Privatization in Eastern Europe: The Impact on Economic Development through the Protection of Property Rights

Constitutional Protection of Property Rights in Hong Kong

Background: This article presents a scientific and legal analysis of the provisions of the current legislation of Ukraine and international legal acts in the field of protection of private property rights during the Russian-Ukrainian war. Based on historical and legal analysis of scientific heritage and modern scientific theories in the field of protection of private property rights and the right of possession by all subjects of public life, the authors of this article provide generalisations and recommendations for improving the effectiveness of international protection mechanisms in this area. Methods: The authors resort to numerous research methods, such as the method of philosophical dialectics and hermeneutics, historical, comparative, structural, and functional methods, analysis and synthesis, and induction. Results and Conclusions: The article examines international and Ukrainian regulatory legal acts that substantiate the mechanisms of acquisition, possession, and disposal of property owned by a person on the right of private property. Particular attention is paid to the latest problems associated with bringing to the established international responsibility war criminals involved in causing property damage and moral damage to the civilian population in connection with the destruction of private property. The authors suggest improving the mechanisms for the protection of the rights of private property that has been destroyed or damaged as a result of war crimes committed by Russian invaders on the territory of Ukraine.

Protection of Property Rights has become a pressing issue in China since the country strived to move from a planned economy to a market economy in late 1970s. The passage of the Property Law of China on March 16, 2007 marked an historic change in the country from public to private with respect to property rights. Effective on October 1, 2007, the Property Law for the first time in Chinese history grants an equal protection to both public and private properties, breaking up the orthodox ideology in favor of public ownership against private ownership and individual liberty. With a notable civil law tradition, the Property Law is intended to set forth comprehensive rules regulating creation, alteration, alienation as well as termination of property rights, and protecting private property rights in China, a country where the public or state ownership is still playing a leading role in the nation's economy. Many aspects of the Property Law, which are different from those in other countries, particularly common law countries, are unique not only in their content but also in their application. The land use rights typically reflect a Chinese reality, in that the ownership of land is separated from the possession and use of it. Adoption of the Property Law in China is a substantial step toward protection of private property rights in the nation. The greatest challenge facing the country, however, is how to enforce the law so that the private property rights are effectively protected, especially in situations where public ownership is involved. The Nail House syndrome that has spread across the country indeed raises the serious issue of compensation in cases of government takings. Whether or not compensation for takings will be just and reasonable remains to be answered. t Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law. The author would like to thank Professor Robert Reinstein, the Dean of Temple University Beasley School of Law for his guidance, and Professor Jane Baron of Temple University Beasley School of Law for her suggestions and advice. Berkeley Business Law Journal

Until now, Congress has been content to let the judiciary draw the line on takings by deciding when the government must pay compensation to private property owners.However, some members of the 104th Congress proposed new legislation which would significantly change the current federal approach to regulatory takings.'These legislative proposals sought to replace much of the case law interpreting the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.Despite judicial decisions favoring private property owners in the last few years, many in Congress believe that a clear standard on regulatory takings is neededa standard which will better protect private property rights in the face of government regulation by reducing the amount of property value diminution required before the government must compensate private property owners.These members believe expanded protection of property rights is consistent with the intentions behind the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.At the heart of the conflict is the tension between individual rights and the interests of the public, or, as some would say, the will of the majority.There are no easy answers to this timeless dilemma.

This paper presents a dynamic model of privatization, driven by improved institutional protection of private property rights and constrained by the buyer's financial constraints. Government ownership is more efficient than private ownership when private property rights are insecure. Improved institutional protection of property rights over time creates the need to privatize. The buyer's financial constraints affect the timing of privatization, causing the firm's post-privatization performance either to improve or to deteriorate in the short run. Financial constraints also have the possibility of inducing an underpricing phenomenon during privatization where the firm is priced below both what the buyer is willing to pay and the buyer's ability to pay. Faster institutional development calls for earlier privatization, but it also has the potential to either create or exacerbate deadweight losses associated with inefficient privatization. A host of empirically testable implications are derived. Copyright , Wiley-Blackwell.

