The Awakening and New Woman fiction

A land plot as an object of law may be owned by one person or several persons simultaneously. In this case, legal relations of joint ownership arise. Common joint ownership, as a type of joint ownership right, is characterized by the uncertainty of the share in the right of each co-owner. At the same time, the content of the right of joint ownership is the same powers that make up the content of the right of ownership in general. Therefore, in this case, it is necessary to coordinate the actions of each of the participants in joint ownership with the other participants in the exercise of these powers. Based on the provisions of the current legislation, the procedure for exercising the right of joint joint ownership of land plots by citizens is regulated by both the provisions of the Land Code of Ukraine, which is a special act in the field of regulation of these relations, and the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Pursuant to Article 89(3) of the Land Code of Ukraine, the powers to own, use and dispose of a land plot of joint joint ownership are exercised by agreement or law. In other words, the contractual settlement of these issues is preferred. However, the law does not regulate the form of such an agreement. Therefore, in our opinion, taking into account the subject matter of the agreement (land plot) and the subject matter (citizens), we believe that an agreement on the ownership, use and disposal of a land plot of joint joint ownership should be concluded in writing and subject to notarization. Instead, in accordance with the general provisions of parts 1, 2 of Article 369 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the possession and use of common property in joint joint ownership is carried out jointly, and disposal is subject to the consent of the co-owners. Such consent is a unilateral transaction, and in the case of a transaction on the disposal of joint property that is subject to notarization and/or state registration, this unilateral transaction must also be concluded in writing and subject to notarization. The absence of the consent of the other co-owner to enter into a transaction deprives the co-owner who entered into the transaction of the necessary authority to enter into an agreement on the disposal of joint property.

In this article, I apply a feminist lens to study the two heroines, Dorothea Brooke of George Eliot’s Middlemarch (1871-72) and Mrs. Edna Pontellier in Kate Chopin’s “The Awakening” (1899). The two heroines each pursue intellectual fulfillment and desire to find their “true selves” in patriarchal nineteenth-century society. In marrying 45-year-old pastor Casaubon, Dorothea, like a modern Saint Teresa, seeks to achieve self-fulfillment through her husband, but, eventually frustrated with his monochrome and stuffy life, marries Will Ladislaw after Casaubon’s death. Chopin’s Edna, on the other hand, achieves her true self only through rejecting an identity based solely on her roles as mother and wife. First, she purchases a small house with her own money, thereby gaining both psychological and economic independence. However, realizing that she can neither live with her husband nor run away with Robert, she ultimately decides to commit suicide as she wades into the water. Her awakening had made her painfully cognizant of her tormented life, and she concludes that the only path to mental victory is through death. She rejects the roles patriarchal society expects of her, and, in accomplishing freedom the only way she can, makes “The Awakening” a seminal work of feminist fiction. Female authors like Eliot and Chopin portrayed the “inaudible weeping” of women trapped in systems that deny them their full humanity.

The subject matter of this paper is the analysis of the ownership right and its limitations in neighbour-law relationships, including the restrictions on ownership and neighbours' rights due to the prohibition of abuse of rights. Neighbours' rights set boundaries to the content of the ownership right, whereas the prohibition of abuse of rights additionally restricts the freedom of exercising the recognised content of the ownership right. The paper aims to point out to the basic differences between neighbours' rights and the prohibition of abuse of rights, as well as to the occasional overlapping of their legal functions and effects.

