美国财产法理念的变迁
|
摘要
本文在科学知识和文化思想模式的视野下,审视美国财产法理念的变迁路径。揭示美国财产法理念的演变规律及其发展新趋向:美国财产法理念的变迁是建立在近代科学革命对古代和中世纪有机论的批判中产生的机械-原子论主导思想模式基础上的,并向现代新的整体论思想模式发展。在科学知识和文化思想模式的主导下,美国财产法理念的变迁主要表现为:18、19世纪,美国财产法理念强调个人财产绝对权利;进入20世纪后,则强调个人财产权的社会责任。但文章通过论证表明:在美国财产法理念的发展史上,原子论与有机论、个人自由主义与共和主义、个人利益与社会利益在每个时期都是共存的。它们之间决非绝对排斥、一方独白,而是妥协共存、双方对话。虽然在历史发展的每个时期会有所偏重,但其基本趋势则是寻求个人与社会的利益平衡。全文由导论、三个部分(共八章)及结语组成。
导论:主要阐明本文的研究方法、研究对象及基本创新。具体说明在科学知识和文化思想模式的演变历程中,人类对于自然界的思考从来就不是完全一元化的。它总是像一对舞者,原子论和有机论,在并不舒服的哲学舞蹈中起舞。两种想法虽不和谐却始终共存,但只有一种模式――主流模式占领导地位。一部分是有机论,主导了几个世纪;直到个体主义,反映了有关世界运行方式更为精确的科学知识的时候,原子论才在17世纪的思想模式的变革中占据了领导地位。而今天,我们正处于又一次思想模式变革的中间,这次变革建立在更为复杂的知识的基础上,即主导地位正在转向整体论,这是一种不那么绝对的有机论。确切地说,这一思想模式更多地表现为有机论与原子论的综合平衡。在科学知识和文化思想模式的大背景、大视野下,探讨和审视美国财产法理念变迁的历史及其规律,才能使本课题的研究高屋建瓴,更具科学性。
第一部分:扼要介绍古代和中世纪的有机论思想模式与有机财产法。在古代和中世纪,人类关于自然和社会的世界观,是以有机论为主导的世界观,即强调宇宙为一个不可分割的有机整体。体现在古代和中世纪的财产法理念上,就是在有机论文化思想模式主导下的有机财产法:即财产法是以社会性为其目的,强调私有财产的社会义务和社会责任,以公共福祉观点为财产法理念的核心。然而,尽管在古代和中世纪,有机论思想模式与财产法中的社会利益占主导地位,但原子论思想与财产法中的个人利益却始终是与有机论及财产法中的社会利益同时存在的。本部分包括:第一章与第二章。
第一章:简洁地说明古代和中世纪的有机论思想模式。在古代和中世纪,无论是在宗教层面上还是在知识层面上,不论是对自然界,还是对人类社会的看法,都是以有机论文化思想模式占主导地位的。即认为宇宙是一个不可分割的有机统一整体。所以,在古代和中世纪,尽管原子论与有机论是同时存在的,但原子论思想却处于极其次要的地位。
第二章:简要地说明以社会利益为主导的有机财产法。在古代和中世纪,以有机论为主导的思想模式,体现在早期财产法上,则是以其社会性为目的,强调私有财产的社会义务和社会责任。所以,有机论主导思想模式对早期财产法主要影响在于:中世纪人们普遍认为私有财产权受到社会义务的制约。公共福祉的观点成为中世纪占主导地位的托马斯财产观的核心。因此,尽管财产法中的个人利益与社会利益始终是同时存在的,但个人方面的利益,在很大程度上,却受到不应有的忽视。
第二部分:详细探讨近代机械-原子论思想模式与美国财产法理念。近代美国财产法理念是建立在17世纪科学革命对古代和中世纪有机论的批判中产生的机械-原子论主导思想模式基础上的。近代机械-原子论赞同那种强调组成部分而非整体的世界观,这种世界观是原子论而非有机论,是机械论而非关联论。它强调个人主义精神的主导地位。反映在近代财产法理念上,则是主张个人财产绝对权利,强调个人利益的支配地位。但在美国,意识形态从来都不是一元化的,财产法理念中的个人因素总是与社会因素连在一起的。个人利益与社会利益之间不是绝对排斥、一方独白,而是妥协共存、双方对话。本部分包括:第三章、第四章与第五章。
第三章:简要阐明近代机械-原子论主导思想模式。随着宗教改革和市场经济的出现,宗教领域和世俗领域的有机论走向衰落。同时科学革命促使古代原子论复苏,并在近代发展为机械-原子论思想模式,在随后长达三百年的时间,一直是西方世界的主流文化思想模式。
第四章:具体而详尽地论述了近代美国财产法理念中的个人主义支配地位。近代美国财产法理念是建立在17世纪科学革命对古代和中世纪有机论的批判中产生的机械-原子论主导思想模式基础上的。它强调个人主义精神的主导地位。而自然财产权理论作为近代机械-原子论文化思想模式在法律方面的副产品,其“全部思辨的主导线索始终是个人主义”的。因此,与格劳秀斯、普芬道夫自然财产权理论一脉相承并深受强调个人权利的英国法律传统影响而作为近代科学革命及机械-原子论文化思想模式直接产物的洛克个人主义财产权理论,就成为近代财产法理念的一贯特征,并在那个时代占据了统治地位。
而布莱克斯通主要就是继承了洛克的个人主义自然财产权理论中的观点,并具体化为绝对财产权观念与“独有的和专断的支配权”主张。随着布莱克斯通的《英国法释义》传播至美国,他们的个人主义财产权理论和绝对财产权利理念就成为18世纪美国财产法的理论来源和中心特点。
由于清教主义把个人主义观念烙进了美国人的理论和实践之中,这样,在19世纪,洛克的个人主义财产权理论对美国财产法理念的影响就更为全面而深刻。同时,19世纪边沁的个人功利主义与斯宾塞的自由放任主义使洛克的个人主义绝对财产权理论获得了长足的发展。到19世纪的最后25年,美国财产法理念将洛克个人主义财产观推向了巅峰。因此,在近代机械-原子论文化思想模式的主导下,近代美国财产法理念主张的是个人财产的绝对权利,强调的是个人利益的支配地位。
第五章:具体阐述近代美国财产法理念中的社会因素。在美国,意识形态从来都不是一元化的,从来没有单一的政治理论,相应的也没有单一的财产理论,在那个时代占绝对统治地位。虽然洛克与布莱克斯通的个人主义财产权理论在近代美国财产法理念中一直占据支配地位,但它决不是那个时代唯一的财产权理论,因为在近代美国财产法理念中的社会因素也起着重要作用。在近代美国财产法理念中,个人因素总是与社会因素连在一起的,个人主义财产权理论也总是与共和主义财产权理论相互促进的。共和主义者认为,社会应该具有互相依赖性……在社会统一体中,每个个体应该参与到整体之中,而整体又应该与每个个体相连。这种连接是带有义务性的,因为它们是双向的。一个没有参与到整体中的个体就不是社会的一员。因此,人类在本质上是社会性的,私有财产是一种社会创制,是社会中的人类劳动创造出来的,而不是先政治权的存在物。作为一种社会产物,它最终要服务于社会需要和社会价值。可见,在近代美国财产法理念中,个人主义与共和主义、个人利益与社会利益总是连接在一起的。虽然它们之间总是存在着并还将继续存在着冲突,但在近代美国财产法理念中,个人主义与共和主义、个人利益与社会利益之间决不是绝对排斥、一方独白,而是妥协共存、双方对话的。
第三部分:具体论述现代整体论思想模式与美国财产法理念。进入20世纪后,人类正处在又一次思想模式变革的过程中,这次变革建立在更为复杂的知识基础上,即我们正在走向一个由有机论和原子论综合平衡的整体论主导的世界。它强调自然的整体关联性,整体对部分的影响就像部分对整体的影响一样。在现代整体论思想模式的主导下,现代美国财产法理念作为对近代抽象个人自然财产权利理论和个人自由主义的反作用,重视社会整体利益,强调个人财产权的社会责任。但个人主义作为美国民族精神,在现代美国财产法理念中依然存在并将继续存在。文章指出:现代美国财产法理念的核心是寻求个人利益与更占优势社会利益之间的动态平衡。本部分包括:第六章、第七章与第八章。
第六章:简要说明现代整体论主导思想模式。进入20世纪后,一度作为主流文化模式的机械-原子论走向衰败,我们正处在又一次思想模式变革的过程中,这次变革建立在更为复杂的知识基础上,即我们正在走向一个由有机论和原子论综合平衡的整体论主导的世界。作为智识历史的一部分,传统的洛克观点亦有其自身的时代缺陷。成就了洛克财产理论的机械-原子论思想模式几乎瓦解了,而洛克的个人主义已经不能与更具整体意义的观点相调和。并正为这些观点所取代。
第七章:详尽地阐述现代美国财产法理念中的社会化趋向。进入20世纪后,美国从拓荒的、农业、乡村社会向定居的工商业且城市化的社会转变;个人突出的理想移向彼此合作的理想。法律需要淡化个人主义色彩,更多地关注社会整体的利益,尤其是消费者及社会弱者的利益。现代财产法理念变迁的主线即是财产所有人社会责任的增加和个人权利相应地减少。因此,当前个人利益和更占优势的社会利益之间的平衡构成了现代美国财产法理念的核心。随着美国财产法理念由强调个人财产权绝对化向个人财产权的相对化和社会化方向发展,这种平衡也就从一种过分强调个人权利向更占优势的社会利益转变。
第八章:具体说明现代美国财产法理念中的个人主义精神。历史从来不是绝对的、一元化的。个人利益和社会利益之间尽管一直存在着冲突,但更多时候是“一方主导另一方同时也存在”式的对话,而不会是反映相反两极之间“一方绝对支配或另一方绝对不存在”式的争斗。虽然进入20世纪后,我们维护和承认所有个人和团体利益的根本原因是基于社会利益,这并不是说对上两个世纪人们苦苦追求的个人利益可以漠视。恰恰相反,社会利益最终是存在于个人生活之中的利益,个人利益与社会利益息息相关。尤其是在美国,自清教主义者把个人主义传统带入后,个人主义精神就是“美国精神”。因此,在美国财产法理念中,个人自由原则始终作为现代财产法平衡功能的一项指导原则同时促进个人和社会福利的最大化。因而从总体上来说,在20世纪,个人利益仍然是法律保护的一个重要方面。
结语:主要是水到渠成地总结与概括出在科学知识与文化思想模式的主导下美国财产法理念的变迁规律。美国财产法理念的整个变迁过程充分表明:人类的思想与历史的发展从来都不是直线的、绝对的、一元化的;而是曲线的、相对的、多元化的。原子论与有机论、个人自由主义与共和主义在美国财产法理念变迁的每个时期都是共存的,对个人利与社会利益的强调在历史的每个时期也都是不可偏废的。17世纪那些拒绝透过伽利略望远镜看世界的教士们和现今拒绝透过现代科学,或者从更本质上来说,法制史的望远镜来看世界的新洛克主义者们是同样片面的、错误的。历史是发展、变迁、有机统一和不可分割的“绵延”。社会进步既不是梅因“从身份到契约的运动”;亦不是亚伦、施瓦茨“从契约到身份”的相反运动。而是个人和社会两方面的因素在每个时代的人类利益中都同时存在。只是两者的地位、强弱在不断地变化。其变化趋向则是个人最大限度扩张性自我主张和社会保证每个人过上人类应有生活,即个人利益与社会利益的动态平衡。因此,文明的理想,应该是个人自由和社会合作的结合。
在科学知识和文化思想模式发展历史的大视野下,审视美国财产法理念的变迁路径。我们发现,美国财产法在其理念演进过程中,既始终坚持个人主义的民族精神,又力图贯通在个人利益和社会利益之间寻求平衡的传统。尽管在历史的不同时期有所偏颇。从社会心理学角度看,实质上反映的是人的扩张性自我主张本能和社会本能即利已本能和合作本能之间的冲突和重叠,而文明的标志正是在两种本能之间维持均衡。
所以,财产法既应是保证天赋、机遇好且勤奋的人开创个人成功的助动器,又应是保障每个人获得幸福的平衡器。因此,我们可以说,全部财产法的发展历史,到目前为止,是一部走向个人与社会利益平衡的历史,其最终目的在于追求每个人的幸福。
This thesis focuses on the developing path of the theory of American property law in the view of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm, indicating the evolving rule and new development trend of American property law: the development of the theory of American property law was based on the mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was brought about by the criticism of modern scientific revolution toward organicism In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, and this so-called mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm has developed into the Holism ideological paradigm. With the guide of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm, the changes of the theory of American property law are as follows: in the 18,19 centuries, the theory of American property law stresses the absolute right of individuals, since the 20 centuries, however, social responsibility of individual property right has been emphasized. After research, however, this thesis points out that during the history of the development of the theory of American property law, atomism and organicism, individualism and republicanism, individual advantage and social benefit could coexist in each era. They are not exclusive for each other but coexisting, not soliloquy but conversation. While individual advantage and social benefit may be stressed differently at different stage of the times, the general trend is tending towards the balancing of interest between individual and society This thesis consists of introduction, three main parts (, eight chapters) and the concluding remarks.
Introduction: this part presents the research methods, research objects and innovations of this thesis. This part demonstrates that during the evolving history of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm, the thinking of human about nature has never been completely one-dimensional. It has always resembled a pair of dancers, atomism and organicism, engaged in an uncomfortable philosophical dance. Awkwardly paired and bickering the whole time, the two ideas coexisted for centuries, though, as dancers, only one - the dominant paradigm - could lead. One partner, organicism, led for centuries until atomism, reflecting a more refined scientific knowledge about the way the world worked, emerged to take the lead in the seventeenth-century paradigm shift. Today, we are in the midst of another paradigm shift in which, based on even more sophisticated knowledge, the lead is passing to holism, a less comprehensive version of organicism. Precisely speaking, this paradigm mainly embodies the balance of organicism and atomism. Exploring and examining the developing history of American property law and its rule under the background of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm makes this research more scientific.
The first part compendiously introduces the organicism paradigm and organic property law in ancientry and in the Middle Ages In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, organicism was the leading Weltanschauung of human about nature and society, which emphasized that the universe was an inseparable organic whole. Organic property law reflects organicism paradigm, namely the purpose of property law is for the sociableness, and social obligation and responsibility of private property are much stressed and the core theory of property law is for common good. In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, though organicism paradigm and the theory of social benefit in property law were in dominant position, the atomism paradigm and the theory of individual advantage in property law coexisted. This part consists of chapter I and chapter II.
Chapter I concisely introduces the organism paradigm In ancientry and in the Middle Ages. In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, organism paradigm dominated in the fields of religion and knowledge, in the views about nature and human society- the universe was an inseparable organic whole. Therefore, in ancientry and in the Middle Ages, though atomism coexisted with organism, atomism was in an extremely subordinate position.
Part II concisely introduces organic property law dominated by the theory of social benefit. In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, the early property law which embodied the paradigm dominated by organicism stressed the social obligation and responsibility of private property and aimed at sociableness. So, the main influence of paradigm dominated by organicism on the early property law consisted in that people in the Middle Ages generally held that private property should be restricted by social obligations. The viewpoint of common good became the core of Aquinas’view of property which was in the leading position in the Middle Ages. Therefore, though individual advantage and social benefit coexisted in property law, the individual benefit was unfortunately paid less heed.
The second part explored modern mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm and the theory of American property law in detail. The development of the theory of American property law was based on the mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was brought about by the criticism of seventeenth-century modern scientific revolution toward organicism In ancientry and in the Middle Ages The modern mechanistic-atomism espoused a world view that emphasized constituent parts rather than the whole, that was atomistic rather than interconnected, mechanical rather than organic It emphasized the leading position of individualism, The theory of modern property law embodied such thought-absolute individual property right was claimed and the dominant position of individual advantage was emphasized. In America, however, ideology has never been one-dimensional, the individual and the society are always connected closely in the theory of property law. The individual advantage and social benefit are not exclusive for each other but coexisting, not soliloquy but conversation. This part consists of chapter III, chapter IV and chapter V.
Chapter III concisely introduces the modern mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm. With the emergence of religion reform and market economy, religious and social organism declined. At the same time, scientific revolution resuscitated the ancient atomism, which became mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm in modern times.
Mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm had been the leading cultural ideology paradigm of the West for more than 300 years since.
Chapter IV detailedly discusses the dominant poison of individualism in the theory of American property law. The development of the theory of American property law was based on the mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was brought about by the criticism of seventeenth-century modern scientific revolution toward organicism In ancientry and in the Middle Ages It emphasized the leading position of individualism, The entire leading clue of thinking and analyzing of the theory of Natural property law, which is a by-product of the modern mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm in law, is individualism. As was deeply influenced by England law tradition stressed individual rights and came down in one continuous line with natural property theory of Grotius and Pufendorf, Lockean individualism property theory which was the direct product of modern scientific revolution and mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm characterized modern principle of property law and was in the dominant position at that era.
Absorption the points of individualism natural property theory of Locke, Blackstone took shape the concepts of absolute property and“exclusive”right of control. With the spread of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England to America, such theories of individualism property and absolute property became the theoretical sources and core features of the eighteenth-century American property law.
As individualism concepts took roots in American theory and practice owing to Puritanism, Lockean individualism property theory, in the 19 centuries, furthered its influence on the theory of American property law. At the same period, Bentham‘s utilitarianism and Spencer’s laissez faire facilitated great development of Lockean individualism property theory. During the last 25 years of the 19 centuries, Lockean individualism property theory reached the highest level in the theory of American property law. Therefore, led by mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm, modern American property law stresses the absolute right of individual property and the dominant position of individual advantage. Chapter V detailedly discusses the social elements of American property law. In America, Ideology has never been one-dimensional. Neither any single political theory nor any single property theory absolutely dominated at that time. Though individualism property theory of Locke and Blackstone has taken the leading position in modern American property theory, it has never been the only property theory at that times, social elements has also played an important role in the development of American property law theory. In American property law theory, individual elements connect with social elements, in addition, individualism property theory and republicanism property theory have always mutually facilitated. Republican holds that society is interdependent……in the social union, each individual shall join the whole and the whole shall connect with each individual. These connections shall bear obligation, for they are bi-directional. An individual who hasn’t joined the whole shall not be a member of society. So, human being is of sociableness in essence. Private property is a kind of social creature derived from human practice and is not the existence prior to society. As a social product, it finally serves society needs and society value. So, in American property law theory, individualism and republicanism, individual advantage and social benefit connect with each other. Though conflicts between them will not end, in American property law theory, individualism and republicanism, individual advantage and social benefit are not exclusive for each other but coexisting, not soliloquy but conversation.
The third part presents the modern holism ideological paradigm and American property law theory. After entry of the 20 centuries, human is now facing another ideological paradigm change which is based on more complicated knowledge. That is to say, we are going to a world dominated by holism which is the balance of organicism and atomism. It emphasizes the total connection of the nature; the whole affects the part just as the part affects the whole. With the guide of modern holism ideological paradigm, modern American property law theory, which as the counteractive of modern absolute individualism natural property theory, pays much attention to the entire social benefit and the social responsibility of individual property. Individualism as the nation spirit of America, however, will continue existing in the theory of modern American property law. This thesis points out that modern American property law theory seeks for the dynamic balance of individual advantage and social benefit. This part consists of chapterⅥ, chapter VII and chapter VIII.
ChapterⅥconcisely introduces the ideology paradigm of modern holism. After entry of the 20 centuries, mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was once the lead became decline, we are now facing another ideological paradigm change which is based on more complicated knowledge. That is to say, we are going to a world dominated by holism balanced by organicism and atomism. As a part of the history of intellect, the traditional Lockean theory has its own defect. Mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which made the success of Lockean property theory almost collapses, Lockean individualism can not conciliate with theory of holism theory and is being replaced by such theory.
ChapterⅥdiscusses the socialization trend of modern American property law theory in detail. After entry into the 20 centuries, the America changed from agricultural, countryside society to commercial, urbanization society and individualism dominated ideal turned to mutual cooperation ideal. Law shall weaken the feature of individualism and pay much attention to entire benefit of the society, especially the welfare of consumer and the weak in society. The main change of modern property law theory is to add the social responsibility of property owners and properly reduce individual right. So, at present, the balance of individual advantage and social benefit with more advantageous comprise the core of American property law theory. With the change of American property law theory from emphasizing the absolutization of individual property to the relativity and socialization of individual property, such balance correspondingly has changed from too much stress on individual right to social benefit with more advantageous.