The article is devoted to the study of theoretical and legal principles of protection of business entities from raids in Ukraine due to the low level of quality of the system of protection of private property rights in the state. It is stated that for small enterprises the lack of financial resources and the risk of illegal seizure or takeover, ie "raiding", is a more common problem, but large enterprises are also subject to raids. It was found that raiding is a real threat to the integrity of enterprises, stable economic development and information security of the state, its danger is confirmed by data on the number of raider seizures of property in Ukraine. It is noted that one of the areas of counteraction to raiding is the consolidation at the legislative level of a common understanding of this concept, but the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On Joint Stock Companies" deals only with certain aspects of raiding. Features of "white", "gray", "black" raiding are revealed. There are two ways to warn and protect businesses from raiding: the use of government tools and self-preventive protection of the enterprise. The state instruments of warning and protection of enterprises from raids include: legislative guarantees of inviolability of property and protection of property rights of enterprises in case of violation, criminal liability for misappropriation of property, the procedure of state registration of property rights, the right to apply for protection of rights and interests to the court and the Office for Combating Raiding at the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. It is emphasized that only 20% of enterprises independently protect themselves from raider encroachment, which explains the large number of raider seizures in Ukraine. Among the methods of such protection, emphasis is placed on creating a reliable system of protection of information about the company, ensuring timely and full payment of dividends to shareholders, preventing the mass purchase of shares and monitoring the current situation. It is concluded that it is expedient to develop and consolidate at the legislative level a common understanding of the concept of "raiding", guarantees of warning and protection of business entities from raiding in Ukraine, improving the powers of courts and the Office for Combating Raiding in Ukraine to consider issues of registration of property rights of enterprises.

Purpose This paper reviews the relationship between property and the changing coastal environment. It looks at issues around the mismatch between the protection of private property rights implicit in our property law, which assumes stability and permanence, and the protection of public rights and environmental values expected of coastal land, which is increasingly vulnerable to climate change hazard. Issues of retreat from the coast, perhaps with compensation and incentives, will need to be dealt with. Design/methodology/approach New Zealand situations and examples are used to illustrate the conflicts between secure property rights and changing coastal land. Findings The effects of climate change on coastal land will be significant. This era of environmental degradation and climate change will require a significant re-ordering of property law. Changes in coastal land will require property owners to adapt their use and occupation of the coastal zone, if necessary by retreating. Similarly, local authorities will need to be proactive in planning for coastal land changes. Social implications Property will need to be re-imagined to support public and environmental goals for the coast. Originality/value This paper extends other discussions about how property law and the protection of property rights is a barrier to implementing climate change responses.

The paper analyzes the concept of legal protection and legal protection of civil rights, which is a prerequisite for research institute of protection of private property rights. Determining the nature of the right to defense can establish its place in the structure of legal ownership.

Institutional environment, public-private hybrid forms, and entrepreneurial reinvestment in a transition economy

Many densely populated cities face the issues of limited usable urban land, and the redevelopment process may threaten the built heritage. Government, in serving the public interest, often intervenes through administrative or regulatory means in the conservation of these privately owned heritage buildings during urban renewal, even though such intervention may violate private property rights to different degrees. Yet, the general law of most developed and developing countries, though in different forms, is meant to protect private property rights. So, it is important to devise a fair and workable mechanism, supported with an innovative institutional arrangement, to control development of privately owned properties. Transfer of development rights (TDR) is one institutional innovation that can balance the conflict between public and private interests to supplement the defect of planning law. Before using TDR to address the property rights issues, there are some concerns that need debating. These include: whether development rights are property rights or not; the impact of conservation on property value; and the role of TDR on property rights, compensation or mitigation of the affected property. This research study begins by analyzing the relationship between property rights and development rights, and exploring how property rights, planning law and TDR interact with each other. It then takes Hong Kong as a typical example among the dense cities to examine the TDR programmes for built heritage conservation and identify the challenges of TDR. Due to the institutional-based characteristics of TDR, the research utilizes a comparison of TDR in Hong Kong with those in other jurisdictions from the perspective of property rights to extend the research result to wider application. The most recent controversial court case in Hong Kong (the ‘Hysan’ case) is discussed to illustrate the intricacy and controversy evolving around this issue. Finally, the research proposes strategies for the improvement in TDR, based on Hong Kong and overseas experiences from the perspective of legislative amendments, protection of property rights and of other stakeholders’ rights.

Main aim of the article is to analyze the correlation of the institutes of protection of property rights and self-protection of rights. The natural course of civil rights is also due to the fact that this right lies in the sphere of ownership, control and predictability of the rightholder. The legal possibility of self-defense in the system of property rights protection is applicable not only on the basis of the circumstances of self-defense of the rights enshrined in the general provisions of civil legislation, but also in accordance with special norms. The chapter entitled "Protection of property and other property rights" essentially provides for at least two measures of self-defense of the rights enshrined in articles 274 and 277 of the Civil Code. It is necessary to clearly coordinate self-defense measures and the scope of their application in the RA Civil Code, otherwise there are problems with the practical application of self-defense rights. There are no clear legislative delimiters regarding the system of protection of rights. Are the defense guarantees of individual legal institutions part of the system of protection of private law? Can the right holders of rights protected by private law institutions that have a separate system of protection use general forms of legal protection, for example, self-defense of rights? In the course of the study, a comparative legal method was applied. We have come to the conclusion that the protection of property rights on at least two legal grounds can be carried out through self-defense of rights, being enshrined in both general legislative and special parts.

