- Welcome to Ryan's District Boards.
Posted by wlsqfjaru
- April 28, 2011, 04:40:59 AMOn China,
Abstract: China's . Keywords: Property; Property Law; property rights limits the rights and restrictions always accompanied by the line, there are limits to property rights issues. The so-called property rights restrictions, is the law and the exclusive property of the dominating force of the restriction, that the interests of property and behavior of people to enjoy freedom and limited effectiveness against the third person. Real Property limits and other persons involved in both the interest and social welfare are closely related, therefore, national property law restrictions on the property to set the system very seriously, not only provides for the principle prohibiting the abuse of property rights, but also a number of specific the right to limit terms. Restrictions on the property laws of property right is also very concerned about the recent introduction of the However, limited by the specific terms of the right, I think, the legislative process in the property, although the academic circles, legal status and right to development Thus, as some scholars have argued,
Scholars in the interpretation of ownership to be equally protected. Since the equal protection of The principle of equal protection of the property restricted the direct embodiment of the system, first of all should show the same types of property and the extent of its limitations should be much the same way, not because of such factors as a result of the different restrictions on the differences. However, the First, the First of all, collective ownership and private ownership of the right to limit terms by the general restrictions. That is, Secondly, the collective ownership and private ownership have to be limited by the public interest. If by Again, the collective ownership and private ownership restricted scope of the object. Such as Article 51, Article 52 specifically enumerated in the mineral resources, waters, seas, etc. can only be owned by the State. Finally, the collective ownership and the effectiveness of individual ownership to be limited. Accordance with the significantly restrict the effectiveness of role play. Second, the First, national ownership is difficult to be Because of state ownership are generally made in accordance with the provisions of the law directly, but the state-owned property, in turn, the State Council shall exercise the ownership on behalf of the State (whether Second, the state ownership have fewer restrictions. In addition to unclaimed belong to the state (Thus, any of collective ownership and private ownership restrictions on the enjoyment, just to get it into national ownership. Again, the object of a wide range of national ownership, there are no restrictions. Accordance with the Therefore, the state ownership of the object does not exist any restrictions. Finally, the effectiveness of national ownership and less restricted. Although the Therefore, the relationship between state ownership restrictions is difficult to be adjacent. At the same time, despite the system of state-owned property for almost any space, of course, not to mention the national title chase and the effectiveness of restrictions. From a legal perspective, have the right to have the right to limit, country ownership should not be an exception. The principle of equal protection requirements of various ownership restrictions should be roughly the same level, that national ownership restrictions should not affect the realization of public interests, the collective ownership and private ownership restrictions should not impede the collective interests and private interests meet. But the This discriminatory practice is totally goes against the principle of equal protection and without any basis and reasonable. Second, the property limit system is technically flawed, in the Legislative Although our However, a viable mode of property restrictions and reasonable and do not represent property to restrict the system specification design is perfect. In fact, the To legal norms, the same provision should be consistent in the general subject, should not change frequently, otherwise the legislation is not clear enough organized, thereby affecting the application of legal norms. But the , a security interest in the exercise of rights, shall not prejudice the rights of the owner. Speaking from the legislative intent, which is to require However, while the second half of the article is talking about Clearly, the habit of thinking from the enactment of legislation and point of view, the provisions of the should be the owner and should not be Only in this way, the legislative intent can be made clear, coherent logic can seem clear, ,, Therefore, the the interests of the owner. Similarly, the Second, the right to limit terms of syntax errors, loopholes in the law end of trouble. Legislative language (ie, legislative language) as the legislative body expressed legislative intent, legislative purpose and legislative policy reflected a carrier, compared with the general term should be one of the most rigorous, standardized, simple, popular, clear language. But look at The emergence of these errors will not only result in the emergence of loopholes in the law, but also planted infinite risk. For example, Analysis of the presentation will be found that the lack of subject terms, is a wrong sentences. On the surface, only a grammatical oversight, the author seems overkill, does not. Not only because of that omission is not clear and the main charge may be enlarged,You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login, and there may be planted to make a collective, unit or individual interests against the bane of being illegal. Moreover, the practice does exist in the collection charge of the main expansion of the phenomenon, it is the author of this fear is not unfounded. Therefore, the right to limit the terms of such omission must pay attention to grammar, so as to avoid infinite risk. Combination of collection, requisition system's basic principles, I believe that individual housing and other real estate. Similarly, the Third, the right to limit terms of mistaken identity, before and after the provision is difficult to converge. Provisions of the law in the same section, its contents should be followed in a logical context, laws can be organized between the mutual convergence. Otherwise, the system will not only destroy the harmony between the norms, but also increase the difficulty in understanding articles. The , plumbing, heating and gas pipelines must use the adjacent land, buildings, and the land, building owners shall provide necessary convenience. But if the provisions of the chapter topics and you will find the upper and lower comparative terms, the existence of such provisions of the phenomenon of mistaken identity. Where the provisions of Chapter VII is about the 87, No. 89, Article 90, Article 91, Article 92 is the embodiment of this legislative intent. These provisions of the subject (the subject) are real property rights, content rights holders are the responsibility of adjacent corresponding obligations of the act or omission (or restrictions). However, the provisions of section 88 alone is real property rights and neighboring rights holder (that is the land, building the right people) should assume responsibility as the obligation (subject to restrictions). Obviously, such a provision, not only with the legislative intent of Chapter VII and the overall style is not consistent, but also with the terms of the contrast between the upper and lower right too. The consequences would affect not only the understanding of articles, but also directly affect the application of the law. Therefore, I believe that the provisions of the clause should be correct: shall provide necessary convenience.