Chapter VIII points out the spirit of individualism in the theory of American property law in detail. History has never been absolute and one-dimensional. Though the conflicts between individual advantage and social benefit always exist, More often the dialogue has not so much reflected an all-or-nothing warfare between polar opposites as a one-and-the-other-at-the-same-time.
After entry into the 20 centuries, the fundamental reason that we safeguard and acknowledge the advantage of individual and group lies in social benefit, however, that is not to say we can despite individual advantage sought by people during the last two centuries. On the contrary, social benefit exists among the benefit that people live with, individual advantage and social benefit closely connected. Particularly in America, since the Puritanism brought in individualism, the spirit of individualism has been the spirit of America. So, in the theory of American property law, the principle of individual freedom has always been the guiding principle of the balancing function of modern American property law, which also facilitates the maximization of individual and social welfare. In general, individual advantage has still be an important aspect protected by law in the 20 centuries.
The concluding remarks naturally summarize the developing rule of American property law guided by scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm. The changing path of American property law theory indicates that human thought and history development has never been linear, categorical and one-dimensional but curvilinear, relative and multi-dimensional. Atomism and organicism, individualism and republicanism coexist in each era, neither individual advantage nor social benefit could be omitted in each times. To the churchmen of the early seventeenth century who refused, literally and metaphorically, to look through Galileo's telescope and to the new Lockean who refuse look through modern science and more essentially through the telescope of legal history, they may make mistakes in the same way. History is the duration of development, change, and organic unit and indivisibility. the progress of society is neither what Maine called”the movement from status to contract”nor what Schwartz called the counter-movement“from contract to status”, but the coexistence of elements of individual and society in the human welfare in each era. but the continuous change of the status of the two aspects. The trend is to safeguard the maximum of individual self-assertion and guarantee everybody a normal life deserved, that is to say, to realize the dynamic balance of individual advantage and social benefit. So, the combination of individual freedom and social cooperation shall be the ideal civilization.
By examining the changing path of the theory of American property law in the view of scientific knowledge and cultural Paradigm, We can find that during the development of the theory of American property law, it not only always insists on keeping the nation spirit of individualism but also tries to maintain the tradition of seeking for balance between individual advantage and social benefit, though there was divergence from this tradition in different times in history From the eye of social psychology, this reflects the conflicts and overlap between the human instinct of the expansion of self-assertion and social instinct (i.e. the self-interest instinct and cooperation instinct), and the balance of which is the symbol of civilization.
Therefore, property law shall be a“booster”which guarantees the success of individual with talent, good opportunity and diligence and also shall be a“balancer”which guarantees the happiness of each individual. Therefore, the entire history of the development of property law so far, we may say, has been the history of balancing individual advantage and social benefit, and the final aim of which is to seek and realize the happiness of each human being.
导论:主要阐明本文的研究方法、研究对象及基本创新。具体说明在科学知识和文化思想模式的演变历程中,人类对于自然界的思考从来就不是完全一元化的。它总是像一对舞者,原子论和有机论,在并不舒服的哲学舞蹈中起舞。两种想法虽不和谐却始终共存,但只有一种模式――主流模式占领导地位。一部分是有机论,主导了几个世纪;直到个体主义,反映了有关世界运行方式更为精确的科学知识的时候,原子论才在17世纪的思想模式的变革中占据了领导地位。而今天,我们正处于又一次思想模式变革的中间,这次变革建立在更为复杂的知识的基础上,即主导地位正在转向整体论,这是一种不那么绝对的有机论。确切地说,这一思想模式更多地表现为有机论与原子论的综合平衡。在科学知识和文化思想模式的大背景、大视野下,探讨和审视美国财产法理念变迁的历史及其规律,才能使本课题的研究高屋建瓴,更具科学性。
第一部分:扼要介绍古代和中世纪的有机论思想模式与有机财产法。在古代和中世纪,人类关于自然和社会的世界观,是以有机论为主导的世界观,即强调宇宙为一个不可分割的有机整体。体现在古代和中世纪的财产法理念上,就是在有机论文化思想模式主导下的有机财产法:即财产法是以社会性为其目的,强调私有财产的社会义务和社会责任,以公共福祉观点为财产法理念的核心。然而,尽管在古代和中世纪,有机论思想模式与财产法中的社会利益占主导地位,但原子论思想与财产法中的个人利益却始终是与有机论及财产法中的社会利益同时存在的。本部分包括:第一章与第二章。
第一章:简洁地说明古代和中世纪的有机论思想模式。在古代和中世纪,无论是在宗教层面上还是在知识层面上,不论是对自然界,还是对人类社会的看法,都是以有机论文化思想模式占主导地位的。即认为宇宙是一个不可分割的有机统一整体。所以,在古代和中世纪,尽管原子论与有机论是同时存在的,但原子论思想却处于极其次要的地位。
第二章:简要地说明以社会利益为主导的有机财产法。在古代和中世纪,以有机论为主导的思想模式,体现在早期财产法上,则是以其社会性为目的,强调私有财产的社会义务和社会责任。所以,有机论主导思想模式对早期财产法主要影响在于:中世纪人们普遍认为私有财产权受到社会义务的制约。公共福祉的观点成为中世纪占主导地位的托马斯财产观的核心。因此,尽管财产法中的个人利益与社会利益始终是同时存在的,但个人方面的利益,在很大程度上,却受到不应有的忽视。
第二部分:详细探讨近代机械-原子论思想模式与美国财产法理念。近代美国财产法理念是建立在17世纪科学革命对古代和中世纪有机论的批判中产生的机械-原子论主导思想模式基础上的。近代机械-原子论赞同那种强调组成部分而非整体的世界观,这种世界观是原子论而非有机论,是机械论而非关联论。它强调个人主义精神的主导地位。反映在近代财产法理念上,则是主张个人财产绝对权利,强调个人利益的支配地位。但在美国,意识形态从来都不是一元化的,财产法理念中的个人因素总是与社会因素连在一起的。个人利益与社会利益之间不是绝对排斥、一方独白,而是妥协共存、双方对话。本部分包括:第三章、第四章与第五章。
第三章:简要阐明近代机械-原子论主导思想模式。随着宗教改革和市场经济的出现,宗教领域和世俗领域的有机论走向衰落。同时科学革命促使古代原子论复苏,并在近代发展为机械-原子论思想模式,在随后长达三百年的时间,一直是西方世界的主流文化思想模式。
第四章:具体而详尽地论述了近代美国财产法理念中的个人主义支配地位。近代美国财产法理念是建立在17世纪科学革命对古代和中世纪有机论的批判中产生的机械-原子论主导思想模式基础上的。它强调个人主义精神的主导地位。而自然财产权理论作为近代机械-原子论文化思想模式在法律方面的副产品,其“全部思辨的主导线索始终是个人主义”的。因此,与格劳秀斯、普芬道夫自然财产权理论一脉相承并深受强调个人权利的英国法律传统影响而作为近代科学革命及机械-原子论文化思想模式直接产物的洛克个人主义财产权理论,就成为近代财产法理念的一贯特征,并在那个时代占据了统治地位。
而布莱克斯通主要就是继承了洛克的个人主义自然财产权理论中的观点,并具体化为绝对财产权观念与“独有的和专断的支配权”主张。随着布莱克斯通的《英国法释义》传播至美国,他们的个人主义财产权理论和绝对财产权利理念就成为18世纪美国财产法的理论来源和中心特点。
由于清教主义把个人主义观念烙进了美国人的理论和实践之中,这样,在19世纪,洛克的个人主义财产权理论对美国财产法理念的影响就更为全面而深刻。同时,19世纪边沁的个人功利主义与斯宾塞的自由放任主义使洛克的个人主义绝对财产权理论获得了长足的发展。到19世纪的最后25年,美国财产法理念将洛克个人主义财产观推向了巅峰。因此,在近代机械-原子论文化思想模式的主导下,近代美国财产法理念主张的是个人财产的绝对权利,强调的是个人利益的支配地位。
第五章:具体阐述近代美国财产法理念中的社会因素。在美国,意识形态从来都不是一元化的,从来没有单一的政治理论,相应的也没有单一的财产理论,在那个时代占绝对统治地位。虽然洛克与布莱克斯通的个人主义财产权理论在近代美国财产法理念中一直占据支配地位,但它决不是那个时代唯一的财产权理论,因为在近代美国财产法理念中的社会因素也起着重要作用。在近代美国财产法理念中,个人因素总是与社会因素连在一起的,个人主义财产权理论也总是与共和主义财产权理论相互促进的。共和主义者认为,社会应该具有互相依赖性……在社会统一体中,每个个体应该参与到整体之中,而整体又应该与每个个体相连。这种连接是带有义务性的,因为它们是双向的。一个没有参与到整体中的个体就不是社会的一员。因此,人类在本质上是社会性的,私有财产是一种社会创制,是社会中的人类劳动创造出来的,而不是先政治权的存在物。作为一种社会产物,它最终要服务于社会需要和社会价值。可见,在近代美国财产法理念中,个人主义与共和主义、个人利益与社会利益总是连接在一起的。虽然它们之间总是存在着并还将继续存在着冲突,但在近代美国财产法理念中,个人主义与共和主义、个人利益与社会利益之间决不是绝对排斥、一方独白,而是妥协共存、双方对话的。
第三部分:具体论述现代整体论思想模式与美国财产法理念。进入20世纪后,人类正处在又一次思想模式变革的过程中,这次变革建立在更为复杂的知识基础上,即我们正在走向一个由有机论和原子论综合平衡的整体论主导的世界。它强调自然的整体关联性,整体对部分的影响就像部分对整体的影响一样。在现代整体论思想模式的主导下,现代美国财产法理念作为对近代抽象个人自然财产权利理论和个人自由主义的反作用,重视社会整体利益,强调个人财产权的社会责任。但个人主义作为美国民族精神,在现代美国财产法理念中依然存在并将继续存在。文章指出:现代美国财产法理念的核心是寻求个人利益与更占优势社会利益之间的动态平衡。本部分包括:第六章、第七章与第八章。
第六章:简要说明现代整体论主导思想模式。进入20世纪后,一度作为主流文化模式的机械-原子论走向衰败,我们正处在又一次思想模式变革的过程中,这次变革建立在更为复杂的知识基础上,即我们正在走向一个由有机论和原子论综合平衡的整体论主导的世界。作为智识历史的一部分,传统的洛克观点亦有其自身的时代缺陷。成就了洛克财产理论的机械-原子论思想模式几乎瓦解了,而洛克的个人主义已经不能与更具整体意义的观点相调和。并正为这些观点所取代。
第七章:详尽地阐述现代美国财产法理念中的社会化趋向。进入20世纪后,美国从拓荒的、农业、乡村社会向定居的工商业且城市化的社会转变;个人突出的理想移向彼此合作的理想。法律需要淡化个人主义色彩,更多地关注社会整体的利益,尤其是消费者及社会弱者的利益。现代财产法理念变迁的主线即是财产所有人社会责任的增加和个人权利相应地减少。因此,当前个人利益和更占优势的社会利益之间的平衡构成了现代美国财产法理念的核心。随着美国财产法理念由强调个人财产权绝对化向个人财产权的相对化和社会化方向发展,这种平衡也就从一种过分强调个人权利向更占优势的社会利益转变。
第八章:具体说明现代美国财产法理念中的个人主义精神。历史从来不是绝对的、一元化的。个人利益和社会利益之间尽管一直存在着冲突,但更多时候是“一方主导另一方同时也存在”式的对话,而不会是反映相反两极之间“一方绝对支配或另一方绝对不存在”式的争斗。虽然进入20世纪后,我们维护和承认所有个人和团体利益的根本原因是基于社会利益,这并不是说对上两个世纪人们苦苦追求的个人利益可以漠视。恰恰相反,社会利益最终是存在于个人生活之中的利益,个人利益与社会利益息息相关。尤其是在美国,自清教主义者把个人主义传统带入后,个人主义精神就是“美国精神”。因此,在美国财产法理念中,个人自由原则始终作为现代财产法平衡功能的一项指导原则同时促进个人和社会福利的最大化。因而从总体上来说,在20世纪,个人利益仍然是法律保护的一个重要方面。
结语:主要是水到渠成地总结与概括出在科学知识与文化思想模式的主导下美国财产法理念的变迁规律。美国财产法理念的整个变迁过程充分表明:人类的思想与历史的发展从来都不是直线的、绝对的、一元化的;而是曲线的、相对的、多元化的。原子论与有机论、个人自由主义与共和主义在美国财产法理念变迁的每个时期都是共存的,对个人利与社会利益的强调在历史的每个时期也都是不可偏废的。17世纪那些拒绝透过伽利略望远镜看世界的教士们和现今拒绝透过现代科学,或者从更本质上来说,法制史的望远镜来看世界的新洛克主义者们是同样片面的、错误的。历史是发展、变迁、有机统一和不可分割的“绵延”。社会进步既不是梅因“从身份到契约的运动”;亦不是亚伦、施瓦茨“从契约到身份”的相反运动。而是个人和社会两方面的因素在每个时代的人类利益中都同时存在。只是两者的地位、强弱在不断地变化。其变化趋向则是个人最大限度扩张性自我主张和社会保证每个人过上人类应有生活,即个人利益与社会利益的动态平衡。因此,文明的理想,应该是个人自由和社会合作的结合。
在科学知识和文化思想模式发展历史的大视野下,审视美国财产法理念的变迁路径。我们发现,美国财产法在其理念演进过程中,既始终坚持个人主义的民族精神,又力图贯通在个人利益和社会利益之间寻求平衡的传统。尽管在历史的不同时期有所偏颇。从社会心理学角度看,实质上反映的是人的扩张性自我主张本能和社会本能即利已本能和合作本能之间的冲突和重叠,而文明的标志正是在两种本能之间维持均衡。
所以,财产法既应是保证天赋、机遇好且勤奋的人开创个人成功的助动器,又应是保障每个人获得幸福的平衡器。因此,我们可以说,全部财产法的发展历史,到目前为止,是一部走向个人与社会利益平衡的历史,其最终目的在于追求每个人的幸福。
This thesis focuses on the developing path of the theory of American property law in the view of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm, indicating the evolving rule and new development trend of American property law: the development of the theory of American property law was based on the mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was brought about by the criticism of modern scientific revolution toward organicism In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, and this so-called mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm has developed into the Holism ideological paradigm. With the guide of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm, the changes of the theory of American property law are as follows: in the 18,19 centuries, the theory of American property law stresses the absolute right of individuals, since the 20 centuries, however, social responsibility of individual property right has been emphasized. After research, however, this thesis points out that during the history of the development of the theory of American property law, atomism and organicism, individualism and republicanism, individual advantage and social benefit could coexist in each era. They are not exclusive for each other but coexisting, not soliloquy but conversation. While individual advantage and social benefit may be stressed differently at different stage of the times, the general trend is tending towards the balancing of interest between individual and society This thesis consists of introduction, three main parts (, eight chapters) and the concluding remarks.
Introduction: this part presents the research methods, research objects and innovations of this thesis. This part demonstrates that during the evolving history of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm, the thinking of human about nature has never been completely one-dimensional. It has always resembled a pair of dancers, atomism and organicism, engaged in an uncomfortable philosophical dance. Awkwardly paired and bickering the whole time, the two ideas coexisted for centuries, though, as dancers, only one - the dominant paradigm - could lead. One partner, organicism, led for centuries until atomism, reflecting a more refined scientific knowledge about the way the world worked, emerged to take the lead in the seventeenth-century paradigm shift. Today, we are in the midst of another paradigm shift in which, based on even more sophisticated knowledge, the lead is passing to holism, a less comprehensive version of organicism. Precisely speaking, this paradigm mainly embodies the balance of organicism and atomism. Exploring and examining the developing history of American property law and its rule under the background of scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm makes this research more scientific.
The first part compendiously introduces the organicism paradigm and organic property law in ancientry and in the Middle Ages In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, organicism was the leading Weltanschauung of human about nature and society, which emphasized that the universe was an inseparable organic whole. Organic property law reflects organicism paradigm, namely the purpose of property law is for the sociableness, and social obligation and responsibility of private property are much stressed and the core theory of property law is for common good. In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, though organicism paradigm and the theory of social benefit in property law were in dominant position, the atomism paradigm and the theory of individual advantage in property law coexisted. This part consists of chapter I and chapter II.
Chapter I concisely introduces the organism paradigm In ancientry and in the Middle Ages. In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, organism paradigm dominated in the fields of religion and knowledge, in the views about nature and human society- the universe was an inseparable organic whole. Therefore, in ancientry and in the Middle Ages, though atomism coexisted with organism, atomism was in an extremely subordinate position.
Part II concisely introduces organic property law dominated by the theory of social benefit. In ancientry and in the Middle Ages, the early property law which embodied the paradigm dominated by organicism stressed the social obligation and responsibility of private property and aimed at sociableness. So, the main influence of paradigm dominated by organicism on the early property law consisted in that people in the Middle Ages generally held that private property should be restricted by social obligations. The viewpoint of common good became the core of Aquinas’view of property which was in the leading position in the Middle Ages. Therefore, though individual advantage and social benefit coexisted in property law, the individual benefit was unfortunately paid less heed.
The second part explored modern mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm and the theory of American property law in detail. The development of the theory of American property law was based on the mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was brought about by the criticism of seventeenth-century modern scientific revolution toward organicism In ancientry and in the Middle Ages The modern mechanistic-atomism espoused a world view that emphasized constituent parts rather than the whole, that was atomistic rather than interconnected, mechanical rather than organic It emphasized the leading position of individualism, The theory of modern property law embodied such thought-absolute individual property right was claimed and the dominant position of individual advantage was emphasized. In America, however, ideology has never been one-dimensional, the individual and the society are always connected closely in the theory of property law. The individual advantage and social benefit are not exclusive for each other but coexisting, not soliloquy but conversation. This part consists of chapter III, chapter IV and chapter V.
Chapter III concisely introduces the modern mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm. With the emergence of religion reform and market economy, religious and social organism declined. At the same time, scientific revolution resuscitated the ancient atomism, which became mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm in modern times.
Mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm had been the leading cultural ideology paradigm of the West for more than 300 years since.
Chapter IV detailedly discusses the dominant poison of individualism in the theory of American property law. The development of the theory of American property law was based on the mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was brought about by the criticism of seventeenth-century modern scientific revolution toward organicism In ancientry and in the Middle Ages It emphasized the leading position of individualism, The entire leading clue of thinking and analyzing of the theory of Natural property law, which is a by-product of the modern mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm in law, is individualism. As was deeply influenced by England law tradition stressed individual rights and came down in one continuous line with natural property theory of Grotius and Pufendorf, Lockean individualism property theory which was the direct product of modern scientific revolution and mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm characterized modern principle of property law and was in the dominant position at that era.
Absorption the points of individualism natural property theory of Locke, Blackstone took shape the concepts of absolute property and“exclusive”right of control. With the spread of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England to America, such theories of individualism property and absolute property became the theoretical sources and core features of the eighteenth-century American property law.
As individualism concepts took roots in American theory and practice owing to Puritanism, Lockean individualism property theory, in the 19 centuries, furthered its influence on the theory of American property law. At the same period, Bentham‘s utilitarianism and Spencer’s laissez faire facilitated great development of Lockean individualism property theory. During the last 25 years of the 19 centuries, Lockean individualism property theory reached the highest level in the theory of American property law. Therefore, led by mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm, modern American property law stresses the absolute right of individual property and the dominant position of individual advantage. Chapter V detailedly discusses the social elements of American property law. In America, Ideology has never been one-dimensional. Neither any single political theory nor any single property theory absolutely dominated at that time. Though individualism property theory of Locke and Blackstone has taken the leading position in modern American property theory, it has never been the only property theory at that times, social elements has also played an important role in the development of American property law theory. In American property law theory, individual elements connect with social elements, in addition, individualism property theory and republicanism property theory have always mutually facilitated. Republican holds that society is interdependent……in the social union, each individual shall join the whole and the whole shall connect with each individual. These connections shall bear obligation, for they are bi-directional. An individual who hasn’t joined the whole shall not be a member of society. So, human being is of sociableness in essence. Private property is a kind of social creature derived from human practice and is not the existence prior to society. As a social product, it finally serves society needs and society value. So, in American property law theory, individualism and republicanism, individual advantage and social benefit connect with each other. Though conflicts between them will not end, in American property law theory, individualism and republicanism, individual advantage and social benefit are not exclusive for each other but coexisting, not soliloquy but conversation.