Abstract. The article is devoted to analysis of the effectiveness of the main procedural legal and financial (banking) mechanisms designed to ensure the protection of property rights’ immunity. The legally regulated procedures of such protection are analyzed on platforms — both procedural and legal as well as financial and economic. There is no doubt that only in a state where the immunity of property is declared and guaranteed to the person can be provided the development of economic, intellectual, socially oriented activities. The effect of the principle of immunity of property rights is not absolute, but its restrictions are possible only on the grounds and in the manner prescribed by law. The topicality of the inviolability of property rights is due to the role of law as a platform for citizens’ property independence and their participation in the processes of social reproduction. The guarantee of property independence is the right of ownership of property and non-property rights, which is realized by giving a person the right to freely, unimpededly, and fully exercise the rights of the owner of personal property. The compliance of the inviolability of property rights during criminal proceedings is not properly ensured in the current CPC (The Criminal Procedure Code) of Ukraine; in particular, the movement of confiscated property is not regulated, which questions the novelty of inviolability. To improve the procedure for the protection of property rights, this is necessary to regulate at the legislative level the mechanism of protection and restoration of property rights of persons victimized by criminal offenses. The etymology of «inviolability» guarantees by law the protection of the status of the person from any encroachment. Inviolability in the economic and legal context is mainly understood as a person’s legal status, which is an unalterable guarantee against unauthorized restrictions by the state institutions — law enforcement, financial, court, and individuals and legal entities. An attempt is made to accumulate most of the latest achievements (both legislative, theoretically investigative and applied) on the issues of legal regulation of the studied financial and legal relations, based on which scientific views are substantiated, and proposals are developed to improve regulations in this area. The main vectors of economic and legal mechanisms for the protection of the inviolability of property rights, which would correlate with generally accepted European and world standards, have been identified. Keywords: the inviolability of property rights, property rights, principles of proceedings, judicial protection, seizure of property, financial guarantee, financial risks. JEL Classification G28; К14 Formulas: 0; fig.: 0; tabl.: 0; bibl.: 12.

Russian civil legislation reproduces practically unchanged legal definitions of vindicatory and negative claims from Soviet legislation, without adapting them to the conditions of the modern market. As a result, the legislator pays no attention to the specification of the spheres and conditions of application of claims for the protection of property rights in the context of a radical change in the conditions of turnover, the growth of new forms and types of unlawful behavior. Also, Russian legislation and the established law enforcement practice of courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts do not take into account the specifics and conditions of application of claims for the protection of private and public property rights. Behind the facade of creating the most favorable conditions for business, the legislator has neglected the task of not only ensuring, but also restoring legality and law and order in the turnover of real estate. The announced reform of property rights and the implemented results of the reform of the system of state registration of rights to real estate did not take these goals into account in any way, which seems to be a significant shortcoming and omission. The volume of violations in the real estate turnover is revealed gradually and the time factor cannot transform illegal behavior into lawful. In some cases, registry entries on the right disguise illegal transactions on the acquisition of property by individuals, the transfer of which to private ownership was excluded or limited.The article considers the issues of illegal seizure of protected natural areas from federal property, the reasons and grounds for the prosecutor’s appeal to the court with a negative claim. The legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the applicability of such a method of protection are analyzed, on the basis of which the validity of gratuitous deprivation of property in case of abuse is confirmed. Proposals for modifying Article 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and compensating the bona fide purchaser for damages are developed.

China poses a theoretical challenge in that corruption and rent‐seeking activities have not hindered foreign direct investment and economic development. Studies in development have documented the problems of rent‐seeking. International capital presumably hesitates to step into a Third‐World country such as China, which cannot protect private property rights with a comprehensive legal framework. However, for the last decade in China export promotion, foreign capital, and industrial development have proceeded simultaneously. This research argues that local officials helped investors overcome the problem of high transaction costs during a period of institutional uncertainty and local informal rules supplied foreigners with effective protection of property rights under corrupt circumstances. By controlling rent‐seeking activities, local officials created a wide variety of ad hoc patronage for private and foreign investments within their administrative domain. In return, local governments received extrabudgetary payments for the official patronage. This article provides an in‐depth case study of the so‐called joint venture between Taiwanese enterprises and Chinese local authorities in the Pearl River Delta, the institutional bases for their collaboration and the dynamics of the relationship under institutional change.

This article establishes static and dynamic panel models of 30 provinces in China, using a variety of regression models and regression methods to empirically study the impact of China’s intellectual property rights (IPR) protection on FDI. Then verifying whether the impact of intellectual property rights protection on FDI is subject to the level of foreign technology introduction .The innovativeness is constructing a quantitative index system of intellectual property protection of China, which includes intellectual property rights protection legislative level and intellectual property rights protection enforcement level. The research results show that the level of legislation and enforcement of intellectual property rights protection have significant positive impact on China's FDI. For some provinces which urgently need to introduce advanced foreign technology, strengthening intellectual property rights protection will inhibit FDI. Especially the strengthening of the intellectual property rights protection legislative level has a more pronounced inhibitory effect.