
Bayne, David C. “The Natural Law for Lawyers—A Primer.” De Paul Law Review 5, no. 2 (1956): 159–208.
Bentham, Jeremy. Anarchical Fallacies, Being an Examination of the Declarations of Rights Issued During the French Revolution. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol. 2 of 11. Edinburgh: William Tait, 1843. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxtandstaticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1921andchapter=114226andlayout=htmlandItemid=27.
Bernard, Nicolas. “Les Limites de la Propriété par les droit de l’homme.” In La propriété et ses limites / Das Eigentum und seine Grenzen. Congres de l’Association Suisse de Philosophie du Droit et de Philosophie Sociale, 26 septembre 2015. Edited by B. Winiger, M. Mahlmann, S. Clément, and A. Kühler. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2017.
Bernard, Nicolas, and Werner van Mieghem ed. La crise du logement à Bruxelles. Problème d’accès et/ou de pénurie? Brussels: Bruylant, 2005.
Claustre, Julie. Dans les geôles du roi. L’emprisonnement pour dette à Paris à la fin du Moyen Âge. Paris: Publications of Sorbonne, 2007.
Comte. Système de politique positive ou Traité de sociologie instituant la religion de l’humanité. Vol. I. Paris: Anthropos, 1851.
Daston, Lorraine, and Michael Stolleis Daston, eds. Natural Law and Laws of Nature in Early Modern Europe Jurisprudence, Theology, Moral and Natural Philosophy. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2008.
Dienstag, Joshua Foa. “Between History and Nature: Social Contract Theory in Locke and the Founders.” The Journal of Politics 58, no. 4 (1996): 985–1009.
Duguit, Léon. Le droit social, le droit individuel et la transformation de l’État. Paris: Félix Alcan, 1911.
Duguit, Léon. Les transformations générales du droit privé depuis le Code Napoléon. Paris: Félix Alcan, 1912.
Duguit, Léon. Traité de droit constitutionnel. T. 1. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1927.
Eicholz, Hans L. “Pufendorf, Grotius, and Locke: Who is the Real Father of America’s Founding Political Ideas?” Independent Review Journal 13, no. 3 (2009): 447–454. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_8_eicholz.pdf.
Ewald, Francois. L’État providence. Paris: Grasset, 1986.
Fisher, Elizabeth, Bettina Lange, and Eloise Scotford. Environmental Law, Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Franklin, Benjamin. The Completed Autobiography. 2006 ed. Edited by Mark Skousen. London: Trubner and Co, 1868.
Garnsey, Peter. Thinking About Property: From Antiquity to the Age of Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 5, 220–221.
Goyard-Fabre, Simone. Essai de critique phénoménologique du droit. Paris: Klincksieck, 1972.
Grotius, Hugo. De jure belli ac pacis libri tres [The Law of War and Peace]. Translated by A. C. Campbell. London: Clarendon Press, 1625. http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp.htm.
Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162, no. 3859 (1968): 1243–1248.
Hiller Marguerat, Shelly. “John Locke’s Concept of Property and His Natural Law Limits Based on Reason.’ Doctorate thesis, Geneva University, Geneva, Archives online, 2014. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:36849.
Holder, Jane B., and Tatiana Flessas. “Emerging Commons.” Social and Legal Studies 17, no. 3 (2008): 299–310.
Höpfner, Ludwig Julius Friedrich. Naturrecht des einzelnen Menschen, der Gesellschaften und der Völker. 3rd ed. Gießen: Johann Christian Krieger, 1780.
Hulliung, Mark. The Social Contract in America: From the Revolution to the Present Age. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007.
Ihering, Rudolf von. L’esprit du droit romain dans les diverses phases de son développement, Tome III. Bologne: Forni, 1880.
Josserand, Louis. De l’esprit des droits et de leur relativité. Théorie dite de l’abus des droits. 2nd ed. Paris: Dalloz, 1939.
Katz, Claudio J. “Thomas Jefferson’s Liberal Anticapitalism.” American Journal of Political Science 47, no. 1 (2003): 1–17.