The third part presents the modern holism ideological paradigm and American property law theory. After entry of the 20 centuries, human is now facing another ideological paradigm change which is based on more complicated knowledge. That is to say, we are going to a world dominated by holism which is the balance of organicism and atomism. It emphasizes the total connection of the nature; the whole affects the part just as the part affects the whole. With the guide of modern holism ideological paradigm, modern American property law theory, which as the counteractive of modern absolute individualism natural property theory, pays much attention to the entire social benefit and the social responsibility of individual property. Individualism as the nation spirit of America, however, will continue existing in the theory of modern American property law. This thesis points out that modern American property law theory seeks for the dynamic balance of individual advantage and social benefit. This part consists of chapterⅥ, chapter VII and chapter VIII.
ChapterⅥconcisely introduces the ideology paradigm of modern holism. After entry of the 20 centuries, mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which was once the lead became decline, we are now facing another ideological paradigm change which is based on more complicated knowledge. That is to say, we are going to a world dominated by holism balanced by organicism and atomism. As a part of the history of intellect, the traditional Lockean theory has its own defect. Mechanistic-atomism ideological paradigm which made the success of Lockean property theory almost collapses, Lockean individualism can not conciliate with theory of holism theory and is being replaced by such theory.
ChapterⅥdiscusses the socialization trend of modern American property law theory in detail. After entry into the 20 centuries, the America changed from agricultural, countryside society to commercial, urbanization society and individualism dominated ideal turned to mutual cooperation ideal. Law shall weaken the feature of individualism and pay much attention to entire benefit of the society, especially the welfare of consumer and the weak in society. The main change of modern property law theory is to add the social responsibility of property owners and properly reduce individual right. So, at present, the balance of individual advantage and social benefit with more advantageous comprise the core of American property law theory. With the change of American property law theory from emphasizing the absolutization of individual property to the relativity and socialization of individual property, such balance correspondingly has changed from too much stress on individual right to social benefit with more advantageous.
Chapter VIII points out the spirit of individualism in the theory of American property law in detail. History has never been absolute and one-dimensional. Though the conflicts between individual advantage and social benefit always exist, More often the dialogue has not so much reflected an all-or-nothing warfare between polar opposites as a one-and-the-other-at-the-same-time.
After entry into the 20 centuries, the fundamental reason that we safeguard and acknowledge the advantage of individual and group lies in social benefit, however, that is not to say we can despite individual advantage sought by people during the last two centuries. On the contrary, social benefit exists among the benefit that people live with, individual advantage and social benefit closely connected. Particularly in America, since the Puritanism brought in individualism, the spirit of individualism has been the spirit of America. So, in the theory of American property law, the principle of individual freedom has always been the guiding principle of the balancing function of modern American property law, which also facilitates the maximization of individual and social welfare. In general, individual advantage has still be an important aspect protected by law in the 20 centuries.
The concluding remarks naturally summarize the developing rule of American property law guided by scientific knowledge and cultural paradigm. The changing path of American property law theory indicates that human thought and history development has never been linear, categorical and one-dimensional but curvilinear, relative and multi-dimensional. Atomism and organicism, individualism and republicanism coexist in each era, neither individual advantage nor social benefit could be omitted in each times. To the churchmen of the early seventeenth century who refused, literally and metaphorically, to look through Galileo's telescope and to the new Lockean who refuse look through modern science and more essentially through the telescope of legal history, they may make mistakes in the same way. History is the duration of development, change, and organic unit and indivisibility. the progress of society is neither what Maine called”the movement from status to contract”nor what Schwartz called the counter-movement“from contract to status”, but the coexistence of elements of individual and society in the human welfare in each era. but the continuous change of the status of the two aspects. The trend is to safeguard the maximum of individual self-assertion and guarantee everybody a normal life deserved, that is to say, to realize the dynamic balance of individual advantage and social benefit. So, the combination of individual freedom and social cooperation shall be the ideal civilization.
By examining the changing path of the theory of American property law in the view of scientific knowledge and cultural Paradigm, We can find that during the development of the theory of American property law, it not only always insists on keeping the nation spirit of individualism but also tries to maintain the tradition of seeking for balance between individual advantage and social benefit, though there was divergence from this tradition in different times in history From the eye of social psychology, this reflects the conflicts and overlap between the human instinct of the expansion of self-assertion and social instinct (i.e. the self-interest instinct and cooperation instinct), and the balance of which is the symbol of civilization.
Therefore, property law shall be a“booster”which guarantees the success of individual with talent, good opportunity and diligence and also shall be a“balancer”which guarantees the happiness of each individual. Therefore, the entire history of the development of property law so far, we may say, has been the history of balancing individual advantage and social benefit, and the final aim of which is to seek and realize the happiness of each human being.
引文
1 William Twining, Karl Llewellyn and the Realist Movement 44, 55, 188-96 (1973). See Myrl L. Duncan , Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, Environmental Law Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College, Winter 1996, p.1102.
2 Robert W. Gordon, Critical Legal Histories, 36 Stanford Law Review,1984,p.57.
1 E.F. Schumacher, A Guide for the Perplexed 44 (1977).See supra note:Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1103.
2 参见【美】库恩:《科学革命的结构》,李宝恒、纪树立译,上海科学技术出版社 1980 年版,序言 viii。
3 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought,Harvard University Press,1957, p.199. pp.225-226.
1 参见前引《科学革命的结构》,第 62-68 页。
2 See supra note: The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, at226.
3 参见前引《科学革命的结构》,第 62-68 页。
4 参见【美】麦茜特、卡洛琳:《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,吴国盛译,吉林人民出版社 1999年版,序言 xxi.
5 Genesis 1: 27-28. See Lynn White, Jr., The Historical Roots of the Ecological Crisis, 155 Science, March 1967, pp.1203-1207.
1 参见【法】亨利·柏格森:《创化论》,诺贝尔文学奖全集编译委员会译,《诺贝尔文学奖全集》(15),《柏格森,Henri Bergson 1927》,九五文化事业有限公司、书华出版事业有限公司 1981 年初版,第 43 页。
2 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1105.
3 参见【美】赛班:《西方政治思想史》,李少军译,桂冠图书公司 1991 年版,第 355-361 页。
4 【英】史蒂文·卢克斯:《个人主义》,阎克文译,江苏人民出版社 2001 年版,第 8 页。
1 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom 2 (1989). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1113.
2 【美】约翰·E·克里贝特、科温·W·约翰逊、罗杰·W·芬德利、欧内斯特·E·史密斯:《财产法:案例与材料》,齐东祥、陈刚译,中国政法大学出版社 2003 年版第 7 版,第 3 页。
3 参见上引《财产法:案例与材料》,第 35 页。
4 前引《创化论》,第 42 页。
5 参见【美】E·博登海默:《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版,第 282 页。
1 参见【德】黑格尔:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆 1982 年版,第 7 页。
2 【美】爱德华·S·考文:《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,三联书店 1996 年版,第 61 页。
3 参见前引《财产法:案例与材料》,第 1182 页。
4 参见【英】S.F.C.密尔松:《普通法的历史基础》,李显冬、高翔、刘智慧、马呈元译,中国大百科全书出版社 1999 年版,引言Ⅰ。
1 1900 年巴黎国际比较法大会上讨论确定的比较法的目的。参见冉昊著《英美财产法基本构造分析――从身份到契约,从契约到关系》,中国社会科学院博士论文打印稿,第 1 页。
2 【日】大木雅夫:《比较法》,范愉译,朱景文审校,法律出版社 1999 年版,第 124-125 页。
3 【德】弗里德里希·卡尔·冯·萨维尼:《论立法与法学的当代使命》,许章润译,中国法制出版社2001 年版,第 10 页。
4 参见前引《比较法》,第 242 页。
5 参见前引《比较法》,第 122 页。
6 【德】K.茨威格特,H.克茨:《比较法总论》,潘汉典,米健,高鸿钧,贺卫方译,贵州人民出版社 1992年版,第 428 页。
1 参见上引《比较法总论》,第 184 页。
2 参见李进之、王久华、李克宁、蒋丹宁著:《美国财产法》,法律出版社 1999 年版。
3 参见马新彦著:《美国财产法与判例研究》,法律出版社 2001 年版。
4 参见梅雪芹:《财产与政权――论约翰·洛克的财产观》,南京大学历史系博士论文打印稿。
5 【德】黑格尔:《逻辑学》(下卷),杨一之译,商务印书馆 1976 年版,第 450 页。
6 吕世伦著:《法理念探索》,法律出版社 2002 年版,序第 1-2 页。
1 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,序言Ⅴ。
2 【法】米歇尔福柯:《知识考古学》,谢强、马月译,生活读书新知三联书店 1998 年版,第 22 页。
1 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom 3 (1989). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1105.
2 Barthes,Roland, Mythologies,Vol.Ⅰ, Wendy Doninger trans.,University of Chicago Press,1991,pp.121-22,pp.452-56,pp.611-12.
3 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 3 页。
1 参见上引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 32 页。
2 Lucius Seneca,Naturales Quaestiones,Vol.Ⅱ,Thomas H. Corcoran trans.,Harvard University Press, 1972,pp.103-05.
3 Plato, Timaeus, in Plato: The Collected Dialogues ,Edith Hamilton & Huntington Cairns eds., Lane Cooper et al. trans., Princeton University Press,1971,p.1163.
4 Aristotle, Metaphysics, in The Basic Works of Aristotle (Richard McKeon ed., 1941). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1106.
5 R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957, p.4.
6 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,序言 xxi。
1 See supra note: Naturales Quaestiones, Vol.Ⅱ,at103-05.
2 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 24 页。
3 Aristotle, Metaphysics, in The Basic Works of Aristotle1130 (Richard McKeon ed., 1941). See supra note:Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1107.
4 参见《阿奎那政治著作选》,马清槐译,商务印书馆 1963 年版,第 88 页。
5 参见上引,《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 142 页。
1 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 201 页。
2 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom 24 (1989) (quoting 2 Tol'Doth, The Zohar (Harry Sperling & Maurice Simon trans., 1984)). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at 1110.
3 欧几里得,约公元前 3 世纪的古希腊数学家。
1 Alan W. Watts, Nature, Man and Woman 40-41 (1958). See supra note:Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1110.
1 参见 W.UUman,The Individual and Society in the Middle Ages ,London, 1967, p.32,p.40,p.42。转引自前引《个人主义》,第 44 页。
2 Alfred O'Rahilly, S. Thomas's Theory of Property , 7 Studies 337 (1920). See supra note:Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1108.
3 Paschal Larkin, Property in the Eighteenth Century 5 (1930). Id.at1108.
4 参见拙作《域外古代土地产权制度比较研究》,载何勤华主编《法律文化史研究》(第一卷),商务印书馆 2004 年版,第 317-318 页。
1 参见【美】约翰·H·威格摩尔:《世界法系概览》(下),何勤华、李秀清、郭光东等译,上海人民出版社 2004 年版,第 897 页。
2 See L B Curzon, English Legal History , Macdonald & Evans Ltd., 1979, p.18.
3 See A.W.B.Simpson, A History of the Land Law,Oxford: Clarendon Press, Second Edition, 1986, p.2.
4 参见《财产法:案例与材料》,第 3 页、第 187 页。
5 非自由保有人,即租赁地产保有人,是指在封建土地保有制下一度只能是不定期租户的隶农。在封建制度下,只有国王才能所有土地,而其他人只能从他那里取得土地的保有。所以,土地保有实际上是一种存在于领主和佃户之间的关系,分为自由保有和非自由保有。自由保有人享有对自由地产的法定世袭占有;非自由保有人只能是对租赁地产的单纯占有。这一区别是十分重要的,因为,最初只有自由地产保有人在其土地被强占时才可以提起恢复其保有的诉讼。参见【英】F·H·劳森、B·拉登:《财产法》,施天涛、梅慎实、孔祥俊译,中国大百科全书出版 1998 年版第 2 版,第 78 页、147 页。前引《财产法:案例与材料》,第 3 页、第 186 页。
1 彼拉多(Poutius Pilatus),罗马帝国驻犹太的总督(约 26——约 36 年)。据《新约全书》记载,耶稣由他判决钉死在十字架上。参见【美】罗斯科·庞德:《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,沈宗灵、董世忠译,杨昌裕、楼邦彦校,商务印书馆 1984 年版,第 20 页。
2 参见上引《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,第 20 页。
3 参见前引《个人主义》,第 45 页。
1 L. Ali Khan, The Extinction of Nation-States: A World Without Boundaries 25-26 (1996). See supra note:Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1111.
2 参见【英】西奥多·F·T·普拉克内特:《简明普通法史》(影印版),中信出版社 2003 年版第 5 版,第533 页。
1 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom41 (1989). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1111.
2 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 55-65 页。
3 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom44 (1989). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1112.
4 L. Ali Khan, The Extinction of Nation-States: A World Without Boundaries 25-26 (1996). Id.at1112.
5 Margaret Jacob, The Cultural Meaning of the Scientific Revolution 44-46 (1988). Id.at1112.
1 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom 2 (1989). Id.at1113.
2 Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method, reprinted in 1 The Philosophical Works of Descartes 81, 115. Id.at1113.
3 参见【英】罗素:《西方哲学史》(下卷),马元德译,商务印书馆 1976 年版,第 63 页、第 84 页。
4 江华骆通:《英美法通论》,群益书社 1909 年版,第 4 页。
5 参见【英】培根:《新工具》,许宝二译,商务印书馆 1984 年版,第 246 页。
6 参见【荷兰】斯宾诺莎:《笛卡儿哲学原理》,王荫庭、洪汉鼎译,商务印书馆 1980 年版,第 45 页。
7【英】索利:《英国哲学史》,段德智译,山东人民出版社 1992 年版,第 25 页。
1 Margaret Jacob, The Cultural Meaning of the Scientific Revolution 44-46 (1988). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1116.
1 Frederic William Maitland, The Forms of Action at Common Law 1 (reprint 1968) (1909). Id.at1117.
2 Cf. Elie Halevy, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism, Beacon Press, 1955, p.6.
3 【美】雅·布伦诺斯基:《科学进化史》,李斯译,海南出版社 2002 年版,第 220-67 页。
4 Curtin v. Benson, 222 U.S. 78, 86 (1911).
1 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 64 页。
2 参见前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 39 页。
3 【意】登特列夫:《自然法——法律哲学导论》,李日章译,台北联经出版事业公司 1984 年版,第 58 页。
4 E. DurKheim, Individualism and the Intellectuals’ (1898), tr. S. and J. Lukes, Political Studies, XVII(1969), p.99. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 68 页。
5 Contributions to Indian Sociology, No. VIII(October 1965), p.29.转引自前引《个人主义》,第69 页。
1 John W. Yolton, The Locke Reader 1-9 (1973). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at 1119.
2 参见《人类理解论》,第一篇,第三章,第二十二节,第 51 页。转引自【德】黑格尔:《哲学史讲演录》(第四卷),贺麟、王太庆译,商务印书馆 1978 年版,第 144 页。
3Neal Wood, The Politics of Locke's Philosophy: A Social Study of "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" 6-30 (1983). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1120.
1 Encyclopedia Britannica(15th edition), Vol. 12, 1977, p.863.
2 参见【美】施特劳斯和克罗波西主编《政治哲学史》(上),李天然等译,河北人民出版社 1993 年版,第 2 页。
3 Wolfgang Friedmann,Legal Theory, 5th ed. Stevens & Sons, Ltd.,1967, p.21.
1 参见【美】萨拜因:《政治学说史》(上册),盛葵阳、崔妙因译,商务印书馆 1986 年版,第 53 页。
2 参见【德】文德尔班:《哲学史教程》(上卷),罗达仁译,商务印书馆 1987 年版,第 105 页。
3 参见杨适著:《古希腊哲学探本》,商务印书馆 2003 年版,第 265 页。
4 参见【苏】涅尔谢相茨:《古希腊政治学说》,蔡拓译,商务印书馆 1991 年版,第 165 页。
5 【古希腊】亚里士多德:《政治学》,吴寿彭译,商务印书馆 1965 年版,第 138 页。
6 肘尺,古代的一种度量单位,约等于 17 或 20 英寸。
7 参见【荷】格劳秀斯:《战争与和平法》,【美】A·C·坎贝尔英译,何勤华等译,上海人民出版社 2005年版,第 130—31 页。
1 参见前引《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 141 页。
2 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 122 页。
3 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 138 页。
4 See Stephen Buckle, Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991, p.69. 该书正由笔者译出。
5 参见前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 17 页。
1 参见前引《政治学说史》(上册),第 204—205 页。
2 参见【古罗马】西塞罗:《论共和国 论法律》,王焕生译,中国政法大学出版社 1997 年版,第 190 页。
3 参见【古罗马】西塞罗:《论义务》,王焕生译,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版,第 195 页。
4 Cicero, De Legibus I, 10, 12—28, 33,转引自前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 9 页。
5 See H.Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), trans. F.W. Kelsey, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York: Oceana Publications, 1964, at II.2.ii.1.
6 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume , at13.
7 I Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory(1927)7—8,转引自前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 9 页。
1 Justinian’s Digest I. 5.4.转引自前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 17 页。
2 Dig. L. 17. 32.转引自前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 17 页。
3 I Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory(1927)47,转引自前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 10 页。
4 参见前引《论义务》,第 265 页。
5 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 130 页。
1 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 130 页。
2 参见前引《论义务》,第 271 页。
3 维吉尔,古罗马诗人。
4 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 132—133 页,第 137 页。
1 拉托娜,宙斯的情人。
2 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 133 页。
3 塞维鲁·图利乌斯,古罗马的埃特鲁斯王。
4 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 138—139 页。
1 参见【英】梅因:《古代法》,沈景一译,商务印书馆 1959 年版,第 139—142 页。
2 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 144 页。
3 参见前引《论义务》,第 239 页。
4 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 154—155 页。
1 Isidore, Etymologia (in Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. 82), BK, V, Ch4.转引自前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 28 页。
2 参见前引《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 141 页。
3 参见上引《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 141 页。
4 参见上引《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 141 页。
1 参见上引《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 142 页。
2 Gierke, Political Theories of Middle Ages (Maitland tr. 1922), pp.80-81,n.278,279; Gierke, Althusius (Zur deutschen Staats u. Reehts Geschichte 1879-80), pp. 270-71,n.18,19.转引自前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 14 页。
3 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法“背景》,第 21 页。
1 Figgis, Divine, Right of Kings (2d ed. 1914), pp.228-230.转引自前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 30 页。
2 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 20 页。
3 Fortescue, De Laudibus. Legum Angliae (Amos ed. 1825). pp.125-136,转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 31 页。
4 Id.at125-136.转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 31 页。
1 Id.at136-138.转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 31—32 页。
2 Hansard, Parliamentary History (1628),vol.2, 第 333 页。转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 25 页。
3 Adams, Origin of the English Constitution(1912), 第 282 页。转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 27 页。
1 Adams, Origin of the English Constitation (1912), 第 264 页。转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 27 页。
2 McIlwain, “Magna carta and Common Law” 载 Magna Carta Commemoration Essays (Malden ed. 1917)第 170-172 页。转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 27 页。
3 2 Hansard, Parliamentary History (1628) 327. 转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 55页。
4 2 Co. Inst. 45。转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 55 页。
5 8 Co. 107a(1610), I Brownl. 225(1610).
6 8 Co.118a (1610).
1 Semayne’s Case, 5 Co. 91(1605).
2 Henry Campbell Black, Black’ Law Dictionary, 5th ed. St. Paul Minn,.West Publishing Co 1979, p.1238.
3 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume ,at2.
4 参见前引《自然法――法律哲学导论》,第 47 页。
5 前引《战争与和平法》,第 32 页。
6 See Adam Mossoff, What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together, 2003 Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona Law Review, Summer 2003, p.379.
1 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 122 页。
2 此处“查士丁”应译为“贾斯廷”。
3 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 122 页。
4 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 123 页。
1 参见【荷】格劳秀斯:《海洋自由论》,宇川译,上海三联书店 2005 年版,第 228 页。
2 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at11.
3 D. Bigongiari, The Political Ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. English Dominican Fathers, ed.New York:Hafner Press,1953,pp.45-6.
1 Seneca, Epistle cxxiv.See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at25.
2 Seneca, Epistle, I. Cf. Id.at25.
3 Cicero, De Finibus, Ⅳ.ⅶ.16-17. Id.at26.
1 Cicero, De Finibus, Ⅳ.ⅶ.17. Id.at27.
1 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), Ⅰ.2.ⅰ.5.
2 Id.atⅠ.2.ⅰ.5.
1 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 150 页。
1 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625),at Ⅴ. 194.
2 C.B.Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962, pp.263-264.
3 【法】卢梭:《社会契约论》,何兆武译,商务印书馆 1980 年第 2 版,第 38 页。
1 F. Hutcheson, A System of Moral Philosophy(1755)(Hildesheim: Olms, 1969),ⅱ.224-5. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at33.