Privacy, Private Property, and Collective Property

In international and national jurisprudence it can be noticed that, under certain circumstances, courts are prone to limit some of the owners' entitlements with regard to their immovable property so as to enable the use of such property by other persons or families as their home. This trend is due to the growing population on the planet, a drastic social stratification, mass migration and etc., on the one hand, and efforts to mitigate problems and growing tensions in society by pursuing appropriate social and legal policies, on the other hand. There are legal loopholes in this area that courts tend to eliminate by extensively interpreting international conventions, sometimes even referring to something that is not stipulated therein. For instance, courts colloquially and in a simplified manner speak of limitations of the ownership right by the right to home. Systematic analysis of the relevant international documents, nevertheless, reveals that this subject matter is indeed covered by three rights: 1. the right to adequate conditions for establishing home; 2. right to respect home and 3. right to protect home. Even though they are neither exhaustively enumerated as such in intentional documents, nor terminologically determined, they make a logical sequence that undoubtedly emanate from the human rights catalogue and court decisions that have been rendered in past seventy years. In the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and national courts, ownership right has been mainly constrained so as to enable an uninhibited life in the space considered home and so as to prevent eviction from that space. In such circumstances, the court shall give the preference to one of the two fundamental rights: the ownership right or the right to home. This is achieved through the so-called balancing of interests. In order for the outcome of such balancing to be as fair as possible, it is primarily necessary to determine whether a particular space can be considered home. In this respect there often exist certain dilemmas. They are the consequence of the absence of a precise definition, or even of a more widely accepted terminological determination of the notion home. In this paper, this phenomenon is discussed in detail in a broader historical and comparative context. The analysis has revealed that in Europe from ancient times to the end of XVIII century, home was considered a community of persons and goods (univesitas rerum et personarum), and that it consisted of two components: tangible (referring to the space and things) and intangible, spiritual (referring to the connections between community members and their emotional connection to the space). The emergence of liberal ideology, associated with materialism and an individualised concept of law, influenced the change in its perception. In the modern world, and especially in the field of economy, home has been reduced to the living space. Nevertheless, when considering the request to limit the ownership right so as to preserve home, the court shall establish if there are spiritual attachments of the user to the specific living space that justify preferring his/her needs over material interests of the owner. Eventually, provided that the court decides to limit the ownership right, it shall determine how the owner will be compensated for the use of his/her space. As a rule, that burden shall be borne by the person who continues using that space. If, however, that turns out to be impossible, financial means for the use of living space shall be secured by the state from the funds aimed at financing social programs. By way of ratified international conventions, the state is, in general, obliged to do that. Besides, the article also gives an overview of the examples of active legal policies and examples of good practice in comparative law. The legal policy of the Republic of Serbia and its court practice in this respect are also examined.

The article highlights the method of protecting the right of ownership and determining the subjects of use on the example of the analysis of judicial practice. The interrelationship of the right of ownership and the right of use, the order of following the main thing and the accessory thing are determined. Examples of a court case in terms of the court’s determination of the right of ownership and subjects of the right of use are given. The issue of property rights is analyzed in the context of a key aspect of social relations between subjects of civil law. The provision that the state’s attitude to the issue of property rights determines the features of the ruling regime in the country and testifies to the development of civil society has been updated. The inviolability of the right to property and the level of its protection is a kind of litmus test that determines the level of democratic society and the state’s attitude to basic human and citizen rights. Thus, Part 1 of Article 4 of the Civil Code of Ukraine stipulates that every person has the right, in accordance with the procedure established by this Code, to apply to the court for the protection of his violated, unrecognized or disputed rights, freedoms or legitimate interests. According to Part 1 of Article 16 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, every person has the right to apply to the court for the protection of his personal non-property or property right and interest. According to Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine, everyone has the right, in particular, to own, use and dispose of their property; the right to private property is acquired in accordance with the procedure established by law; no one can be unlawfully deprived of the right to property, the right to private property is inviolable (parts one, two, four). Analysis of court practice shows that consideration and resolution of civil cases in the field of violation of property rights is complicated by the imperfection of the legal system, the need to improve and change the existing legislation in this field. It was determined that mostly people go to court due to violations related to the lack of registration of ownership rights to real estate, loss of title documents, receipt of title documents by improper entities, presence of self-acting objects in real estate.

According to the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution of Ukraine, land is an object of the right of ownership of the Ukrainian people and the main source of national wealth, and is under the special protection of the state. Thus, Article 13 of the Constitution of Ukraine provides that the state ensures the protection of the rights of all subjects with regard to the right of ownership and management. It also establishes equality before the law of all subjects of property rights without exception and guarantees everyone the protection of their rights and freedoms. These fundamental provisions of the Basic Law of Ukraine are of decisive importance for the subjects of land relations. Consequently, the Land Code of Ukraine guarantees and provides individuals and legal entities with equal conditions and ways to protect the right of ownership and the right to use land. The owner of a land plot or a land user may demand the elimination of any violations of his land rights, even if these violations are not related to the deprivation of the right to possess or use (on a lease basis) a land plot, as well as compensation for the damage caused. This Code provides that all lands within its territory, including islands and lands occupied by water bodies, belong to the lands of Ukraine. Part 1 of Article 78 of the Land Code of Ukraine discloses the content of the right to own land – this is the right to own, use and dispose of land plots. As a result of disagreements arising in the application of legislation or disputes arising in the event of a violation of this right (the ownership, use and disposal of land plots), such disputes are resolved in an administrative and judicial manner. The article argues for the protection of the property rights of individuals and legal entities to a land plot. Such protection is especially relevant when resolving land disputes arising from violations of the right to own, use and dispose of land plots. To this end, the article has four sections, which, together with examples from judicial practice, reveal the essence of protecting land rights. These are the following sections: 1. Protection of land rights, carried out in an administrative and judicial manner; 2. Responsibility for the violation of land legislation; 3. Substantive jurisdiction of the resolution of land disputes by a court; 4. Judicial control over the execution of a court decision on land disputes. Thus, the article sets out the protection of land ownership through the prism of resolving land disputes. Słowa kluczowe: protection of land rights, land ownership, right to use a land plot, right to dispose of a land plot, civil liability, administrative liability, criminal liability, land disputes, land plot, subject matter jurisdiction, civil jurisdiction, administrative jurisdiction, economic jurisdiction, judicial control