Abstract: China's . Keywords: Property; Property Law; property rights limits the rights and restrictions always accompanied by the line, there are limits to property rights issues. The so-called property rights restrictions, is the law and the exclusive property of the dominating force of the restriction, that the interests of property and behavior of people to enjoy freedom and limited effectiveness against the third person. Real Property limits and other persons involved in both the interest and social welfare are closely related, therefore, national property law restrictions on the property to set the system very seriously, not only provides for the principle prohibiting the abuse of property rights, but also a number of specific the right to limit terms. Restrictions on the property laws of property right is also very concerned about the recent introduction of the However, limited by the specific terms of the right, I think, the legislative process in the property, although the academic circles, legal status and right to development Thus, as some scholars have argued,
Scholars in the interpretation of ownership to be equally protected. Since the equal protection of The principle of equal protection of the property restricted the direct embodiment of the system, first of all should show the same types of property and the extent of its limitations should be much the same way, not because of such factors as a result of the different restrictions on the differences. However, the First, the First of all, collective ownership and private ownership of the right to limit terms by the general restrictions. That is, Secondly, the collective ownership and private ownership have to be limited by the public interest. If by Again, the collective ownership and private ownership restricted scope of the object. Such as Article 51, Article 52 specifically enumerated in the mineral resources, waters, seas, etc. can only be owned by the State. Finally, the collective ownership and the effectiveness of individual ownership to be limited. Accordance with the significantly restrict the effectiveness of role play. Second, the First, national ownership is difficult to be Because of state ownership are generally made in accordance with the provisions of the law directly, but the state-owned property, in turn, the State Council shall exercise the ownership on behalf of the State (whether Second, the state ownership have fewer restrictions. In addition to unclaimed belong to the state (Thus, any of collective ownership and private ownership restrictions on the enjoyment, just to get it into national ownership. Again, the object of a wide range of national ownership, there are no restrictions. Accordance with the Therefore, the state ownership of the object does not exist any restrictions. Finally, the effectiveness of national ownership and less restricted. Although the Therefore, the relationship between state ownership restrictions is difficult to be adjacent. At the same time, despite the system of state-owned property for almost any space, of course, not to mention the national title chase and the effectiveness of restrictions. From a legal perspective, have the right to have the right to limit, country ownership should not be an exception. The principle of equal protection requirements of various ownership restrictions should be roughly the same level, that national ownership restrictions should not affect the realization of public interests, the collective ownership and private ownership restrictions should not impede the collective interests and private interests meet. But the This discriminatory practice is totally goes against the principle of equal protection and without any basis and reasonable. Second, the property limit system is technically flawed, in the Legislative Although our However, a viable mode of property restrictions and reasonable and do not represent property to restrict the system specification design is perfect. In fact, the To legal norms, the same provision should be consistent in the general subject, should not change frequently, otherwise the legislation is not clear enough organized, thereby affecting the application of legal norms. But the , a security interest in the exercise of rights, shall not prejudice the rights of the owner. Speaking from the legislative intent, which is to require However, while the second half of the article is talking about Clearly, the habit of thinking from the enactment of legislation and point of view, the provisions of the should be the owner and should not be Only in this way, the legislative intent can be made clear, coherent logic can seem clear, ,, Therefore, the the interests of the owner. Similarly, the Second, the right to limit terms of syntax errors, loopholes in the law end of trouble. Legislative language (ie, legislative language) as the legislative body expressed legislative intent, legislative purpose and legislative policy reflected a carrier, compared with the general term should be one of the most rigorous, standardized, simple, popular, clear language. But look at The emergence of these errors will not only result in the emergence of loopholes in the law, but also planted infinite risk. For example, Analysis of the presentation will be found that the lack of subject terms, is a wrong sentences. On the surface, only a grammatical oversight, the author seems overkill, does not. Not only because of that omission is not clear and the main charge may be enlarged,You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login, and there may be planted to make a collective, unit or individual interests against the bane of being illegal. Moreover, the practice does exist in the collection charge of the main expansion of the phenomenon, it is the author of this fear is not unfounded. Therefore, the right to limit the terms of such omission must pay attention to grammar, so as to avoid infinite risk. Combination of collection, requisition system's basic principles, I believe that individual housing and other real estate. Similarly, the Third, the right to limit terms of mistaken identity, before and after the provision is difficult to converge. Provisions of the law in the same section, its contents should be followed in a logical context, laws can be organized between the mutual convergence. Otherwise, the system will not only destroy the harmony between the norms, but also increase the difficulty in understanding articles. The , plumbing, heating and gas pipelines must use the adjacent land, buildings, and the land, building owners shall provide necessary convenience. But if the provisions of the chapter topics and you will find the upper and lower comparative terms, the existence of such provisions of the phenomenon of mistaken identity. Where the provisions of Chapter VII is about the 87, No. 89, Article 90, Article 91, Article 92 is the embodiment of this legislative intent. These provisions of the subject (the subject) are real property rights, content rights holders are the responsibility of adjacent corresponding obligations of the act or omission (or restrictions). However, the provisions of section 88 alone is real property rights and neighboring rights holder (that is the land, building the right people) should assume responsibility as the obligation (subject to restrictions). Obviously, such a provision, not only with the legislative intent of Chapter VII and the overall style is not consistent, but also with the terms of the contrast between the upper and lower right too. The consequences would affect not only the understanding of articles, but also directly affect the application of the law. Therefore, I believe that the provisions of the clause should be correct: shall provide necessary convenience.