2 See K.Olivecrona, Law as Fact, London: Stevens ﹠Sons, 2nd ed., 1971, pp.275-296.
1 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 129-130 页。
2 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 132-140 页。
1 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 129 页。
2 Richard Tuck,Natural rights theories: their Origin and Development, Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp.79-80.
3 Id,at80.
4 Id,at80.
5 See supra note: The Political Ideas of St.Thomas Aquinas,at138.
6 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 129-130 页。
1 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 131 页。
2 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 132-137 页。
3 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 139-140 页。
4 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 154-155 页。
1 Id.at Ⅱ.2.ⅱ.Ⅰ.
1 Id.at Ⅱ.2.ⅱ.Ⅰ.
2 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 123-124 页。
3 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 124 页。
4 Gen. 9: 20 ff. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at39.
1 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 124 页。
2 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 124 页。
3 Gen. 10: Ⅱ. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at39.
1 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 124-125 页。
2 Gen. 13. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at40.
1 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625),at Ⅱ.2.ⅱ.4.
2 Id.at Ⅱ.2.ⅱ.5.
1 参见前引《海洋自由论》,第 228 页。
2 参见上引《海洋自由论》,第 228 页。
3 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), at Ⅱ.2.ⅱ.Ⅰ.
1 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development,at71.
1 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 228 (G.L. Williams & W.H. Zeydel trans.,1964). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at380.
2 Id.at381.
3 Adam Mossoff, Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800, 52 Hastings Law Journal,2001,p.1255,pp.1281-83.
1 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 227. See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at382.
2 【英】休谟:《人性论》(1739-1740),(影印本)中国社会科学出版社 1999 年版,第 542-49 页。
3 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), at II.2.ii.5.
4 Id.at II.2.ii.5.
1 Id.at I.2.i.5.
2 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 322. See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at 383.
3 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development,at60.
4 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 227(G.L. Williams & W.H. Zeydel trans., 1964). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at384.
1 参见前引《海洋自由论》, 第 25-26 页。
2 参见上引《海洋自由论》, 第 27 页。
3 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 238(G.L. Williams & W.H. Zeydel trans.,1964). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at385.
4 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development,at86-87.
5 Aristotle, Rhetoric 1361a21-22 (W. Rhys Roberts trans., 1954). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at 391.
1 Alan Watson, The Law of the Ancient Romans 49-70 (1970). Id.at391.
2 William C. Morey, Outlines of Roman Law 282-83 (1884). Id.at392.
3 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), at II.2.ii.1.
4 Id.at II.6.i.1.
5 Barry Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law 154 (1962). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at 392.
6 George C. Christie, Jurisprudence: Text and Readings on the Philosophy of Law, St. Paul, Minn. West Publishing Co., 1973, p.160.
7 【日】寺田四郎:《国际法学界之七大家》,韩逋仙译,吴旭阳校,中国政法大学出版社 2003 年版,第188 页。
1 【美】但宁:《政治学说史》(中册),谢义伟译,神州国光社 1931 年版,第 254 页。
2 Christopher B. Gray, The Philosophy of Law: an Encyclopedia, Vol.2, Carland Publishing Inc., 1999, p.705.
3 Id.at 33-35.
4Elementa jurisprudentiae, transl. W. A. Oldfather(Oxford, 1931),Bk.Ⅱ,observ. ⅳ,4. 转引自前引《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》,第 44 页。
1 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at92.
2 S. Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),trans. C.H. and W. A. Oldfather(New York:Oceana Publications; London: Wildby and Sons, 1964),Ⅰ.Ⅰ.16. Id.at78.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.3. Id.at92.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.5. Id.at92.
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.3.6. Id.at92.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.2. Id.at93.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.2. Id.at93.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.3. Id.at94.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.3. Id.at94.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4. Id.at94.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.5. Id.at94.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.2. Id.at94.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.6. Id.at104.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.9. Id.at106.
2 塞缪尔·普芬道夫:《人和公民的义务》(影印本),J·塔利,M·希尔弗索恩编,中国政法大学出版社2003 年版,第 34 页。
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.7.See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at69.
4 马可·奥里利乌斯(公元 121-180):罗马皇帝兼斯多葛学派哲学家。
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.3.14. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at70.
2 Id.at70.
3 Id.at70.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.3.14. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at71.
1 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books Inc., 1974, p.33.
2 参见前引《人性论》(1739-40)(影印本),第 485 页。
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.3.15. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at72.
4 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625),at I.2.i.5.
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.3.15. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at72.
6 See R.Tuck, Hobbes, Oxford University Press, 1989, p.3.
7 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2.3. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at72.
8 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2.6. Id.at72.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2.3. Id.at72.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2.9. Id.at72.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2.4. Id.at73.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.3.15. Id.at73.
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅲ.3.Ⅰ. Id.at73.
6 De Officio, Ⅰ.8.Ⅰ. Id.at73.
7 【英】洛克:《政府论》(下篇),叶启芳,瞿菊农译,商务印书馆 1981 年版,第 6-7 页。
1 De Officio, Ⅱ.Ⅰ.9. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume , at76.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.5.1. Id.at77.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅷ.3.2. Id.at77.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅷ.3.2. Id.at78.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.3. Id.at78.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.3.Ⅰ. Id.at78.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.Ⅰ. Id.at108.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2. Id.at108.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.2. Id.at108.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.2. Id.at109.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅰ.6.18. Id.at111.
2 E.Kamenka, Maxrism and Politics, 10 Bulletin of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy, 1986,March,p.20.
3 See e.g. De Officio,Ⅰ.3.7. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at112.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.2. Id.at112.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅲ.7.Ⅰ. Id.at112.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.3. Id.at112.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.2. Id.at113.
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.2. Id.at113.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.2. Id.at114.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.5. Id.at114.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2. Id.at115.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.5. Id.at115.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.6. Id.at116.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.6. Id.at116.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.6. Id.at117.
1 See John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971, pp.152-153.同时参见【美】约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》,何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白译,中国社会科学出版社 1988 年版,第 14 页、第 81 页。
2 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 27-28 页。
3 D.Hume, “Of Commerce”, in Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, ed. T.H. Green and T. H.Grose(London,1882), ⅰ.295. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at122.
4 “Of Refinement in the Arts”, ibid. ⅰ.300. Id.at122.
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅴ.Ⅰ.Ⅱ. Id.at122.
6 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),4. Id.at122.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅰ. Id.at123.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),12. Id.at123.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),13. Id.at123.
4 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 24-25 页。
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅴ.Ⅰ.9. Id.at123.
6 John Dunn, Justice and the Interpretation of Locke’s Political Theory, 16 Political Studies, 1968,pp.68-87.
1 John Locke Critical Assessments, Edited by Richard Ashcraft, Vol.Ⅲ, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1991, p.328.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.6.See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at100.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),8. Id.at100.
3 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 124 页。
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.6. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at101.
2 See supra note: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, at174.
3 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at95.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),13.See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at101.
2 参见前引《海洋自由论》,第 2 页。
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672), Ⅳ.4.1.See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at102.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672), Ⅳ.4.6. Id.at102.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672), Ⅳ.4.6. Id.at103.
2 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 21 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 21 页。
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672), Ⅳ.4.6. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at104.
1 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development, at547.
1 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development,at16.
2 参见前引《人和公民的义务》(影印本),第 85 页。
3 J. Locke, Essays on the Law of Nature, ed. W. von Leyden, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954, p.125.
4 J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government(1690), 2nd ed., ed. P. Laslett, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967, p.74, p.137, p.142.
5 参见前引《政治学说史》(中册),第 288 页。
1 【美】施特劳斯:《自然权利与历史》,彭刚译,三联书店 2003 年版,第 121 页。
2 John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government: New Interpretation, ed. Edward J. Harpham, University Press of Kansas, 1992, p.3.
3 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
4 参见前引《政治学说史》(中册),第 589 页。
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
2 参见前引《政府论》(上篇),第 25 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(上篇),第 20-21 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(上篇),第 24-25 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(上篇),第 35 页。
3 See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690),ⅱ27.
4 See Sukhninder Panesar, General Principles of Property Law ,? Pearson Education Limited 2001, p. 31.该书正由笔者译出。
5 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 53 页。
6 See J.Tully, A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980, pp.60-61.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
2 Grotius on the Freedom of the Seas, trans. R. V. D. Magoffin, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York: Oxford University, Press, 1916, p.24.
3 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), at II.17.ii.1.
4 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 6 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 16 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
3 对财产权概念被理解为“一束”权利,See e.g. L. Becker, Property Rights: Philosophic Foundations, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977.
4 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 18-19 页。
1 See supra note: Grotius on the Freedom of the Seas,at25.
2 Karl Olivecrona, Appropriation in the State of Nature: Locke on the Origin of Property, 35 Journal of the History of Ideas,1974, pp.221-230.
3 T.Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C. B. Macpherson, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968, ch. 15.
4 Id.at ch.30.
5 J. Locke, An Essay concerning Human Understanding(1690), ed. P. H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979, Ⅳ.3.18n.
1 See supra note: Appropriation in the State of Nature: Locke on the Origin of Property, at219.
2 See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690), introd. at101-102.
3 See supra note: An Essay concerning Human Understanding(1690), Ⅳ.3.18n.
4 See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690), introd.
5 See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690), ⅱ.37.
6 See Laslett’s editorial footnote, See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690), ⅱ.27.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
2 上引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 20 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 20-21 页。
4 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 21-22 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 22-23 页。
2 See supra note: A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries, at135-145.
3 See supra note: Essays on the Law of Nature, at211.
1 得文郡(Devonshire),英格兰西南部的一个郡名。
2 前引《政府论》(下篇),第 25 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 27 页。
4 See Gen. 3: 17-19. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at151..
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 28-29 页。
2 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at152.
3 See supra note: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, at174-175.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19-25 页。
2 参见前引《政府论》(上篇),第 36 页。
3 前引《政府论》(下篇),第 21 页。
1 A. Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence, ed. R. L. Meek, D.D. Raphael, and P.G. Stein, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978, p.254.
2 Id.at255.
3 Id.at245.
4 Id.at245,258.
1 See supra note:Anarchy, State, and Utopia, at174-182.
2 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
3 J. Waldron, The Right to Private Property, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, pp.207-218.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 22 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 30 页。
1 参见前引《政府论》(上篇),第 36 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(上篇),第 36 页。
3 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume , at160.
4 See supra note: Essays on the Law of Nature, at195.
1 参见前引《政府论》(上篇),第 74-75 页。
2 See I. Hont and M. Ignatieff, Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.41.
1 See R. W. Grant, John Locke’s Liberalism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp.66-83.
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
4 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
2 参见前引《政府论》(上篇),第 25 页。
3 See supra note: A Treatise of Human Nature, at542-549.
4 See supra note: A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries,at61.
5 See supra note: Two Treatises of Government(1690), at271.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
2 See supra note: The Right to Private Property, at178-181.
3 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development, at60.
4 See supra note: Two Treatises of Government(1690), at287.
5 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
6 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 20 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 77 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 77 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 82 页。
4 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 83 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 86 页。
2 See generally John Locke, Questions Concerning the Law of Nature 251 (Robert Horwitz et al. trans. & eds., 1990). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together, at392.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 53 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 77 页。
3 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 228 (G.L. Williams & W.H. Zeydel trans., 1964). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together, at 401.
4 Laura S. Underkuffler, On Property: An Essay, 100 Yale Law Journal,1990,p.127,p.136.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 20 页。
2 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19-20 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
4 See Richard A. Epstein, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, Harvard University Press, 1985, p.16.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 22-23 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 25 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 28 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 29 页。
3 马歇尔认为:“让美国土著人占有这个国家,就是让这个国家变成一片荒地”。Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 590 (1823).
4 Myrl L. Duncan, High Noon on the Ogallala Aquifer: Agriculture Does Not Live by Farmland Preservation Alone, 27 Washburn Law Journal,1987,p.16,p.48.
5 See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1031 (citing Curtin v. Benson, 222 U.S. 78, 86 (1911)).
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 21 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 24 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 24 页。
4 这种“伦理观”的现代表述,通常可参见唐奈勒 H· 梅多斯,丹尼斯·梅多斯,约恩·兰德斯:《超越极限:正视全球性崩溃,展望可持续的未来》,上海译文出版社 2001 年版。
5 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 24 页。
6 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 31 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 31 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 32 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 31 页。
1 See William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766),The University of Chicago Press, 1979, Introduction to Book Ⅱ, Iv. 王铁雄译,打印稿,待由上海人民出版社出版,原文简介 IV。
2 See generally William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),The University of Chicago Press, 1979, pp.1-115.
3 Id.at38. 此处“自然法”定义的译文借鉴何勤华:《布莱克斯通与英美法律近代化》,载《法律科学》,1996 年第 6 期。
1 麦克伊:《第三种理论》(中译文),《法学译丛》,1985 年第 3 期,第一页。转引自张文显著:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社 1996 年版。第 39 页。
2 See Miller, The Life of The Mind in America, From The Revolution to The Civil War, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1965, p.224.
3 Id.at224.
4 参见【奥】凯尔森:《法与国家的一般理论》,沈宗灵译,中国大百科全书出版社 1996 年版,第 493 页。
5 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766), Introduction to BookⅡ,atⅤ.
6 Nathaniel Chipman,Principles of Government: A Treatise on Free Institutions 78 (1793). See Robert P. Burns, Blackstone's Theory of the "Absolute" Rights of Property,54 University of Cincinnati Law Review, 1985, p.68.
1 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765), at38.
2 Id.at38-39.
3 Id.at39.
4 Id.at39-40 (emphasis added).
5 Id.at40.
6 Id.at40.
7 Id.at40.
8 Id.at40.
1 Id.at44.
2 Id.at122-24.
3 Id.at124.
4 Id.at124.
5 Id.at125.
6 Id.at125.
7 Id.at125.
8 Id.at127.
9 Id.at127-28.
10 Id.at129.
11 Id.at129.
12 Id.at129
1 Id.at121-45
2 Id.at133-34.
3 See Id.at134-35.
4 See Id.at134-35.
5 Id.at138.
6 Id.at138.
7 Id.at138-39.
8 See supra note:The Life of The Mind in America, From The Revolution to The Civil War, at224.
1 Id.at139.
2 Id.at139.(emphasis added).
3 Id.at139.
4 Id.at139.
5 Id.at139.(emphasis added).
6 Id.at140.
7 Id.at140.
8 Id.at140.
9 Id.at140.
10 Blackstone, Commentaries Ⅱ:Ⅰ. See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766), Introduction to BookⅡ,atⅢ.
1 Id.atⅢ.
2 Id.at2.
3 Carol M. Rose, Canons of Property Talk, or, Blackstone's Anxiety, Yale Law Journal, December 1998,p.601.
4 See James Madison, Property, Nat'l Gazette, Mar. 27, 1792, reprinted in 14 The Papers of James Madison 266 (Robert A. Rutland et al. eds., 1983). Id.at602.
5 Margaret Jane Radin, Reinterpreting Property 131 (1993). Id.at602.
6 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766),at2.
1 Id.at2.
2 Id.at2.
3 Gen, Ⅰ.28. Id.at2-3.
4 Id.at3.
5 Justin,Ⅰ.43.c.Ⅰ.Id.at3.
1 Id.at3.
2 Id.at8.
3 Id.at8.
4 Id.at4.
1 Id.at5.
1 Gen.21.30. Id.at5.
2 Gen.26.15.18. Id.at6.
3 Gen. c. 13. Id.at6.
1 Id.at7.
2 Id.at8.
1 Id.at9.
1 Id.at9.
2 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766),at2.
3 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),at38.
4 Thomas W. Merrill, Property and the Right to Exclude, 77 Nebraska Law Review,1998,p.734,p.736.
1 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),at135.
1 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766),at8.
2 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),at135.
3 Id.at1-115.
4 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766),at9.
5 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),at135.
1 See William C. Morey, Outlines of Roman Law 282-83 (1884). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at400.
2 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766),at8.
3 Samuel Pufendorf, On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law(James Tully ed., Michael Silverthorne trans., 1991) (1673). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at400.
1 【美】因斯蒂图特:《美国法律整编》(第四册,财产法),法治斌译,司法周刊杂志社 1987 年版,第 3页。
2 【日】高柳贤三:《英美法源理论》,杨磊、黎晓译,林向荣校,西南政法学院法制史教研室科研处编译室 1983 年编译,第 124 页。
3 Lawrence M .Friedman, A history of American Law, 2nd ed. Simon and Schuster, Inc. 1985. p59.
1 Land Law and Real Property in American History, Edited by Kermit L.Hall, Garland Publishing ,Inc., 1987.IX.该书正由笔者译出。
2 参见前引《比较法总论》,第 430 页。
3 【台】丘宏达,杨崇森,陈长文著:《法律学》,台湾学生书局 1973 年版,第 155 页。
4 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, at16,29.
1 See Walton H. Hamilton, Property--According to Locke,41Yale Law Journal,1932,p.873.
2 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 75 页。
3 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 78 页。
4 MacDonald, Documentary Source Book, p.43.转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 78 页。
1 Warren, History of the American Bar,(1911)第 2-8 章;参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 80 页。
2 10 Adams, Life and Works 275. 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 81 页。
3 这本小册子的出版日期为 1765 年。亚当斯在《生平与著作》(卷十,第 293 页)中对它的概括就是对洛克《政府论》(下篇)第十一章的概括。在奥提斯的《为众议院辩护》(1762)中,洛克被描写为“有生以来最智慧……最诚实……最公正的人……他作为为英国争光的伟人……连英国教会也不得不予以称颂。” 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 81 页。
4 Adams, Life and Works, 卷三,第 448—464 页,尤其是第 449 页,463 页。参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 82 页。
1 MacDonald, Documentary Source Book 146-50.参阅 Vattel, Law of Nations (London tr. 1797)卷一,第 3 章,第 34 节。立法机关和君主服从于宪法是这一章和下一章讨论的主题。这部著作首次出现于 1758年。参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 83 页。
2 Adams, Life and Works 248. 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 80 页。
3 参见前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 56 页。
4 See supra note: Property-- According to Locke. at783.
5 参见前引《美国法律整编》(第四册,财产法),第 5 页。
6 【美】纳尔逊·曼弗雷德·布莱克:《美国社会生活与思想史》(上册),许季鸿译,商务印书馆 1994 年版,第 196 页。
7 参见前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 58 页。
1 See supra note: Legal Theory, 5th ed.at136-151.
2 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766), at18.
3 参见【美】罗斯科·庞德:《普通法的精神》,唐前宏、廖湘文、高雪原译,夏登峻校,法律出版社 2001年版,第 104 页。
4 参见前引《美国法律整编》(第四册,财产法),第 12 页。
5 See Sir William Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol.Ⅺ, Methuen & Co Ltd and Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, Third Impression, 1977, p.277.
6 参见前引《普通法的精神》,第 67 页。
1 Warren, History of the American Bar 178. 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 88 页。
2 11 Jefferson, Writings (Mem. Ed. 1903)iv. 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 88 页。
3 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 88 页。
4 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765), at125-126.
5 Id.at127-29.
1 See supra note:What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at378.
2 James Madison, Property, Nat'l Gazette, Mar. 5, 1792, reprinted in James Madison, The Mind of the Founder186 (Marvin Meyer ed., 1981)(emphasis added). Id.at377.
3 See Thomas Jefferson, The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson , Adrienne Koch & William Peden eds., Modern Library, 1972, p.577.
4 James Madison, Property, Nat'l Gazette, Mar. 5, 1792, reprinted in JamesMadison, The Mind of the Founder186(Marvin Meyer ed., 1981) (emphasis added). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at401.
1 Id.at401.
2 Id.at401.
3 See supra note: The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson,at296.
4 参见《普通法的精神》,第 25 页。
5 See supra note: Property-- According to Locke,at873-874.
1 20 Wall. 655, at 662-663, 22L. Ed. 455,at 461(1875).
