Search

In different branches of the Dutch legal system, there are categories and rights that serve to protect specific commons through different methods. Sunlight and air (including wind for windmills) can be freely used by everyone. Waters in the sea and rivers are things under private law, but do not have any owner until water is extracted. The seabed of the territorial sea and the Wadden Sea are State-owned and cannot be alienated. State-owned markets, schools, and swimming pools are public things. The public may claim access to private roads. Certain privately owned forests are maintained, in return for tax benefits, in the public interest. Health care, food, education, housing, and environmental protection are protected commons. Nationalisation requires an expropriation unless the owner is willing to sell: property may be expropriated only if in the public interest and the owner is compensated. In private law, there are specific grounds on which a non-owner can claim access to somebody else’s land.

[No Abstract]

This book was motivated by the need to approach with a fresh look what we regard as perhaps the most embarrassing predicament of the Anthropocene/Capitalocene (Capra and Mattei, 2015, Altvater et al., 2016, Moore, 2017). We live in an era with roughly the same number (about one billion) of over-fed people and of people lacking access to nutritious food (which means that do not know in the morning if they will be able to feed themselves and their children during the day). Our era also stands out by the remarkable amount of food that is wasted in some parts of the world and by the unprecedented number of livestock that populates this planet (Patel and Moore, 2017). Moreover, in the current phase of neoliberal capitalism that dominates in the Anthropocene/Capitalocene, the ecological footprint is out of control; some rich people (the majority in the Global North and the elite in the Global South) can enjoy every day food shipped from thousands of miles away on gas gulping aircrafts and boats that pollute the environment beyond imagination. Such luxury, the result of the worldwide colonization of diets, would be impossible without a very significant environmental subsidy; if all the externalities had to be internalized, eating Nile Perch would be unaffordable to most people everywhere. The subsidy is ultimately paid by the poor in the South and, in general, will certainly be paid by future generations. Unless we deal with and avoid the hidden social and environmental costs that are so far unaccounted for in the hegemonic food system (TEEB, 2018)

In the present work, the author narrates the transition occurred don the science realm, going from a rationalist and mechanist vision of the world, to a more holistic and ecologist one. Still, he shows that this transition has not occurred in the realm of law, which still remains in the previous paradigm. Thus, parting from the conception of law as a vehicle of social action, the author highlights the need that the change occurred in the science realm must happen also in the law paradigm, so it can reach a state of ‘ecology of law’. En el presente trabajo, el autor relata la transición que ha ocurrido en el plano científico, pasando de una visión racionalista y mecanicista del mundo, hacía una visión más bien holística y ecologista. Sin embargo, precisa que dicho cambio no se ha visto reflejado en el mundo del Derecho y de las leyes, que conservan el paradigma anterior. Así, partiendo de la concepción del Derecho como un vehículo de acción social, el autor destaca la necesidad de que el cambio ocurrido en el mundo científico ocurra también en el Derecho, alcanzando así un estado de ‘ecología legal’.

In the present work, the author narrates the transition occurred don the science realm, going from a rationalist and mechanist vision of the world, to a more holistic and ecologist one. Still, he shows that this transition has not occurred in the realm of law, which still remains in the previous paradigm. Thus, parting from the conception of law as a vehicle of social action, the author highlights the need that the change occurred in the science realm must happen also in the law paradigm, so it can reach a state of ‘ecology of law’. En el presente trabajo, el autor relata la transición que ha ocurrido en el plano científico, pasando de una visión racionalista y mecanicista del mundo, hacía una visión más bien holística y ecologista. Sin embargo, precisa que dicho cambio no se ha visto reflejado en el mundo del Derecho y de las leyes, que conservan el paradigma anterior. Así, partiendo de la concepción del Derecho como un vehículo de acción social, el autor destaca la necesidad de que el cambio ocurrido en el mundo científico ocurra también en el Derecho, alcanzando así un estado de ‘ecología legal’.

The IUC Independent Policy Report was drafted by the “IUC Legal Standards Research Group," organized by a Steering Committee chaired by Ugo Mattei (International University College of Turin), coordinated by Edoardo Reviglio (International University College of Turin) and Giuseppe Mastruzzo (International University College of Turin), and composed by Franco Bassanini (University of Rome “La Sapienza"), Guido Calabresi (Yale University), Antoine Garapon (Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice, Paris), and Tibor Varady (Central European University, Budapest). Contributors include Eugenio Barcellona (Eastern Piedmont University), Mauro Bussani (University of Trieste), Giuliano G. Castellano (Ecole Polytechnique, Preg/CRG), Moussa Djiré (Bamako University), Liu Guanghua (Lanzhou University), Golnoosh Hakimdavar (University of Turin), John Haskell (SOAS), Jedidiah J. Kroncke (Yale Law School), Andrea Lollini (Bologna University), Alberto Lucarelli (Federico II University), Boris N. Mamlyuk, (University of Turin), Alberto Monti (Bocconi University), Sergio Ariel Muro (Torquato di Tella University), Domenico Nicolò (Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria), and Nicola Sartori (University of Michigan).

El artículo no presenta resumen.

The Study Group on Social Justice in European Private Law are: Gert Bruggemeier (Bremen), Mauro Bussani (Trieste), Hugh Collins (London), Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi (Bremen), Giovanni Comande (Pisa), Muriel Fabre-Magnan (Nantes), Stefan Grundmann (Berlin), Martijn Hesselink (Amsterdam) (Chairman), Christian Joerges (Florence), Brigitta Lurger (Graz), Ugo Mattei (Torino), Marisa Meli (Catania), Jacobien Rutgers (Amsterdam), Christoph Schmidt (Florence), Jane Smith (Bremen), Ruth Sefton-Green (Paris), Horatia Muir Watt (Paris), Thomas Wilhelmsson (Helsinki).