It is indicated that the domestic legislator calls the task of civil proceedings the achievement of fairness in the trial, which should lead to effective protection of a violated, disputed or unrecognized right (including property rights) or interest in its broad sense. The article examines the issue of ensuring proper and effective conduct of pre-trial proceedings in civil cases related to the protection of property rights. At the same time, certain features of preparation for the judicial consideration of disputes in this category are highlighted. The legal conclusions of the Supreme Court are provided, which serve as a basis for the implementation of uniform judicial practice. Special attention is paid to the importance of correctly identifying defendants, the subject matter, and the grounds of the dispute in order to effectively protect the rights of owners – the subjects of these legal relations. The necessity of determining, at this stage of civil proceedings, the circumstances to be established, clarifying objections to claims, and collecting evidence that will be examined during the substantive consideration of the case is also emphasized. An essential component of the pre-trial stage in cases concerning the protection of property rights is the holding of a preparatory hearing, during which motions and applications of the parties and other organizational issues are resolved. If conducted properly, it can create conditions for dispute resolution through negotiations and conciliation procedures, and in the absence of a compromise – ensure the substantive consideration of the dispute in the shortest possible time. In addition, when considering each case, it is necessary to strive for the fairness of judicial proceedings, which should lead to the effective protection of a violated, disputed, or unrecognized right (in particular, the right of ownership). This means that a properly conducted pre-trial proceeding in cases regarding the protection of property rights is an important algorithm through which the main task of civil proceedings is achieved – the protection of violated, unrecognized, or disputed rights, freedoms, or interests through fair, impartial, and timely consideration and resolution of the case.

Building Rights Title (HGB) which has expired according to the legislation will return to the original legal status of the land rights, namely returning to state land, management rights or individuals. The problem in this study is how the implementation of an increase from Building Rights Title to Land Ownership Rights in Indonesia, and what obstacles arise in increasing land rights. The research method used is normative juridical. The data source used is secondary data. The data collection method is done by means of literature study. Data processing is done by descriptive analytical method. Land with HGB status can be upgraded to Property Rights by applying for an increase in rights. However, in reality not all HGB can be upgraded to Property Rights. HGB that is on the land of a person's property rights and land management rights can not be upgraded to Property Rights. In addition, HGB that is encumbered with a mortgage cannot be upgraded to Hak Milik as long as the debt has not been repaid.

The article is devoted to the study of the peculiarities of requisition under conditions of martial law. It is emphasized that despite the principle of inviolability of property rights, the possibility of forced alienation of property rights is enshrined at the legislative level. It was established that in order to determine the legality of interference with the right of private property through requisition, it is necessary to take into account the criteria of the three-fold test: the legality of the interference, public necessity and proportionality. The position of scientists who claim that the basis of requisition under martial law is the legal structure is supported. On the basis of the analysis of the legislative provisions, the main features inherent in requisitions are identified: is aimed at satisfying public interests; is carried out under the condition of occurrence or probability of occurrence of extraordinary circumstances; is conducted administratively, not judicially; a special entity authorized to make a decision on forced alienation; is the basis for the emergence of the right of state ownership and the termination of the right of private ownership; has a compensatory nature (preliminary or subsequent reimbursement of the cost); after the cessation of extraordinary circumstances, the former owner has the right to demand the return of requisitioned property, if it is preserved. It is emphasized that the requisition must be accompanied by clear documentation: to confirm the fact of forced alienation of property, an act is drawn up, an integral appendix to which is a document containing a conclusion on the value of the property. It was established that the moment of termination of the ownership right of the owner and its occurrence in the state is connected with the date of signing the act of forced alienation of property. It has been established that the object of requisition can be both individually determined property and property endowed with ancestral characteristics. Therefore, it is proposed to unify the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Transfer, Expropriation or Seizure of Property under the Legal Order of Martial Law or State of Emergency" with the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine. It is emphasized that despite the absence of a direct instruction in the Land Code of Ukraine, requisition is one of the reasons for the forced termination of ownership of land plots. It was concluded that requisition is the basis for terminating not only ownership rights, but also real rights to someone else's property. It was determined that the owner can challenge the assessment of requisitioned property by filing a claim for reimbursement of its value. The specifics of the return of property that was forcibly alienated against the will of the owner are disclosed. It was established that the dispute about the appeal of acts of forced alienation is a matter of private law, since there is an encroachment on a person's property right.