2 参见前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 58 页。
3 See supra note:A History of English Law, Vol.Ⅺ, at278.
4 Id.at290.
5 参见前引《美国法律整编》(第四册,财产法),第 14 页。
1 参见【美】莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社 2004年版,第 40-42 页。
2【英】吉米·边沁:《立法理论》,李贵芳等译,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年版,第 177 页。
3【英】边沁:《道德与立法原理导论》,时殷弘译,商务印书馆 2000 年版,第 81 页。
4 See supra note: General Principles of Property Law, at35.
5 参见【美】伯纳德·施瓦茨:《美国法律史》,王军等译,中国政法大学出版社 1990 年版,第 23 页。
6 参见上引《美国法律史》,第 98 页。
7 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 71 页。
1 参见上引《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),前言第 7 页。
2 参见上引《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),第 43-44 页。
3 See F. Bohlen, “The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher,” 59 U. Pa. L. Rev. 298 (1911). 参见上引《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),第 44 页。
4 参见上引《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),第 45 页。
1 “马基雅维里之手”:马基雅维里,意大利政治家兼历史学家,“马基雅维里之手”是指为达到目的而不择手段。
1 伊利:《财产、契约与财富分配的关系》,第 1 卷,第 105 页。转引自前引《美国法律史》,第 143 页。
2 沃纳:《论美国行政法》第 1 卷,第 4 节(1889 年)。转引自上引《美国法律史》,第 143 页。
3 同上书,第 3 节(1889 年)。转引自上引《美国法律史》,第 143 页。
4 伊利:前引书,第 614 页。转引自上引《美国法律史》,第 144 页。
5 参见上引《美国法律史》,第 145 页。
1 参见上引《美国法律史》,第 145 页。
2 参见前引《普通法的精神》,第 35 页。
3 Nolan, Sir William Blackstone and the New American Republic: A Study of Intellectual Impact, 51New York University Law Review,1976,pp.767-68.
1 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766),at9.
2 See, e.g., 2 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law 255-76 (1826). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at404.
3 See, e.g., 2 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law 256-258 (1826). Id.at404.
4 Id.at405.
1 Carol M. Rose, Possession as the Origin of Property, 52 University of Chicago Law Review,1985,p.73.
2 Thomas Rutherforth, Institutes of Natural Law 34-35 (American 2d ed.,(1832). Id.at405.
3 See Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E.Smith, Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle, 110 Yale Law Journal, 2000, p.37.
4 Stephen Martin Leake, Law of Property in Land 2 (1874). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together, at405.
5 McKeon v. Bisbee, 9 Cal. 137, 142 (1858).
6 Young v. McKenzie, 3 Ga. 31 (1847).
7 See, e.g., 2 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law 256-258 (1826). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at407.
8 See Joan E. Schaffner, Patent Preemption Unlocked, Wisconsin Law Review, 1995, pp.1099-1103.
1 Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 65-66 (1979).
2 William Michael Treanor, The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, 94 Yale Law Journal, 1985, p.694.
3 Eaton v. Boston C. & M. R.R., 51 N.H. 504 (1872).
4 Id.at506.
5 Id.at510-11.
6 Id.at511.
1 Id.at511-12.
2 See supra note: The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment,at812.
3 Eaton v. Boston C. & M. R.R., 51 N.H. 504, 513 (1872).
4 Id.at516.
5 See March v. Portsmouth & Concord R.R., 19 N.H. 372 (1849).
1 Id.at380.
2 Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford & New Haven R.R. Co., 17 Conn. 40, 60 (1845).
3 Id.at62.
4 See William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅲ, of Private Wrongs(1767),The University of Chicago Press, 1979, p.219.
5 See City of Pekin v. Brereton, 67 Ill. 477, 480 (1873)。
6 41 Ill. 502 (1866).
1 Id.at510.
2 Id.at510-511..
3 Id.at511-512.
4 See Rhodes v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio 159 (1840).
5 Id.at161.
6 McCombs v. Town Council of Akron, 15 Ohio 474, 480 (1846).
1 8 Ohio St. 333, 346 (1858).
2 Id.at 347.
3 See supra note:Possession as the Origin of Property,at73.
4 Louisville v. Louisville Rolling Mill Co., 66 Ky. (3 Bush) 416, 430 (1867).
5 Id.at429.
6 Id.at 427.
7 Id.at 429.
8 Id.at 429.
1 Perry v. City of Worcester, 72 Mass. 544 (1856).
2 Id.at 547.
3 103 Mass. 10 (1869).
4 Id.at 11.
5 Id.at 14.
6 See Perry, 72 Mass.at 265-266.
1 Pumpelly v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 166, 177 (1871).
2 Id.at177.
3 Id.at 177-178.
4 Id.at 180-181.
5 See also Pettigrew v. Village of Evansville, 25 Wis. 223, 237-238 (1870).
6 2 Johns. Ch. 162 (N.Y. Ch. 1816).
7 Gardner, 2 Johns. Ch. at165.
1 Pumpelly v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 166, 179(1871).
2 Gardner, 2 Johns. Ch. at165.
3 See supra note: The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, at792.
1 参见前引《美国法律史》,第 24 页。
2 【古罗马】优士丁尼:《法学阶梯》,徐国栋译,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版,第 11 页。
1 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1133.
2 William J. Novak, Intellectual Origins of the State Police Power: The Common Law Vision of a Well-Regulated Society 108 (1989). Id. at1139.
3 Huntington, American Politics the Promise of Disharmany, Harvard University Press, 1981,p.16.转引自《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,第 30 页。
4 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1133.
1 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 64-65 (1973). Id. at1134.
2 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 65-66 (1973). Id. at1134.
3 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 66 (1973). Id. at1134.
4 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 66 (1973). Id. at1134.
5 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 66-68 (1973). Id.at1134.
6 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 69-75 (1973). Id.at1134.
7 See Sir William Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol.IV, Methuen & Co Ltd and Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, Third Impression 1977, p.316.
8 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 77 (1973).See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1134.
1 Id. at1135.
2 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 82(1973). Id. at1135.
3 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 82(1973). Id. at1135.
4 John F. Hart, Colonial Land Use and Its Significance for Modern Takings Doctrine, 109 Harvard Law Review, 1996, p.1252, pp.1259-1273.
5 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 83(1973). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1135.
6 William Michael Treanor, The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, 95 Columbia Law Review, 1995, p.782, p.789.
1 See supra note:Colonial Land Use and Its Significance for Modern Takings Doctrine, at1252, at1273-1281.
2 See supra note: The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment,at694,at697 n.9.
3 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at787.
4 Lindsay v. Commissioners, 2 S.C.L. (2 Bay) 38, 53 (1796).
5 Lindsay v. Commissioners, 2 S.C.L. (2 Bay) 50 (1796).
6 Lindsay v. Commissioners, 2 S.C.L. (2 Bay) 57 (1796).
7 See supra note: The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, at695.
8 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at788.
9 Id.at787.
10 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
1 Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
2 参见【英】舒马赫:《小是美好的》,虞鸿均、郑关林译,商务印书馆 1984 年版,第 200-209。
3 Harry N. Scheiber, Law and the Imperatives of Progress: Private Rights and Public Values in American Legal History, 24 Nomos,1982,p.303,p.306.
4 【美】托马斯·杰斐逊:《杰斐逊选集》,朱曾汶译,商务印书馆 1999 年版,第 327 页。
5 刘祚昌著:《杰斐逊》,中国社会科学出版社 1996 年版,第 343 页。
6 【美】帕灵顿、沃浓·路易:《美国思想史:1620-1920》,陈永国、李增、郭乙瑶译,吉林人民出版社2002 年版,第 300 页。
1 See Louis Hartz,with an introduction by Tom Wicker, The Liberal Tradition in America:an interpretation of American political thought since the Revolution, New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991,p.140.
2 See Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution , New York:Alfred A. knopf, 1992.另参见【美】路易斯·哈茨:《美国自由主义传统:独立革命以来美国政治思想阐释》,张敏谦译,金灿荣校,中国社会科学出版 2003 年版。
3 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1138.
4 Gordon S .Wood , the Creation of the American Republic, 1776—1787(1969).See Land Law and Real Property in American History, Edited by Kermit L Hall, Garland Publishing, Inc. 1987, p.268.该书正由笔者译出。
5 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1138.
6 Lance Banning, Jeffersonian Ideology Revisited: Liberal and Classical Ideas in the New American Republic, 43 The William and Mary Quarterly,1986,p.3,p.12.
7 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1138.
8 James T. Kloppenberg, The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism, and Ethics in Early American Political Discourse, 74 The Journal of American History ,1987,p.9, pp.22-23, pp.28-30 .
9 See supra note:The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at823.
1 Isaac Kramnick, The "Great National Discussion": The Discourse of Politics in 1787, 45 The William and Mary Quarterly,1988, p.4.
2 See supra note:Jeffersonian Ideology Revisited: Liberal and Classical Ideas in the New American Republic, at3-4.
3 See supra note:The "Great National Discussion": The Discourse of Politics in 1787, at15-16.
4 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1139.
5 Benjamin Franklin, Queries and Remarks Respecting Alterations in the Constitution of Pennsylvania (1789), in 10 The Writings of Benjamin Franklin 54, 59 (Albert H. Smyth ed., 1907).Id.at1139.
6 Jennifer Nedelsky, Private Property and the Limits of American Constitutionalism 181 (1990). Id.at1139.
7 Jennifer Nedelsky, Private Property and the Limits of American Constitutionalism 181 (1990). Id.at1139.
8 See James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton,edited by Terence Ball, the Federalist No.
10, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p.82.
9 Id.at82-83.
10 Id.at83.
1 See supra note:The "Great National Discussion": The Discourse of Politics in 1787, at14.
2 See supra note:The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at849 .
3 Drew McCoy, The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America 68 (1980). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1140.
4 Id. at1140.
5 See supra note: The Liberal Tradition in America: an an interpretation of American political thought since the Revolution, at140.
6 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1031 n.15.
7 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at 825-855.
8 Carol M. Rose, Rethinking Environmental Controls: Management Strategies for Common Resources,
1 Duke Law Journey, 1991, pp.29-38.
9 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, 1995, p.842.
1 See supra note: the Federalist No.10,at80.
2.See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1141.
3 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at837..
4 Id.at837-840.
5 Daniel T. Rodgers, Republicanism: The Career of a Concept, 79 The Journal of American History, 1992, pp.9-20.
1 William Novak, Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America, 45 Hastings Law Journal, 1994, p.1069.
2 Harry N. Scheiber, Public Rights and the Rule of Law in American Legal History, 72 California Law Review, 1984, p.219.
3 See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690), at 123.
4 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1143.
5 The Works of James Wilson,Vol.1, Robert Green McCloskey ed., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967, p.227.
6 Id.at227.
7 Id.at229.
8 Id.at233-234.
1 Nathaniel Chipman, Sketches of the Principles of Government, reprinted in The Legal Mind in America: From Independence to the Civil War 21, 26 (Perry Miller ed., 1962). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1143.
2 Id.at1143.
3 Id.at1144.
4 Id.at1144.
5 See George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Henry Holt and company, Inc., 1937, pp.247-251.
6 John Taylor, Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated(1820), Leonard W. Levy ed.,Da Capo Press,1970, p.29.
7 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1144.
8 James Willard Hurst, Justice Holmes on Legal History 55 (1964). Id. at1144.
1 See supra note: Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America,at1072-73.
2 See Lawrence M Friedman , Harry N Scheiber, American law and the constitutional order : historical perspectives, Harvard University Press, 1988, p.327.
3 See supra note: Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America,at1073-80.
4 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1146.
5 Id. at1148.
6 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 24 页。
1 参见前引《美国法律史》,第 45 页。
2 显然,在布朗诉马里兰州案中,第一次使用了这一措词。
3 科温:“内战前法律的正当程序的理论”,载于《哈佛法律评论》第 24 期,第 460,461 页(1911 年)。转引自前引《美国法律史》,第 46 页。
4 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 (1837).
1 See supra note: Land Law and Real Property in American History, atIX.
2 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1146.
3 Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law 106 (1938 ed.). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1145.
4 Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law 106 (1938 ed.). Id.at1145.
5 Leonard Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw (1957). Id.at1145.
1 Leonard Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw 306 (1957). Id.at1146.
2 Leonard Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw 306 (1957). Id.at1146.
3 Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow. 349, 351-52 (N.Y. 1827).
4 Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow. 352 (N.Y. 1827).
5 Leonard Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw (1957). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1147.
6 Id.at1147.
7 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 55 (1846).
1 Henry Campbell Black, Black’ Law Dictionary, 5th ed. St. Paul Minn,.West Publishing Co 1979, p.1238.
2 Leonard Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw (1957).at246-47. See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1147.
3 52 Mass. (11 Met.) at 57-58.
4 52 Mass. (11 Met.) at 56, 59.
5 See supra note: Public Rights and the Rule of Law in American Legal History,at224.
6 Id.at224.
7 See supra note: A Discourse on Property: John Locke and His Adversaries,at61.
1 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53 (1851).
2 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 58-59, 63.
3 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 81-83, 90-94.
4 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 83,94.
5 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 83.
6 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 104.
7 See supra note: Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America,at2.
8 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 94-95.
1 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 84-85.
2 See supra note: Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America,at59.
3 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 85 (1851).
4 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 85 (1851).
1 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 96,104(1851).
2 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.)102-103 (1851).
3 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 102 (1851).
1 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1152.
2 83 U.S. 36 (1873).
3 94 U.S. 113 (1877).
4 123 U.S. 623 (1887).
5 123 U.S. 668-669 (1887).
6 123 U.S. 444(1887).
7 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
8 Miller v. Board of Public Works, 234 p. 381, 383-84 (Cal. 1925).
9 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
10 94 U.S. 113, 126 (1877).
11 Richard F. Babcock & Duane A. Fuerer, Land as a Commodity "Affected with a Public Interest,"
52 Washington Law Review,1977,p.289,pp.299-313.
12 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
13 438 U.S. 134 (1978).
14 36 U.S. (11 Pet.)548 (1837).
15 Eric T. Freyfogle, The Owning and Taking of Sensitive Lands, The Regents of the University of California 1995,43 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,1995,p.77,pp.101-07.p.123.
1 See John C. Esposito, Vanishing Air: The Ralph Nader Study Group on Air Pollution (1970). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1127.
2 Wendell Berry, Two Economies, in Home Economics 64 (1987). Id.at1127.
3 See Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, Hamish Hamilton Inc., 1962, pp.21-3.
4 Edward O. Wilson, The Current State of Biological Diversity, in Biodiversity 3 (Edward O. Wilson ed., 1988), See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1128.
1 Jared Diamond, Playing Dice with Megadeath, Discover, April, 1990, p.55.
2 United Nations Envtl. Programme, The Impact of Ozone-Layer Depletion 1-3 (1992). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1128.at1128.
3 Arnold Newman, Tropical Rainforest 148 (1990). Id.at1128.
4 Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 (1994).
5 See Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, Vintage Books,1994, pp.261-82.
1 See Daniel B. Botkin, Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press, 1990, pp.148-150.
2 Eugene P. Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology 34-36 (3d ed. 1971). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1130.
3 赫拉克利特,公元前五世纪的希腊哲学家。
4 See supra note: Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century, at151.
5 参见【美】沃斯特:《自然的经济体系:生态思想史》,侯文惠译,商务印书馆 1999 年版,第 152-154页。
6 See A.G. Huntsman, Method in Ecology-Ectology, 43 Ecology, 1962, p.552,pp.553-54.
1 National Academy of Sciences, Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries 36-41 (1995). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1131.
2 See Terry W. Farzier, Property Ecological Integrity Within The Balancing Function of Property Law, Environmental Law Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College,Spring 1998, p.110.
1 See Radhika Rao, Property, Privacy, and The Human Body, Trustees of Boston University Law Review April 2000, p.431.
2 See Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1992, p.128.该书正由笔者译出。
3 Id.at221.
4 Id.at129.
5 Id.at219.
6 See J.E. Penner, The "Bundle of Rights" Picture of Property, The Regents of the University of California 1996,University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February 1996, p.744.
7 See Sukhninder Panesar, General Principles of Property Law , Pearson Education Limited, 2001, p.17.该书正由笔者译出。
1 See supra note:The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960, at219.
2 参见前引《普通法的精神》,第 130 页。
3 See supra note:The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960, at190.
4 参见前引《美国法律史》,第 213-216 页。
5 Pound, The Law of Property and Recent Juristic Thought, 25 A.B.A. J. 993, 997 (1939). See John Edward Cribbet, Concepts In Transition the Search For A New Definition of Property, The University of Illinois University of Illinois Law Review, 1986, p.6.
6 Joseph William Singer, Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices 56 (2d ed. 1997). See JoanWilliams, The Rhetoric of Property, 83Iowa Law Review,January, 1998, p.296.
1 Felix Cohen, Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach, 35 Columbia Law Review,1935,p.820.
2 See Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning [c1919], Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2001, p.710.
3 Joseph William Singer & Jack M. Beermann, The Social Origins of Property, 6 Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence,1993 pp.242-48.
4 Joseph William Singer, No Right to Exclude: Public Accommodations and Private Property, 90Northwestern University Law Review, 1996, p.1454.
1 反占有(adverse possession):又译为时效占有,是指一个不拥有任何财产权利的人公开和众所周知地占有一块土地,并满足了当地法律规定的占有时间之后,占有人就获得了该土地的所有权。参见前引《美国财产法》,第 75 页。
2 Joseph W. Singer, Property and Social Relations: From Title to Entitlement, in Property on the Threshold of the 21st Century 69. See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at297.
3 终生所有权(Life Estate)是指土地所有权为受让土地所有权的权利人终生享有,权利人本人死亡,所有权终止;将来所有权(Future Interests)是指权利人无权现实占有标的物,待将来条件成就时方可取得标的物占有权的一种所有权。将来所有权的权利本身是一种现实的权利,只是所有权中的占有权是未来的权利――权利人无权现实占有标的物,将来取得对标的物的占有权。在当代英美法中,这两种财产权是英美财产法区别于大陆法系的重要标志,也是遗嘱及遗产安排法律中的焦点。参见前引《美国财产法与判例研究》,第 58 页、第 71 页;前引《美国财产法》,第 73 页。
4 See Joseph William Singer, Case Four: Choice of Law Theory, 29 New England Law Review,1995,p.669,p.692; Joseph William Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 California Law Review,1988,p.465; Joseph William Singer, The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld, Wiscinsin Law Review, 1982,p.975,pp.978-79; Joseph William Singer, Persuasion, 87 Michigan Law Review,1989,p.2442; Joseph W. Singer, Property and Coercion in Federal Indian Law: The Conflict Between Critical and Complacent Pragmatism, 63 Southern California Law Review,1990,p.1821,p.1841; Joseph W. Singer, Publicity Rights and the Conflict of Laws: Tribunal Court Jurisdiction in the Crazy Horse Case, 41 South Dakota Law Review,1996,p.1,p.43; Joseph W. Singer, The Reliance Interest in Property, 40 Stanford Law Review,1988,p.611,p.751; Joseph W. Singer, Re-Reading Property, 26 New England Law Review,1992, p.711, p.729; Joseph William Singer, Sovereignty and Property, 86 Northwestern University Law Review,1991,p.1; Joseph W. Singer, Well Settled? The Increasing Weight of History in American Indian Land Claims, 28 Georgia Law Review, 1994,p.481,p.532.
1 Thomas C. Grey, The Disintegration of Property (citing Bruce Ackerman, Private Property and the Constitution 97-100, 113-67 (1977)), See Property, J. Roland Pennock & John W. Chapman eds., 22 Nomos,1980,p.69.
2 Joan C. Williams, At the Fusion of Horizons: Incommensurability and the Public Interest, 20 Vermont Law Review,1996,p.625.
3 See supra note: The Social Origins of Property, p.219.
4 Id.at218.
5 See supra note: No Right to Exclude: Public Accommodations and Private Property, at1448 .
6 Id. at1453.
7 Id.at1456.
1 Id.at1459.
2 The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique (David Kairys ed., rev. ed. 1990). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at299.
3 See supra note: Baseline Questions in Legal Reasoning: The Example of Property in Jobs, 23 Georgia Law Review,1989,p.980.
4 See supra note: The Social Origins of Property,at218.
5 Joseph W. Singer, Jobs and Justice: Rethinking the Stakeholder Debate, 43 U. Toronto Law Journal,1993,p.481.
6 See supra note: The Reliance Interest in Property,at653.
7 【美】约瑟夫·威廉·辛格:《财产法:规则·政策·实务》(第三版)(影印本),中信出版社 2003 年版,第 21 页。
8 See supra note: No Right to Exclude: Public Accommodations and Private Property, at1471.
9Id.at1361.
10 See supra note: The Reliance Interest in Property,at662.
1 参见前引《财产法:案例与材料》(第七版),第 58 页。
2 See supra note: Well Settled? The Increasing Weight of History in American Indian Land Claims, at528-29.
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at300.
4 See supra note: Persuasion, at2442.
5 Joseph W. Singer, Property and Social Relations: From Title to Entitlement, in Property onthe Threshold of the 21st Century 82.See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at300.
1See supra note: Republicanism: The Career of a Concept, at11.