Laerhoven, Frank van, and Elinor Ostrom. ‘Traditions and Trends in the Study of the Commons.’ International Journal of the Commons 1, no. 1 (2007): 3–28.
Laslett, Peter. ‘Introduction’ to John Locke, Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Lecocoq, P. Manuel de droit des biens, t. 1: Biens et propriété. Bruxelles: Larcier, 2012, p. 92.
Lewalle, Paul. “L’expropriation pour cause d’utilité publique.” In Contrainte, limitation et atteinte à la propriété, edited by Pascale Lecocq and Paul Lewalle. Brussels: Larcier, 2005.
Locke, John. First Treatise. Edited by P. Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963 (1690).
Locke, John, Two treatises of government. 1764 ed. London Printed MDCLXXXVIIII, 1690. http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.txt or https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/politics/locke/ch00.htm.
McGillivray, Donald, and Jane Holder. “Locality, Environment and Law: The Case of Town and Village Greens.” International Journal of Law in Context 3, no. 1 (2007): 1–17.
McCartney, Kelly. “How to Share Land.” 27 June 2011. https://www.shareable.net/blog/how-to-share-land.
Mill, J. S. “Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy. Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society.” In The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Vol. 10. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1833. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxtandstaticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=241andchapter=21491andlayout=htmlandItemid=27.
Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Pierson, Christopher. Just Property, A History in the Latin West Volume One: Wealth, Virtue, and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Plato (380 BC). “The Republic.” In Plato: The Collected Dialogues, edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961.
Post, David M. “Jeffersonian Revisions of Locke.” Journal of the History of Ideas, University of Pennsylvania Press 47, no. 1 (1986): 147–157.
Powell, Jim. “John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.’ The Freeman 46, no. 8 (1996): 45–52. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property.
Pufendorf, Samuel. The Law of Nature and of Nations. 5th ed. Edited by J. Barbeyrac. Translated by B. Kennett. London, 1749.
Ricoeur, Paul. “Langage politique et rhétorique.” In Lectures 1. Autour du politique. Paris: Seuil, 1991.
Rivero, Jean. Les libertés publiques. Paris: PUF, 1973.
Rodgers, Christopher. “Reversing the ‘Tragedy’ of the Commons? Sustainable Management and the Common Act 2006.” Modern Law Review 73, no. 3 (2010): 461–486.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. What is the Origin of Inequality Among Men, and It Is Authorized by Natural Law. Translated by G. D. H. Cole. 1754. http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_02.htm.
Sandefur, Tim. Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America. 2nd improved ed. Edited by Christine Sandefur. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2016.
Stanford Law Review, ‘Natural Law for Today’s Lawyer.’ Stanford Law Review 9, no. 3: 455–514, 1957 (Cited as S.L.R. (1957), followed by page number).
Vanbrabant, Bernard. “À propos de l’image des biens.” In Zakenrecht/Droit des biens, edited by Pascale Lecocq et al. Brussels: La Charte, 2005.
Vattel, Emeric. Le loisir philosophique ou pièces diverses de philosophie, de morale et d’amusement. Geneva: G. C. Walther Press, 1747.
Legal References
Case of Marckx v Belgium (1979), 6833/74, (1979) 2 EHRR 330, [1979] ECHR 2.
Case of Tyrer v The United Kingdom (1978), 5856/72, (1978) 2 EHRR 1, [1978] ECHR 2, Strasbourg.
Case of Mellacher And Others v Austria (ECtHR) (1989), ECHR 10522/83, [1993] ECR I-637, 11011/84, (1989) 12 EHRR 391, [1989] ECHR 25, 11070/84, Judgment 19 December 1989, Series A no. 169.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 1999. C.A. Report No. 44/99. 20 April 1999.
Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council (2006), UKHL 15.
United States Declaration of Independence. 4 July 1776, adopted by the Second Continental Congress.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hiller Marguerat, S. (2019). Property as a Common Use. In: Private Property Rights and the Environment. Palgrave Studies in Environmental Policy and Regulation . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97900-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97900-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97899-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97900-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)