Land is an important commodity in society that it is both permanent and indestructible, two features which distinguish it from other forms of property. More than one person can have a relationship with the land and share the right to possess it. The right to possess a land is known as ownership right, but it is also common for people to have enforceable rights in other people’s land. This is the third party right, an example of which is where the owner of a house in a residential area agrees with neighbours that the house will only be used as a residence. This chapter discusses land and property rights, ownership rights, third party rights, and conveyancing. It also examines the distinction in English law between real property and personal property, the meaning of land, items attached to the land, fixtures and fittings, and incorporeal hereditaments.

Land is an important commodity in society that it is both permanent and indestructible, two features which distinguish it from other forms of property. More than one person can have a relationship with the land and share the right to possess it. The right to possess a land is known as ownership right, but it is also common for people to have enforceable rights in other people’s land. This is a third-party right, an example of which is where the owner of a house in a residential area agrees with neighbours that the house will only be used as a residence. This chapter discusses land and property rights, ownership rights, third-party rights, and conveyancing. It also examines the distinction in English law between real property and personal property, the meaning of land, items attached to the land, fixtures and fittings, and incorporeal hereditaments.

Land is an important commodity in society that it is both permanent and indestructible, two features which distinguish it from other forms of property. More than one person can have a relationship with the land and share the right to possess it. The right to possess a land is known as ownership right, but it is also common for people to have enforceable rights in other people’s land. This is the third party right, an example of which is where the owner of a house in a residential area agrees with neighbours that the house will only be used as a residence. This chapter discusses land and property rights, ownership rights, third party rights, and conveyancing. It also examines the distinction in English law between real property and personal property, the meaning of land, items attached to the land, fixtures and fittings, and incorporeal hereditaments.

This article explores the lawfulness of on personal property in both common law and intellectual property regimes. The common law has from ancient times recognized the general right of owners of real property to burden with restrictions on use - restrictions that run with the land - subject to various conditions and limitations. It has been more ambivalent about similar restrictions on personal property. Why? That was a question broached seventy-five years ago by Zechariah Chafee, though he never fully answered it. Today, the question has acquired a new importance because of the pervasive use of computer software licensing restrictions that, for all practical purposes, can be regarded as a form of property servitude. Software licensing restrictions implicate specialized rules of intellectual property, such as the first sale doctrine. However, those rules are basically derived from common law policies (most notably policies against restraints on alienation and restraints of trade) so the question about the legality of such restrictions is essentially no different for intellectual property than for common law property. In all events this article argues that the traditional hostility to use and resale restraints on personal property is misguided in both the common law and intellectual property contexts. While there may be legitimate reasons for limiting an owner's right to impose post-transfer restrictions on use and resale, those reasons are more exceptional than has been commonly assumed. Moreover, in the new digital world where servitude-type restrictions can be engineered into the architecture of the property right itself public policy restrictions on contractual servitudes may prove to be ineffectual, raising a new reason to take a fresh look at old conceptions of personal property servitudes.

The relevance of the subject matter lies in the fact that inheritance is one of the most common grounds for acquiring property by individuals. Considering the fact that the heirs are often relatives of the testator, to avoid disputes between them, the law should contain an effective mechanism for resolving relations between heirs over the redistribution of inheritance or change of the order of inheritance, and a mechanism to protect the rights and interests of heirs in case of disputes. The purpose of this study is to identify gaps and inconsistencies in civil legislation and case law in the study of the main ways to protect the rights of heirs in hereditary relations, and ways to resolve them. It is noted that in the presence of disputes between the heirs, it is not the protection of property rights that is carried out, because the heirs have not yet acquired the right of ownership, but the protection of the right to inheritance, according to which they will be able to acquire ownership of the inherited property. There is a lack of a particular list of ways to protect the rights of heirs in the legislation of Ukraine, which has a negative impact on judicial practice, as they often use inappropriate methods of protection. The study analyses the case law of hereditary disputes and identifies the main mistakes that courts make in resolving such cases. Particular attention is focused on the study of such methods of protection as the recognition of the certificate of inheritance as invalid, the hereditary recognition of the property that belonged to the deceased, but was not part of the inheritance. The study investigates the moment of ownership of the hereditary property of the heirs and a critical analysis of the provisions of Article 1268 of the Civil Code, which determine the moment from which the inheritance belongs to the heir – namely from the moment of opening the inheritance. There is a conflict between the rules of Article 1268 and Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine "On state registration of real rights to immovable property and their encumbrances" in terms of establishing the moment of ownership of immovable property by inheritance