2 Id.at33.
3 Id.at34.
4 Id.at11.
5 Cass R. Sunstein, Interest Groups in American Public Law, 38 Stanford Law Review,1985,p.29,p.32.
1 Frank I. Michelman, Political Markets and Community Self-Determination: Competing Judicial Models of Local Government Legitimacy, 53 Indiana Law Journal,1978,p.145,p.149.
2 Richard H. Fallon, What Is Republicanism and Is It Worth Reviving?, 102 Harvard Law Review,1989,p.1695,pp.1725-27.
3 See supra note: Interest Groups in American Public Law,at31.
4 Id.at64.
5 Id.at68.
6 Id.at82.
7 Cass R. Sunstein, The Republican Civic Tradition, Beyond the Republican Revival, 97Yale Law Journal,1988,p.1539,pp.1548-49.
8 Laura Kalman, The Strange Career of Liberal Legalism 67 (1996). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at309.
9 See supra note: Interest Groups in American Public Law,at84.
1 See supra note: A Theory of Justice,pp.118-192.
2 See supra note: Political Markets and Community Self-Determination: Competing Judicial Models of Local Government Legitimacy, at149.
3 Id.at149.
4 Christopher F. Edley, The Governance Crisis, Legal Theory, and Political Ideology, 1991 Duke Law Journal,p.561,p.593.
5 Hendrik Hartog, Imposing Constitutional Traditions, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly,1987,p.75,p.76.
6 Kathleen M. Sullivan, Rainbow Republicanism, 97 Yale Law Journal,1988,p.1713,pp.1713-14.
7 Derrick Bell & Preeta Bansal, The Republican Revival and Racial Politics, 97 Yale Law Journal,1988,p. 1609,pp.1610-11.
8 Stephen M. Feldman, Whose Common Good? Racism in the Political Community, 80 Geo. Law Journal 1992,p.1835,p.1836.
9 Frank I. Michelman, Law's Republic, 97 Yale Law Journal,1988,p.1493,p.1495.
10 See supra note:The Republican Civic Tradition, Beyond the Republican Revival,at1541.
11 See Cass R. Sunstein, The Partial Constitution, Harvard University Press, 1993, p.134, pp.353-354 . 同时参见中译本【美】凯斯·R·桑斯坦:《偏颇的宪法》,宋华琳、毕竞悦译,北京大学出版社 2005 年版,第 340-55 页。
1 Frank I. Michelman, Bringing the Law to Life: A Plea for Disenchantment, 74 Cornell Law Review,1989,p.256,pp.257-58.
2 See supra note: Law's Republic,at1494.
3 Lawrence G. Sager, The Incorrigible Constitution, 65 New York University Law Review,1990,p.920.
4 Morton J. Horwitz, Republicanism and Liberalism in American Constitutional Thought, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly,1987,p.57,p.58.
5 See supra note: Imposing Constitutional Traditions,at77.
6 Id.at77.
7 Id.at77.
8 Id.at78.
1 Id.at78.
2 Mark Tushnet, Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law (1988). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at312.
3 Mark Tushnet, Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law 13 (1988). Id.at312.
4 See supra note: The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism & Ethics in Early American Political Discourse,at9.
5 Mark Tushnet, Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law 5-7, 167, 186-87, 248, 274-75.(1988). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at313.
6 See John Patrick.Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics: Virtue, Self-Interest, and the Foundations of Liberalism, Basic Books Inc., 1984, p.247, 271, pp.277-346.
7 See supra note: The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism & Ethics in Early American Political Discourse, at9.
8 Mark Tushnet, Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law 274-75 (1988). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at313.
1 Mark Tushnet, The Concept of Tradition in Constitutional Historiography, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly,1987,p.93,p.94.
2 Id.at94.
3 Id.at95.
4 Daniel T. Rodgers, Contested Truths: Keywords in American Politics Since Independence 6-7 (1987). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at314.
5 Gordon S. Wood, Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation of a Civil Society, 64 Fordham Law Review,1996,p.2133.
1 See supra note: Imposing Constitutional Traditions,at75.
2 See Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, G.E.M.Anscombe, trans., Basil Blackwell, 1958, p.34e.另参见中译本【英】路德维希· 维特根斯坦:《哲学研究》,陈嘉映译,上海人民出版社 2005 年版,第 32-38 页。
3 See supra note: Republicanism: The Career of a Concept,at38.
4 Id.at32-33.
5 Id.at38.
6 James Boyd White, Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law: The Arts of Cultural and Communal Life, 52 University of Chicago Law Review,1985,p.684.
1 See supra note: Republicanism: The Career of a Concept,at37.
2 William W. Fisher III, The Law of the Land: An Intellectual History of American Property Doctrine, 1776-1880 (1991). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at316.
3 Gregory S. Alexander, Time and Property in the American Republican Legal Culture, 66 New York University Law Review,1991,p.273.
4 Richard Epstein, Modern Republicanism--Or the Flight from SubStanfordce, 97 Yale Law Journal,1988,p.1633,p.1634.
5 See supra note: Time and Property in the American Republican Legal Culture,at273-76.
1 Ruth H. Bloch, The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in Revolutionary America,13 Signs,1987,p.37.
2 See Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), William Peden ed., University of North Carolina Press, 1954, p.161.
3 William W. Fisher III, Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860, 39 Emory Law Journal,1990,p.65,p.74.
4 Linda K. Kerber, Making Republicanism Useful, 97 Yale Law Journal,1988,p.1664.
5 Stanford N. Katz, Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America, 19 The Journal of Law and Economics,1976,p.475.
6 Id.at476-81.
7 Salus populi,此处译为“人民福利”,是为了与叶启芳、瞿菊农在《政府论》中的翻译保持一致。参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 97 页:“Salus populi suprema lex : 人民的福利是最高的法律。”
1 See supra note: Making Republicanism Useful,at1672.
2 Id.at1664.
3 See supra note:Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America,at273.
4 Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Constitution: Third Draft of Jefferson, in 1 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 356, 362 (Julian P. Boyd ed., 1950). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at318.
1 See supra note: Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America,at472.
2 Allan David Heskin, Tenants and the American Dream: Ideology and the Tenant Movement 5 (1983) (describing Jefferson's fear that, without reform, land monopoly would increase). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at319.
3 See supra note: Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America,at480.
4 Id.at480.
5 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 35 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at320.
1 See Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City & the rise of the American working class,1788-1850, Oxford University Press, 1984, p.14.
2 Thomas Skidmore, The Rights of Man to Property 239 (New York, Thomas Skidmore 1829). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at320.
3 See supra note: Chants Democratic: New York City & the rise of the American working class,1788-1850, at186.
4 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 35 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at320.
5 Rowland Berthoff, Independence and Attachment, Virtue and Interest: From Republican Citizen to Free Enterpriser, 1787-1837, in Uprooted Americans 97, 106 (Richard L. Bushman et al. eds., 1979). Id.at320.
1 Paul Goodman, The Emergence of Homestead Exemption in the United States: Accommodation and ResiStanfordce to the Market Revolution, 1840-1880, 80 The American Historical Review, 1993,p.470,p.486.
2 See Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Harper & Row publishers, 1988, pp.159-160.
3 Id.at164.
4 Id.at159.
5 Lea S. Vander Velde, The Labor Vision of the Thirteenth Amendment, 138 University of Pennsylvania Law Review,1989,p.437,p.441.
6 See William E. Forbath, The Shaping of the American Labor Movement, 102 Harvard Law Review, 1989, p.1109, pp.1121-1122 .
7 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at321.
8 See Bruce Palmer, “Man over Money”: The Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism, University of North Carolina Press, 1980, pp.13-4.
9 See William E. Forbath, Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement, Harvard University Press, 1991, p.13.
1 Frank I. Michelman, Possession vs. Distribution in the Constitutional Idea of Property, 72 Iowa Law Review,1987,p.1319,pp.1330-31.
2 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at322.
3 William H. Simon, Social-Republican Property, 38 The Regents of the University of California 1991,University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February,1991,p.1335.
4 赖希的新财产理论系指:赖希将那些为日益扩张的政府所创造的诸如:收入和利益、工作、职业执照、特权、合同、补贴、公共资源的利用及服务等作为所谓的“新财产”的客体。赖希认为,在一个尤其重视物质福利的社会里,控制这些福利的一部分的能力是个人独立的根本。美国在过去 10 年里最重要的变化之一就是政府作为一个主要财富源泉的出现。政府是一个巨大的虹吸管。它吸入税收和权力,喷出财富:金钱、利益、服务、合同、特权和执照。政府一直有这个职能。但是在过去,这种职能是次要的,而今天对物品的分配则是巨大规模的。政府分配的有价值的东西有许多形式,但是它们都有一个共同的特性。它们正在逐步取代传统形式的财富――作为私有财产被占有的财富形式。社会保险代替了储蓄;政府合同代替了商人的顾客和商誉。越来越多的美国人的财富取决于与政府的关系。美国人越来越依赖于政府的恩赐――由政府分配,按照政府的条件,接受者受限于表现“公共利益”的条件占有这些物品。政府恩赐的增长,伴随着一系列特殊的法律,正在产生深远的影响。它影响了个人主义和独立的基础。它影响人权法案的运作方式。它影响私人权益在其彼此之间的关系及其与政府的关系中的能力。它正在促进形成一个新社会┅┅赖希在《个人权利和社会福利:正在出现的法律问题》,74 Yale L. J. 1245(1945)一文中进一步探讨了“新财产”的概念,并注意到:“今天的社会是建立在权利(entitlement)上的。汽车经销商有其特许经营权,医生和律师有他们的专业执照,工人有他们的工会会员资格、合同和获得退休金的权利;管理人员有合同和股票期权;所有这些都是帮助人们获得安全和独立的设计。这些权利中一些最重要的权利现在是来自政府的;给农民和商人的补贴,航空公司的航线和电视台的频道;国防,航空和教育行业的长期合同;个人的社会安全养老金。这些安全来源,不论是私人的还是公共的,都不再被认为是奢侈或者赏赐了;对于接受者来说,它们是必不可少的完全应该得到的,而且决不是施舍。只不过穷人的权利,虽然为公众政策所承认,但是还没有得到有效的执行。”简而言之,现在把这些各种各样的“权利”,包括福利款,看成是新财产而不是赏赐可能是现实的。赖希开创性的文章在法律评论刊物和其他地方引起了若干评论。例如,范阿尔斯提恩的《“新财产”的缺陷:行政国家中的司法正当程序》,62Cornell L. Rev.(1977)和 Haar and Liebman 的教科书 Property and law(Little, Brown and Company,(1977))的第二十章“新财产”。后者收集了一些优秀的案例和材料,标题为“新财产”,各节标题为:作为程序的财产,程序和自由,作为合同的财产,以及作为权利和作为政治的财产。这些材料描述了宪法、行政法和财产法相交叉的一个领域。参见前引《财产法:案例与材料》,第 57-58 页。
5 Fred R.Shapiro, The MostCited Law Review Articles,The Regents of the University of California1985,73University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February,1985,p.1540,p.1549.
6 See Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law.Vol.1, Foundation Press, 2000, p.682.
1 Charles Reich, The New Property, 73 Yale Law Journal,1964,p.734.
2 Id.at778.
3 Id.at785.
4 Id.at785.
5 Id.at785.
6 Id.at785.
1 Id.at787.
2 Id.at733.
3 Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (discussing a state teacher's challenge of his without-cause dismissal on Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds).
4 Joy v. Daniels, 479 F.2d 1236 (4th Cir. 1973) (discussing a tenant challenging her eviction on Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds).
5 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 510 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at324.
6 Id.at324.
7 Carol Rose, Crystals and Mud in Property Law, 40 Stanford Law Review,1983,p.577,p.608.
8 Roth, 408 U.S. at 577.
1 Daniels, 479 F.2d 1236.
2 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 510 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at325.
3 See supra note: American Constitutional Law, at685.
4 Suzanna Sherry, Civic Virtue and the Feminine Voice in Constitutional Adjudication, 72 Virginia Law Review,1986,p.543.
5 445 U.S. 573, 601 (1980).
6 See Nancy F. Cott, No small courage : a history of women in the United States, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.63-99; Nancy F. Cott, Public vows : a history of marriage and the nation , Harvard University Press, 2000, pp.70-86.
1 Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae National Housing Survey (June 1992). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at326.
2 Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae National Housing Survey 9 (June 1992). Id.at326.
3 Id.at326.
4 Frank S. Levy & Richard C. Michel, The Economic Future of American Families Income and Wealth Trends 63 (1991). Id.at326.
5 Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae National Housing Survey 10 (June 1992). Id.at327.
6 Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae National Housing Survey 3 (June 1992). Id.at327.
7 See Jeanne Boydston, Home & Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic, Oxford University Press, 1990.
1 Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman's Place: The Rhetoric of Women's History, 75 the American Historical Review,1988,p.9.
2 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at327.
3 ConStanfordce Perin, Everything in Its Place 64 (1977). Id.at327.
4 ConStanfordce Perin, Everything in Its Place 72 (1977). Id.at328.
5 Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae National Housing Survey 8 (June 1992). Id.at328.
6 Michael Harloe, Private Rented Housing in the United States and Europe 64 (1985). Id.at328.
7 George Sternlieb & James W. Hughes, Demographics and Housing in America, 4 Population Bull. 2, 5 (1986). Id.at328.
8 Joan C. Williams, It's High Time to Get Homeowners' Deductions Under Control, 12 Tax Notes 963 (1981). Id.at328.
9 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 60 (4th ed. 1997). Id.at328.
1 ConStanfordce Perin, Everything in Its Place 64,71-72(1977). Id.at328.
2 See Douglass S. Massey & Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, 1993, p.9.
3 E.g., Southern Burlington County v. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A.2d 713 (N.J. 1975) (dealing with a township which used land regulations to prevent certain classes of people from entering the community).
4 See Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, Oxford University Press, 1985, p.300; Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War era, Basic Books Inc., 1999.
5 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
6 关于 Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty 一案支持分区制合宪性问题,在下面的土地征用权部分还将会有具体的论述。
7 E.g.,Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 108-14 (1928).
8 Lochner, 198 U.S. at 45.
9 Samuel Olken, Justice George Sutherland and Economic Liberty, 6 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,1997,p.1.
1 EuclId. 272 U.S. at 390.
2 EuclId. 272 U.S. at 394.
3 Marsha Ritzdorf, Whose American Dream? The Euclid Legacy and Cultural Change, 56 J. Am. Plan. Ass'n 386 (1990). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at330.
4 Linda K. Kerber, The Republican Mother: Female Political Imagination in the Early Republic, in Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1980, pp.283-288.
5 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at331.
1 永远管业限制(dead hand control):指对所占有的财产,尤指不动产,不能变卖或转售的限制规定。
2 Edward H. Rabin, Fundamentals of Modern Property Law 489 (1974). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at331.
3 See Curtis J. Berger, Land Ownership and Use, Little, Brown and Company, 1975, p.576.
4 Jesse Dukeminier & James E. Krier, Property 879-89 (2d ed. 1988) (applying private nuisance law where a neighbor's home limited the amount of sunlight available to the homeowner). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at331.
5 Uriel Reichman, Towards a Unified Concept of Servitudes,The Regents of the University of California 1982, 55 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February,1982,p.1177,p.1244.
6 Jesse Dukeminier & James E. Krier, Property 299-318 (2d ed. 1988). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at332.
7 Edward H. Rabin, Fundamentals of Modern Property Law 489 (1974). Id.at332.
1 See supra note: Land Ownership and Use, at572.
2 See supra note: Land Ownership and Use, at595-96.
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at332.
4 Tulk v. Moxhay, 41 Eng. Rep. 1143 (Ch. 1848).
5 See supra note: Land Ownership and Use, at589.
6 Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 N.Y. 440 (1877).
1 Sanborn v. McLean, 206 N.W. 496, 497 (Mich. 1925).
2 See supra note: Land Ownership and Use, at596.
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at333.
1 See supra note: Towards a Unified Concept of Servitudes,at1184.
2 Id.at1184-90.
3 Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, The Defeasible Fee and the Birth of the Modern Residential Subdivision, 49 Missouri Law Review,1984,p.695,p.707.
1 See supra note: Land Ownership and Use, at652,655-56.
2 Ludgate v. Somerville, 256 P. 1043, 1046 (Or. 1927).
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at335.
4 Joan C. Williams, Domesticity as the Dangerous Supplement of Liberalism, 2 Journal of Women's History,1991,p.69.
5 Margaret J. Radin, Property and Personhood, 34 Stanford Law Review,1982,p.957.
6 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at335.
1 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 84-85 (1851).
2 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at782,at863.
1 William J. Novak, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America 2 (1996). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at337.
2 William J. Novak, Salus Populi: The Roots of Regulation in America, 1787-1873 (1992),at22. Id.at337.
3 William J. Novak, Salus Populi: The Roots of Regulation in America, 1787-1873 (1992),at23. Id.at337.
4 See supra note: Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation of a Civil Society, at2133.
5 William J. Novak, Public Economy and the Well-Ordered Market: Law and Economic Regulation in 19th Century America, 18 Law & Social Inquiry,1993,p.1.
6 William J. Novak, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America 12 (1996). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at337.
7 William J. Novak, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America 26 (1996). Id.at338.
1 Thomas Cooper, M.D., Two Essays: 1. On the Foundation of Civil Government, 2.On the Constitution of the United States 15 (Columbia, S.C. 1826).Id.at338. 另参见【美】约瑟夫·斯托里:《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店 2006 年版。
2 Nathaniel Chipman, Sketches of the Principles of Government 164-65 (Rutland Vt., J. Lyon 1793). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at338.
3 John Taylor, Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated (Richmond, Shepherd & Pollard 1820). Id.at338.
4 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 84-85 (1851).
5 William J. Novak, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America 20 (1996). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at338.
6 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
7 See supra note: The White River Junction Manifesto,at193,at199.
1 201 N.W.2d 761 (Wis. 1972).
2 201 N.W.2d 767 (Wis. 1972).
3 913 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1990).
4 254 A.2d 700 (Md. 1972).
5 254 A.2d 706 (Md. 1972).
6 Carter v. South Carolina Coastal Comm'n, 314 S.E.2d 327, 329 (S.C. 1984).
7 260 U.S. 393, 416 (1922)(Brandeis, J., dissenting).
8 260 U.S. 393, 417 (1922)(Brandeis, J., dissenting).
1 260 U.S. 393, 420 (1922)(Brandeis, J., dissenting).
2 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 404 S.E.2d 895, 898 (S.C. 1991).
3 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 404 S.E.2d 895, 899 (S.C. 1991).
4 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
5 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1027 (1992).
6 Carol M. Rose, Mahon Reconstructed: Why the Takings Issue Is Still a Muddle, 57 Southern California Law Review,1984,p.561,pp.587-97.
7 William J. Novak, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America 19-26 (1996). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at340.
8 Akil Amar, Forty Acres and a Mule: A Republican Theory of Minimum Entitlement, 13 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy,1990,p.37.
1 277 A.2d 369 (N.J. 1971).
2 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at343.
3 J. Robert S. Prichard, A Market for Babies?, 34 University of Toronto Law Journal,1984,p.341.
1 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at343.
2 Apartment House Council v. Mayor of Ridgefield 301 A.2d 484, 488 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1973).
3 See supra note: A Market for Babies?,at351.
4 See supra note: A Market for Babies?,at353.
5 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at344.
6 Id.at344.
7 277 A.2d 369 (N.J. 1971).
1 Shack, 277 A.2d at 372. See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at345.
2 Shack, 277 A.2d at 372. Id.at345.
3 Id.at345.
4 Shack, 277 A.2d at 373 (quoting 5 Powell, Real Property § 746, at 494-96 (1970)). Id.at345.
5 Shack, 277 A.2d at 373 (quoting 5 Powell, supra note 412, § 746, at 494-96).. Id.at346.
1 322 S.E.2d 854 (W. Va. 1984).
2 joint tenancy:在英美财产法中,通常表示“合有”或“联合共有”,在夫妻之间,则表现为“整体共有(tenancy by the entirety)”,是与“共同共有(tenancy in common)”相对应的一种财产共有形式。这里是指夫妻作为共同承租人对住房的“共同租赁”。参见拙作:《集体土地所有权制度之完善――民法典制定中不容忽视的问题》,载《法学》2003 年第 2 期。
3 Crowder, 322 S.E.2d at 860. See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at346.
1 John Dunn, Rethinking Modern Political Theory: Essays, 1979-83, at 21-26(1985). Id.at347.
2 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
3 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 21 页。
4 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 6 页。
1 See supra note: The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism & Ethics in Early American Political Discourse,at16.
2 Id.at16.
3 Immanuel Kant, The Moral Law: Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 91 (H.J. Paton trans., 1967). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at348.
4 参见前引《正义论》,第 12 页。
5 See supra note: A Theory of Justice, pp.136-142.
6 Basil Mitchell, Should Law Be Christian?, 96/97 Law & Just. 12, 21 (1988), quoted in Michael Perry, Toward an Ecumenical Politics, 60 George Washington Law Review,1992,p.599,p.605.
1 John A. Coleman, An American Strategic Theology 196 (1982). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at348.
2 See supra note: Toward an Ecumenical Politics, at604.
3 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 94 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at349.
4 See supra note:Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law: The Arts of Cultural and Communal Life,at688.
1 E.g.,Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Commentary 17-55 (Asbjorn Eide et al. eds., 1992). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at349.
2 Yates v. Keene, 14 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1160 (Mich. Cir. Ct. 1987); Anna J. v. Mark C., 12 Cal. App. 4th 977. (1991).;
3 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
4 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 295 n.30 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at350.
5 Javins, 428 F.2d at 1079-80. Id.at351.
6 478 A.2d 202 (Vt. 1984).
1 478 A.2d 205-06 (Vt. 1984).
1 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at352.
2 Maticka v. City of Atlantic City, 524 A.2d 416, 425 (N.J. 1987).
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at352.
4 William A. Galston, Liberal Purposes, Good Virtues and Diversity in the Liberal State (1991). Id.at353.
5 See supra note: The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism & Ethics in Early American Political Discourse,at9,at16.
6 Id.at29.
7 Id.at16.
1 See supra note: The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution, at7-11.
2 See Hudson Alastair, New perspectives on property law, obligations and restitution, Cavendish, 2004, p.173.
3 See supra note: Property and Personhood,at957.
4 Id.at957.
1 黑格尔的人格财产观,参见【德】黑格尔:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆 1982 年版,第 55 页。
2 See supra note: Property and Personhood,at985-86.
3 Id.at990.
4 Id.at990.
5 588 N.Y.S.2d 93, 97 (Sup. Ct. 1992).
6 727 F.2d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
7 E.g., Curtis J. Berger, Response: Home Is Where the Heart Is: A Brief Reply to Professor Epstein,
\54 Brooklyn Law Review,1989,p.1239,p.1240.
8 Margaret J. Radin, Residential Rent Control, 15 Philosophy and Public Affairs,1986,p.350,p.364.
9 See supra note: Property and Personhood,at1005-06.
10 Margaret J. Radin, The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings, 88 Columbia Law Review,1988,p.1667,p.1689.
1 See supra note: Property and Personhood,at987.
2 Id.at987.
3 See supra note: The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings,at1689.
4 Edward H. Rabin, The Revolution on Residential Landlord-Tenant Law: Causes and Consequences, 69 Cornell Law Review 1976,p.1,p.517,p.520.
5 Charles J. Meyers, The Covenant of Habitability and the American Law Institute, 27 Stanford Law Review,1975,p.879,pp.902-03.
6 See supra note: Property and Personhood,at987,at996-97.
7 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 20 (1993). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at302.
8 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 20 (1993). Id.at302.
1 Margaret J. Radin, Market-Inalienability, 100 Harvard Law Review,1987,p.1849,p.1880.
2 Id.at1849,at1880.
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at340.
4 Silverman v. Barry, 727 F.2d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
5 588 N.Y.S.2d 93 (1992).
6 Stephen J. Schnably, Property and Pragmatism: A Critique of Radin's Theory of Property and Personhood, 45 Stanford Law Review,1993,p.364.
7 Id.at365.
8 Id.at365-67.
1 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 60-63 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at341.
2 See supra note: Market-Inalienability, at1855.
3 Id.at1856.
4 Id.at1918.
5 Id.at1918.
6 See Albert O. Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph , Princeton University Press,1977,pp.70-78.
7See supra note: Market-Inalienability,at1918-20.
8 Id.at1884.
9 Id.at1886.
1 Id.at1903-06.
2 Id.at1904.
3 Id.at1904.
4 Id.at1904.
5 Id.at1881.
6 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at355.
7 公元 1 世纪初耶路撒冷犹太教的圣经注释家。
8 The Jewish Encyclopedia (Isidore Singer ed., 1962). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at355.
9 Dalai Lama of Tibet, My Land and My People: The Autobiography of His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet 29 (1997). Id.at355.
10 Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P.2d 776, 792-93 (Cal. 1993).
1 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 7 (1993). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at303.
2 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 8 (1993). Id.at303.
3 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 9 (1993). Id.at303.
4 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 2,7,11 (1993). Id.at303.
5 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 18 (1993). Id.at304.
1 J. CRIBBET, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 471-72 (2d ed. 1975). See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property,at4.
2 Hamilton & Till, Property, 12 Encyclopedia of the Social Science,1933, p.536.
3 MacIver, Government and Property, 4 J. LEGAL & POL. SOC, 5 (1945). See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property,at4.
4 MacIver, Government and Property, 4 J. LEGAL & POL. SOC, 5 (1945). Id.at4.
5 Hamilton, Property Rights in the Market, 1 J. LEGIS. & POL. SCI. 10 (1943). Id.at5.
6 Wilson, The Law and the Facts, 5 America Political Science Review, 1911, p.1.
7 See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property,at6.
1 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir.), cert denied 400 U.S. 925 (1970).
2 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir.), cert denied 400 U.S. 925 (1970).
3 Gardiner v. Wm. S. Butler & Co., 245 U.S. 603 (1918).
4 Cunningham, The New Implied and Statutory Warranties of Habitability in Residential Leases: From Contract to Status, 16 Urban Law Annual, 1979, p.3.
5 See supra note: The Covenant of Habitability and the American Law Institute,at879.
1 107 Ill. 2d 1, 479 N.E.2d 915, 88 Ill. Dec.895(1985).
2 38 Cal. 3d 454, 698 P.2d 116, 213 Cal. Rptr.213(1985).
3 See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property, at8.
4 82 N.J. 214, 412 A.2d 436 (1980).
5 393 Mich. 393, 224 N.W.2d 843 (1975).
6 393 Mich. 421, 224 N.W.2d 855 (1975)(Levin,J.,dissenting).
7 Removal of Residental Tenants Act, N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2A:18-61.1 (West Supp. 1985) and Senior Citizens and Disabled Protected Tenancy Act, N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2A:18-61.22 to 61.39 (West Supp. 1985). See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property, at9.
1 Orange Taxpayers Council, Inc. v. City of Orange, 83 N.J. 246, 416 A.2d 3 53 (1980).
2 Flynn v. City of Cambridge, 383 Mass. 152, 418 N.E.2d 335 (1981).
3 Fresh Pond Shopping Center v. Rent Control Bd., 388 Mass. 1051, 446 N.E.2d 1060
4 37 Cal. 3d 97, 688 P.2d 894, 207 Cal. Rptr. 285 (1984), appeal dismissed, 105 S. Ct. 1740 (1985).
5 37 Cal. 3d 105, 688 P.2d 900, 207 Cal. Rptr. 291(1984), appeal dismissed, 105 S. Ct. 1740 (1985).
6 37 Cal. 3d 106, 688 P.2d 894, 207 Cal. Rptr. 285 (1984), appeal dismissed, 105 S. Ct. 1740 (1985).
7 37 Cal. 3d 106, 688 P.2d 894, 207 Cal. Rptr. 285 (1984), appeal dismissed, 105 S. Ct. 1740 (1985).
8 E.g., compare J. CRIBBET, W. FRITZ & C. JOHNSON, CASES AND MATERIALS ON PROPERTY 318-466 (1960) with J. CRIBBET & C. JOHNSON, CASES AND MATERIALS ON PROPERTY 440-603 (5th ed. 1984). See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property, at9.
1 Javins, 428 F.2d at 1075.Id.at9.
2 Druid Homes, Inc. v. Cooper, 272 Ala. 415, 416, 131 So. 2d 884, 885 (1961).
3 Cochran v. Keeton, 287 Ala. 439, 252 So. 2d 313 (1971).
4 E.g., Bearman, Caveat Emptor in Sales of Realty-Recent Assaults Upon the Rule, 14 Vanderbilt Law Review,1961,p.541.
5 Petersen v. Hubschman Constr. Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31, 389 N.E.2d 1154, 27 Ill. Dec. 746 (1979); Herlihy v. Dunbar Builders Corp., 92 Ill. App. 3d 310, 415 N.E.2d 1224,47 Ill. Dec. 911 (1st Dist, 1980).
1 Peterson v. Hubschman Constr. Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31, 41, 389 N.E.2d 1154, 1158, 27 Ill. Dec. 746, 750 (1979).
2 Peterson v. Hubschman Constr. Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31, 41, 389 N.E.2d 1154, 1158, 27 Ill. Dec. 746, 750 (1979).
3 Peterson v. Hubschman Constr. Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31, 42, 389 N.E.2d 1154, 1159, 27 Ill. Dec. 746, 751 (1979).
4 UNIFORM LAND TRANSACTIONS ACT (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 1975).
5 UNIFORM LAND TRANSACTIONS ACT (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 1975).
6 Note, Builder's Liability for Latent Defects in Used Homes, 32 Stanford Law Review,1980,p.607.
7 69 Cal. 2d 850, 447 P.2d 609, 73 Cal. Rptr. 369 (1968).
8 69 Cal. 2d 872, 447 P.2d 621, 73 Cal. Rptr. 381 (1968).
9 Gutierrez, Liability of a Construction Lender Under Civil Code Section 3434: An Amorphous Epitaph to Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Association, 8 Pacific Law Journal,1977,p.1.
1 Chotka v. Fidelco Growth Investors, 383 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. App. 1980).
2 Allison v. Home Sav. Ass'n, 643 S.W.2d 847 (Mo. App. 1982).
3 R. KRATOVIL, REAL ESTATE LAW 203-12, 220 (5th ed. 1969). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at13.
4 Pease v. Baxter, 12 Wash. 567, 41 P. 899 (1895).
5 J. CRIBBET, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 137 (2d ed. 1975). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at13.
6 Skendzel v. Marshall, 261 Ind. 226, 301 N.E.2d 641 (1973).
7 E.g., Petersen v. Hartell, 707 P.2d 232, 219 Cal. Rptr 170 (1985); Union Bond & Trust Co. v. Blue Creek Redwood Co., 128 F. Supp. 709 (1955), aff'd, 243 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1957).
1 Hetland, The California Land Contract, 48 California Law Review, 1960, p.729.
2 E.g., Bishop v. Beecher, 67 N.M. 339, 355 P.2d 277 (1960).
3 E.g., Mid-State Inv. Corp. v. O'Steen, 133 So. 2d 455, 457 (Fla. 1961) (decision based on Florida statute).
4 See supra note: The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph,at78.
1 P. BASYE, CLEARING LAND TITLES (2d ed. 1970). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at14.
2 Id.at15.
3 E.g., Presbytery of Southwest Iowa v. Harris, 226 N.W.2d 232 (Iowa 1975) (discussing IOWA CODE § 614.24 (1975)).
4 L. Simes & C. Taylor, The Improvement of Conveyancing By Legislation,the University of Michigan Law School, 1960, pp.6-16.
5 Board of Educ. v. Miles, 15 N.Y.2d 364, 207 N.E.2d 181, 259 N.Y.S.2d 129 (1965).
6 Presbytery of Southwest Iowa v. Harris, 226 N.W.2d 232, 244 (Iowa 1975)(Rees, J., dissenting).
7 IND. CODE § § 32-5-11-1 to 32-5-11-8 (1979 & Supp. 1985). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at15.
8 Short v. Texaco, Inc., 273 Ind. 518, 406 N.E.2d 625 (1980), aff'd, 454 U.S. 516 (1982).
1 Short v. Texaco, Inc., 273 Ind. 524-26, 406 N.E.2d 629-31 (1980), aff'd, 454 U.S. 516 (1982).
2 Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516 (1982).
3 Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 554 (1982)(Brennan, J., dissenting).
4 273 Ind. at 524, 406 N.E.2d at 629.
5 Short v. Texaco, Inc., 273 Ind. 518, 526, 406 N.E.2d 625, 631 (1980) ("The State through this statute is not actually taking the mineral interest for its own use and benefit."), aff'd, 454 U.S. 516 (1982).
6 273 Ind. at 521, 406 N.E.2d at 627.
1 Powell v. Taylor, 222 Ark. 896, 263 S.W.2d 906 (1954) (funeral home in an unzoned residential area).
2 Rose v. Chaikin, 187 N.J. Super. 210, 453 A.2d 1378 (1982).
3 Prah v. Maretti, 108 Wis. 2d 3223, 321 N.W.2d 182 (1982).
1 208 N.Y. 1, 101 N.E. 805 (1913).
2 26 N.Y.2d 219, 257 N.E.2d 870, 309 N.Y.S.2d 312 (1970).
3 26 N.Y.2d 228, 257 N.E.2d 875, 309 N.Y.S.2d 319 (1970).
4 26 N.Y.2d 321, 257 N.E.2d 876, 309 N.Y.S.2d 230(1970) (Jasen, J., dissenting).
5 See Roger W. Findley & Daniel A . Farber, Cases and Materials on Environmental Law, West Pub. Co., 1995, pp.151-168. 另参见【美】R.W.芬德利、D.A.法贝尔:《美国环境法简论》,程正康等译,中国环境科学出版社 1986 年版。
1 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972).
2 108 Ariz. 186, 494 P.2d 708 (1972).
3 108 Ariz. 186, 494 P.2d 708 (1972).
4 108 Ariz. 186, 494 P.2d 708 (1972).
5 Hand, Right-To-Farm Laws: Breaking New Ground In the Preservation of Farmland, 45 University of Pittsburgh Law Review,1984,p.289.
1 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766), at18.
2 328 U.S. 256 (1946).
3 E.g., Batten v. United States, 306 F.2d 580 (10th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 955 (1963).
4 Dolley & Carroll, Airport Noise Pollution Damages: The Case for Local Liability, 15 Fordham Urban Law Journal, 1983, p.621.
5 Note, Who Owns the Clouds?, 1 Stanford Law Review, 1948,p.43 .
6 Fisher, Weather Modification and the Right of Capture, 8 Natural Resources Journal,1976,p.639.
7 Southwestern Weather Research, Inc. v. Rounsaville, 320 S.W.2d 211 (Tex. Civ. App. 1958).
1 Pfeiffer, Ancient Lights: Legal Protection of Access to Solar Energy, 68 A.B.A. J. 288 (1982). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at21.
2 Comment, Solar Lights: Guaranteeing A Place in the Sun, 57 Oregon Law Review,1977,p.94,p.112.
3 See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at21.
4 Prah v. Maretti, 108 Wis. 2d 223, 321 N.W.2d 182 (1982).
5 114 So. 2d 357 (Fla. App. 1959), cert denied, 117 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1960).
6 114 So. 2d 359 (Fla. App. 1959), cert denied, 117 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1960).
7 People ex rel Hoogasian v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 52 Ill. 2d 301, 287 N.E.2d 677 (1972).
8 108 Wis. 2d 223, 321 N.W.2d 182 (1982).
1 108 Wis. 2d 239 n.13, 321 N.W.2d 191 n.13 (1982).
2 108 Wis. 2d 239 n.13, 321 N.W.2d 191 n.13 (1982).
3 108 Wis. 2d 243-57, 321 N.W.2d 193-99 (1982)(Callow, J., dissenting).
4 Comment, Obstruction of Sunlight as a Private Nuisance, 65 California Law Review ,1977,p.94.
5 Prah, 108 Wis. 2d at 237, 321 N.W.2d at 190.
6 E.g., New Mexico's Solar Rights Act, N.M. STAT. ANN. § 47-3-1 (1978); Solar Recordation Act, N.M. STAT. ANN. § 47-3-6 (1978).
7 Eisenstadt, Access to Solar Energy: The Problem and its Current Status, 22 Natural ResourcesJournal,1982, p.21.
1 Id.at23.
2 E.g., Ausness, Water Rights Legislation in the East: A Program for Reform, 24 The William and Mary Quarterly,1983,p.547.
3 E.g., Baker v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 95 Idaho 575, 513 P.2d 627 (1973).
4 33 Cal. 3d 419, 658 P.2d 709, 189 Cal. Rptr. 346 (1983).
1 National Audubon Soc'y, 33 Cal. 3d at 441, 658 P.2d at 724, 189 Cal. Rptr. at360-61.
2 United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978) (particularly the dissenting opinions of Justices Powell, Brennan, White and Marshall).
3 E.g., Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahan, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
4 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
5 Tucker, Environmentalism: The Newest Toryism,Yale Law and Policy Review,1980,p.141.
6 See supra note: Concepts in Transition the Search for A New Definition of Property,at25.
1 See supra note:Cases and Materials on Enviornmental Law, at xvii (emphasis added).
2 42 U.S.C. § § 4321-4335 (1977) (The NEPA became effective on Jan. 1, 1970).
3 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 313-33 (1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition the Search for A New Definition of Property,at25.
4 Id.at25.
1 Beekman v. Saratoga & S.R. Co., 3 N.Y. (Paige) 45, 73 (1831).
2 Beekman v. Saratoga & S.R. Co., 3 N.Y. (Paige) 45, 73 (1831).
3 Cribbet, Some Reflections on the Law of Land -- A View From Scandinavia, 62 Northwestern University Law Review,1967,p.277.
4 U.S. CONST. amend. V.
5 Shizas v. Detroit, 333 Mich. 44, 52 N.W.2d 589 (1952).
6 无条件继承不动产(fee simple absolute):又称“完全所有权”或“绝对所有权”,是法律所赋予的最大的土地权利,它给予权利人对土地的全方位的权利,包括对土地的排他占有权、使用权、收益权和通过契书或遗嘱对土地的处分权以及基于土地对他人行使的为一定行为或不为一定行为的法律上的请求权。See Ralph E. Boyer, Herbert Hovenkamp, Sheldon F. Kurtz: The Law of Property, 4th ed., West Publishing Co., 1991, p.123. 参见前引《美国财产法与判例研究》,第 52 页;《美国财产法》,第 65页。
7 See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property, at26.
1 348 U.S. 26 (1954).
2 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (zoning).
3 See Jane Jacobs,The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, 1961, p.186. 另参见中译本【加拿大】简·雅各布斯:《美国大城市的死与生》,金衡山译,译林出版社 2005 年版。
4 348 U.S. 33(1954).
5 348 U.S. 22(1954).
6 348 U.S. 361954).
1 E.g., City of Chicago v. R. Zwick Co., 27 Ill. 2d 128, 188 N.E.2d 489 (1963); Annot., 44 A.L.R.2d 1414 (1955).
2 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 1010-13 (1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property, at28.
3 410 Mich. 616, 304 N.W.2d 455 (1981).
4 410 Mich. 633-34, 304 N.W.2d 459 (1981).
5 410 Mich. 636,645, 304 N.W.2d 460,464 (1981) (Fitzgerald, J., dissenting and Ryan, J., dissenting).
1 City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 32 Cal. 3d 60, 646 P.2d 835, 183 Cal. Rptr. 673 (1982).
2 City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 32 Cal. 3d 64, 646 P.2d 837, 183 Cal. Rptr. 675 (1982).
3 City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 32 Cal. 3d 79, 646 P.2d 847, 183 Cal. Rptr. 685 (1982)(Bird, C.J., concurring and dissenting) (emphasis added).
4 City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 32 Cal. 3d 78, 646 P.2d 846, 183 Cal. Rptr. 684 (1982) (emphasis added).
5 104 S. Ct. 2321 (1984).
6 HAWAII REV. STAT. § § 516-1 to 516-186 (1976 & Supp. 1984). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property, at29.
7 Midkiff v. Tom, 702 F.2d 788 (1983).
8 Midkiff v. Tom, 702 F.2d 790 (1983).
1 Midkiff v. Tom, 702 F.2d 790 (1983).
2 Midkiff v. Tom, 702 F.2d 797 (1983).
3 Midkiff v. Tom, 702 F.2d 813 (1983)(Ferguson, J., dissenting).
4 104 S. Ct. 2321, 2331-32 (1984).
5 See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property,at30.
1 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 313-33 (1981). Id.at30.
2 Pulliam, Brandeis Brief for Decontrol of Land Use: A Plea for Constitutional Reform, 13 Southwestern University Law Review,1983,p.435.
3 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 547-64 (1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at31.
4 G. AMICK, THE AMERICAN WAY OF GRAFT 77 (1976).Id.at31.
5 Fulton, Building and Bargaining in California, 4 California Law Review,December 1984,p.36.
6 R. BABCOCK, THE ZONING GAME: MUNICIPAL PRACTICES AND POLICIES (1966). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at31.
7 See Siegan, Non-Zoning in Houston, 13 The Journal of Law and Economics,1970,p.71.
8 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
9 92 N.J. 158, 456 A.2d 390 (1983).
1 EuclId,272 U.S. at 388. See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property, at31.
2 277 U.S. 183 (1928).
3 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 361-412(1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at32.
1 Grubel v. MacLaughlin, 286 F. Supp. 24 (D.V.I. 1968).
2 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 253-65(1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at32.
3 See generally Symposium, Planned Unit Development, 114 University of Pennsylvania Law Review,1965,pp.1-170.
4 See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property,at32.
5 D. MANDELKER & R. CUNNINGHAM, PLANNING AND CONTROL OF LAND DEVELOPMENT 443-51 (2d ed. 1985). Id.at32.
6 Collard v. Incorporated Village of Flower Hill, 52 N.Y.2d 594, 421 N.E.2d 818, 439 N.Y.S.2d 326 (1981).
7 30 N.Y.2d 359, 285 N.E.2d 291, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972).
8 18 Cal. 3d 582, 557 P.2d 473, 135 Cal. Rptr. 41 (1976).
9 30 N.Y.2d 383, 285 N.E.2d 304-05, 334 N.Y.S.2d 156.
1 Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. 151, 336 A.2d 713 (1975) (Mount Laurel).
2 Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 92 N.J. 158, 456 A.2d 390 (1983) (Mount Laurel II).
3 Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 92 N.J. 212-13, 456 A.2d 417(1983) (Mount Laurel II).
4 See Ellickson, The Irony of "Inclusionary" Zoning, The Regents of the University of California 1981, 54 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,1981,p.1167; Rose, The Mount Laurel II Decision: Is It Based on Wishful Thinking?, 12 Real Estate Law Journal,1983,p.115; Silverman, Housing for All Under Law: The Limits of Legalist Reform, The Regents of the University of California 1979, 27 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,1979,p.99; Note, Zoning for the Regional Welfare, 89 Yale Law Journal,1980,p.748.
1 MINN. STAT. ANN. § 462.14, Subd. 5 (West 1963) (enacted 1915). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property,at34.
2 E. BASSETT, ZONING 27 (1940). Id.at34.
3 Id.at35.
4 307 N.Y. 493, 121 N.E.2d 517 (1954).
5 307 N.Y. 502, 121 N.E.2d 521 (1954)(Fuld, J., dissenting).
1 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
2 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 695-703(1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at35.
3 438 U.S. 150 (1978)(Burger, Rehnquist, Stevens, J.J., dissenting).
4 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 75(1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property, at35.
5 Id.at35.
6 24 Cal. 3d 266, 598 P.2d 25, 157 Cal. Rptr. 372 (1979), aff'd, 447 U.S. 255 (1980).
7 24 Cal. 3d 277, 598 P.2d 31, 157 Cal. Rptr. 378 (1979), aff'd, 447 U.S. 255 (1980).
8 24 Cal. 3d 277, 598 P.2d 31, 157 Cal. Rptr. 378 (1979), aff'd, 447 U.S. 255 (1980)(emphasis added).
1 Ed Zaagman, Inc. v. City of Kentwood, 406 Mich. 137, 277 N.W.2d 475 (1979). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property, at36.
2 San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621 (1981); Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980).
3 729 F.2d 402 (6th Cir. 1984).
4 450 U.S. at 661 n.26 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
5 729 F.2d 409(6th Cir. 1984).
6 E.g.,Supreme Court Weighs Zoning and Individual Rights, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Mar.3, 1985, at E5.
7 Williams, Smith, Siemon, Mandelker & Babcock, The White River Junction Manifesto, 9 Vermont Law Review,1984,p.193.
1 Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 105 S. Ct. 3108 (1985).
2 Tarlock, A Correlative Rights Approach to the Taking Issue in PLANNING WITHOUT PRICES 159 (B. Siegan ed. 1977). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at38.
3 Tarlock, A Correlative Rights Approach to the Taking Issue in PLANNING WITHOUT PRICES 159 (B. Siegan ed. 1977). Id.at38.
4 Caldwell, Rights of Ownership or Rights of Use? -- The Need for a New Conceptual Basis for Land Use Policy, 15 The William and Mary Quarterly,1974,p.759.
1 T. BERGIN & P. HASKELL, PREFACE TO ESTATES IN LAND AND FUTURE INTERESTS 1-18 (2d ed. 1984). See supra note: Concepts in Transition the Search for A New Definition of Property,at39.
2 T. BERGIN & P. HASKELL, PREFACE TO ESTATES IN LAND AND FUTURE INTERESTS 18 (2d ed. 1984). Id.at39.
3 Philbrick, Changing Conceptions of Property in Law, 86 University of Pennsylvania Law Review,1938,p.691,p.710.
1 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766), at2.
2 命定说(manifest destiny):是指一种认为某一民族扩张其领土系天命所定的反动史观。
3 W. LIPPMAN, THE METHOD OF FREEDOM 102 (1934). See supra note: Concepts in Transition the Search for A New Definition of Property,at39.
4 Id.at40
1 Wenig, The Marital Property Act, 12 Probate and Property,Summer,1983, p.9.
2 See supra note: Concepts in Transition the Search for A New Definition of Property,at40.
3 R. VON JHERING, DER GEIST DES ROMISCHEN RECHTS AUF DEN VERSCHIEDENEN STUFEN SEINER ENTWICKLUNG 7 (4th ed. 1878). Id.at41.
4 See supra note:Changing Conceptions of Property in Law,at691,at710.
5 Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Comm'n, 298 Minn. 471, 485, 216 N.W.2d 651, 661 (1974).
1 State v. Shack, 58 N.J. 297, 303-05, 277 A.2d 369, 372-73 (1971).
1 See H.Clews,Inciridudism Versus Socialism,New York , 1907, pp.1-3. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 28 页。
2 See supra note: Property Ecological Integrity Within The Balancing Function of Property Law,at85.
3 See supra note, The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960,at226.
4 Pound, Report of the Special Committee on Administrative Law, 63 Rep. Am. B. Ass’N(1938). Id.at219.
5 Pound, Do We Need a Philosophy of Law?, 5 COLUM. L. REV.339, 352(1905). Id.at220.
1 参见前引《个人主义》,第 24-28 页。
2 Arieli, Individualism and Nationalism in American Ideology, Cambridge, Mass., 1964, pp.191-2. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 25 页。
1 ‘Catholicism’, Boston Quarterly Review,IV(1841),p.320. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 25 页。
2 See supra note: Individualism and Nationalism in American Ideology, p.9. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 26 页。
3 Id. pp.345-6. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 26 页。
4 R. W. Emerson, Journals(1846), Vol. VII, Cambridge, Mass., 1909—14, pp.322-3. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 26 页。
1 R. W. Emerson, ‘New England Reformers’(1844) in Complete Writings, New York, 1929, Vol. I, pp.317-18. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 26 页。
2 Id.at551. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
3 J. W. Draper, History of the American Civil War, 3Vols., New York, 1868-70, Vol. I, pp. 207-8. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
4 W. Whitman, Democratic Vistas in Complete Prose Works(1871), Philadelphia, 1891, Vol. II, p. 67. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
5 引自 R. Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, New York, 1959, p.51. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
6 W. G. Sumner, Earth Hunger and Other Essays, New Haven, 1913, pp.127-8. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
7 See supra note: Social Darwinism in American Thought, at34. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
1 H.Clews, Individualism Versus Socialism, New York, 1907, pp.1-3. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第28 页。
2 J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, London and New York, 1888, Vol.II, p.404. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 28 页。
3 参见前引《普通法的精神》,第 25 页。
1 参见【美】理查德·A·波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》(上),将兆康译,林毅夫校,中国大百科全书出版社 1997 年版,中文版译者序言第 28 页。
2 See J. M. Buchanan, G. Tullock, The Calculus of Consent, University of Michigan Press, 1962, p.5.
1 See Martin S. Flaherty , History "Lite" In Modern American Constitutionalism, Columbia Law Review, April 1995, p.563.
2 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain,at2.
3 Id.at12-13.
4 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 105 页。
5 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, at13.
6 Id.at13.
7 See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999.p.119.
1 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, at14-15。
2 See supra note: Two Treatises of Government, at120.
3 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, at15.
4 Id.at15
1 Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith, What Happened to Property in Law and Economics?, 111 Yale Law Journal,2001,p.357.
2 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
3 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, p.782.
4 Id. at283.
5 See, e.g., Ashley v. Port Huron, 35 Mich. 296 (1877); Richardson v. Vt.Cent. R.R. Co., 25 Vt. 465 (1853).
6 see Booth v. Town ofWoodbury, 32 Conn. 118 (1864).
7 See also Mason v. Harper's Ferry Bridge Co., 17 W. Va. 396, 417 (1880).
1 See Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1036-61 (1992).
2 Id. at 1019.
3 United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 377 (1945).
4 see Richard Posner, Some Uses and Abuses of Economics in Law, 46 University of Chicago Law Review,1979,p.292,p.294.
5 Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922).
6 Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 127 (1978).
7 See supra note: On Property: An Essay, at127,at136.
8 Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 (1992).
9 Id. at 1064 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
1 See Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 629-31 (2001).
2 Penn Central, 438 U.S. at124 (quoting U.S. v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155, 168 (1958)).
3 See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 394 (1994).
4 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain.p.60.
5 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
1 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
2 505 U.S. 1027 (1992).
3 See supra note: Property Ecological Integrity Within The Balancing Function of Property Law,at86.
4 505 U.S. 1031(1992)(emphasis added).
5 505 U.S. 1018(1992)(emphasis added).
1 33 U.S.C. 1344 (1994); 16 U.S.C. 1538 (1994).
2 Cf. Joseph L. Sax, Property Rights and the Economy of Nature: Understanding Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 45 Stanford Law Review,1993,p.1433,pp.1438-39.
3 505 U.S. at 1020-27.
4 505 U.S. at 1027.
5 Richard A. Epstein, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: A Tangled Web of Expectations, 45 Stanford Law Review,1993,p.1369,p.1375-77.
1 Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach, 510 U.S. 1207 (1994)(Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of cert.).
2 See Robert ⅴPercival, Alan S. Miller, Christoper H. Schroeder and James P. Leape, Environmental Regulation: Law, Science, and Policy, Little, Brown and Co., 1992, p.72.
3 Cf. Joseph L. Sax, Takings and the Police Power, 74 Yale Law Journal,1964,p.36,pp.54-60.
4 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
5 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1157.
6 Florida Rock Indus., Inc. v. United States, 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 28 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
1 Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1035 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
2 Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1035 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
3 E.g., Eric T. Freyfogle, Ownership and Ecology, 43 Case Western Reserve Law Review,1993,p.1269; Eric T. Freyfogle, Owning the Wolf, 41 Dissent, Fall 1994,p.481.
1 Wes Jackson, Becoming Native to This Place 107-09 (1994). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1158.
1 参见前引《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,第 P89 页。
2 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1159.
3 参见前引《财产法:案例与材料》,第 1182 页。
4 “古代法”出现的时期,也是人类思想史上有最深远影响的事件之一,即达尔文(Darwin)自然选择原则形成的时期。“物种起源”(The Origin Of Species)发表于“古代法”出版前两年。无疑,梅因在历史法律学方面的著作自然地同十九世纪中叶广为传布的新的研究精神平列在一起。参见前引《古代法》,第8-9 页。
1 参见上引《古代法》,第 17 页、97 页。
2 参见上引《古代法》,第 8-9 页。参见前引《美国法律史》,第 209-213 页。
3 参见前引《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,第 58 页。
4 参见前引《创化论》,第 44 页、第 46 页。
5 参见《马克思恩格斯选集》(第三卷)中共中央马克思、恩格斯、列宁、斯大林著作编译局编译,人民出版社 1995 年第 2 版,第 477-485 页。
6 参见前引《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,第 69-70 页。
1 参见上引《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,第 80-90 页。
2 参见前引《政治学》,第 273 页。
3 【法】孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》(上),张雁深译,商务印书馆 1985 年版,第 166 页。
4 See Jhering, Law As a Means to an End ,transl. I.Husik (New York 1942), pp.408-409. 转引自前引《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》,第 109 页。
5 参见前引《社会契约论》,第 9 页。
6 【德】康德:《法的形而上学原理——权利的科学》,沈叔平译,林荣远校,商务印书馆 1991 年版,第26 页。
7 See I.Kant ,The Moral Law (1785)transl ed ,H·J·Pafon,3rd,London1956,pp.95-96. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 44 页。
8 参见前引《美国法律史》,第 244 页
9 参见前引《正义论》,第 60 页、第 106 页。
1 参见前引《政治学》,第 273 页。
2 参见【美】弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997 年版,第 159-160 页。
1、[美] 库恩:《科学革命的结构》,李宝恒、纪树立译,上海科学技术出版社1980 年版。
2、[美] 麦茜特、卡洛琳:《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,吴国盛译,吉林人民出版社 1999 年版。
3、[法] 亨利·柏格森:《创化论》,诺贝尔文学奖全集编译委员会译,《诺贝尔文学奖全集》(15),《柏格森,Henri Bergson 1927》,九五文化事业有限公司、书华出版事业有限公司 1981 年初版。
4、[美] 赛班:《西方政治思想史》,李少军译,桂冠图书公司 1991 年版。
5、[英] 史蒂文·卢克斯:《个人主义》,阎克文译,江苏人民出版社 2001 年版。
6、[美] 约翰·E·克里贝特、科温·W·约翰逊、罗杰·W·芬德利、欧内斯特·E·史密斯:《财产法:案例与材料》,齐东祥、陈刚译,中国政法大学出版社 2003年版第 7 版。
7、[美] E·博登海默:《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版。
8、[德] 黑格尔:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆 1982 年版。
9、[美] 爱德华·S·考文:《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,三联书店 1996 年版。
10、 【英】S.F.C.密尔松:《普通法的历史基础》,李显冬、高翔、刘智慧、马呈元译,中国大百科全书出版社 1999 年版。
11、 冉昊著《英美财产法基本构造分析――从身份到契约,从契约到关系》,中国社会科学院博士论文打印稿。
12、 【日】大木雅夫:《比较法》,范愉译,朱景文审校,法律出版社 1999年版。
13、 【德】弗里德里希·卡尔·冯·萨维尼:《论立法与法学的当代使命》,许章润译,中国法制出版社 2001 年版。
14、 梅雪芹:《财产与政权――论约翰·洛克的财产观》,南京大学历史系博士论文打印稿。
15、 【德】黑格尔:《逻辑学》(下卷),杨一之译,商务印书馆 1976 年版。
16、 吕世伦著:《法理念探索》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
17、 【法】米歇尔福柯:《知识考古学》,谢强、马月译,生活读书新知三联书店 1998 年版。
18、 《阿奎那政治著作选》,马清槐译,商务印书馆 1963 年版。
19、 [美] 约翰·H·威格摩尔:《世界法系概览》(下),何勤华、李秀清、郭光东等译,上海人民出版社 2004 年版。
20、 [英] F·H·劳森、B·拉登:《财产法》,施天涛、梅慎实、孔祥俊译,中国大百科全书出版 1998 年版第 2 版
21、 [美] 罗斯科·庞德:《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,沈宗灵、董世忠译,杨昌裕、楼邦彦校,商务印书馆 1984 年版。
22、 [英] 罗索:《西方哲学史》(下卷),马元德译,商务印书馆 1976 年版。
23、 江华骆通:《英美法通论》,群益书社 1909 年版。
24、 [英] 培根:《新工具》,许宝二译,商务印书馆 1984 年版。
25、 [荷兰] 斯宾诺莎:《笛卡儿哲学原理》,王荫庭、洪汉鼎译,商务印书馆 1980 年版。
26、 [英] 索利:《英国哲学史》,段德智译,山东人民出版社 1992 年版。
27、 [美] 雅·布伦诺斯基:《科学进化史》,李斯译,海南出版社 2002 年版。
28、 [德] 黑格尔:《哲学史讲演录》(第四卷),贺麟、王太庆译,商务印书馆 1978 年版。
29、 [意] 登特列夫:《自然法——法律哲学导论》,李日章译,台北联经出版事业公司 1984 年版。
30、 [美] 施特劳斯和克罗波西主编《政治哲学史》(上),李天然等译,河北人民出版社 1993 年版。
31、 [美] 萨拜因:《政治学说史》(上册),盛葵阳、崔妙因译,商务印书馆1986 年版。
32、 [德] 文德尔班:《哲学史教程》(上卷),罗达仁译,商务印书馆 1987年版。
33、 杨适著:《古希腊哲学探本》,商务印书馆 2003 年版。
34、 [苏] 涅尔谢相茨:《古希腊政治学说》,蔡拓译,商务印书馆 1991 年版。
35、 [古希腊] 亚里士多德:《政治学》,吴寿彭译,商务印书馆 1965 年版。
36、 [荷] 格劳秀斯:《战争与和平法》,[美]A·C·坎贝尔英译,何勤华等译,上海人民出版社 2005 年版。
37、 [古罗马] 西塞罗:《论共和国 论法律》,王焕生译,中国政法大学出版社 1997 年版。
38、 [古罗马] 西塞罗:《论义务》,王焕生译,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版。
39、 [英] 梅因:《古代法》,沈景一译,商务印书馆 1959 年版。
40、 [荷] 格劳秀斯:《海洋自由论》,宇川译,上海三联书店 2005 年版。
41、 [法] 卢梭:《社会契约论》,何兆武译,商务印书馆 1980 年第 2 版。
42、 [日] 寺田四郎:《国际法学界之七大家》,韩逋仙译,吴旭阳校,中国政法大学出版社 2003 年版。
43、 [美] 但宁:《政治学说史》(中册),谢义伟译,神州国光社 1931 年版。
44、 [英] 洛克:《政府论》(下篇),叶启芳,瞿菊农译,商务印书馆 1981年版。
45、 [英] 洛克:《政府论》(上篇),瞿菊农、叶启芳译,商务印书馆 1982年版。
46、 [美] 施特劳斯:《自然权利与历史》,彭刚译,三联书店 2003 年版。
47、 唐奈勒 H· 梅多斯,丹尼斯·梅多斯,约恩·兰德斯:《超越极限:正视全球性崩溃,展望可持续的未来》,上海译文出版社 2001 年版。
48、 张文显著:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版 1996 年版。
49、 [奥] 凯尔森:《法与国家的一般理论》,沈宗灵译,中国大百科全书出版社 1996 年版。
50、 [美] 因斯蒂图特:《美国法律整编》(第四册,财产法),法治斌译,司法周刊杂志社 1987 年版。
51、 [日] 高柳贤三:《英美法源理论》,杨磊、黎晓译,林向荣校,西南政法学院法制史教研室科研处编译室 1983 年编译。
52、 [德] K.茨威格特,H.克茨:《比较法总论》,潘汉典,米健,高鸿钧,贺卫方译,贵州人民出版社 1992 年版。
53、 [台] 丘宏达,杨崇森,陈长文著:《法律学》,台湾学生书局 1973 年版。
54、 [美] 纳尔逊·曼弗雷德·布莱克:《美国社会生活与思想史》(上册),许季鸿译,商务印书馆 1994 年版。
55、 [美] 罗斯科·庞德:《普通法的精神》,唐前宏、廖湘文、高雪原译,夏登峻校,法律出版社 2001 年版。
56、 [美] 莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年版。
57、 [英] 吉米·边沁:《立法理论》,李贵芳等译,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年版。
58、 [英] 边沁:《道德与立法原理导论》,时殷弘译,商务印书馆 2000 年版。
59、 [美] 伯纳德·施瓦茨:《美国法律史》,王军等译,中国政法大学出版社 1990 年版。
60、 [古罗马] 优士丁尼:《法学阶梯》,徐国栋译,中国政法大学出版社 1999年版。
61、 William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766),The University of Chicago Press, 1979, 王铁雄译,打印稿,待由上海人民出版社出版。
62、 [英] 舒马赫:《小是美好的》,虞鸿均、郑关林译,商务印书馆 1984 年版。
63、 [美] 托马斯·杰斐逊:《杰斐逊选集》,朱曾汶译,商务印书馆 1999 年版。
64、 刘祚昌著:《杰斐逊》,中国社会科学出版社 1996 年版。
65、 [美] 帕灵顿、沃浓·路易:《美国思想史:1620-1920》,陈永国、李增、郭乙瑶译,吉林人民出版社 2002 年版。
66、 [美] 路易斯·哈茨:《美国自由主义传统:独立革命以来美国政治思想阐释》,张敏谦译,金灿荣校,中国社会科学出版 2003 年版。
67、 [美] 沃斯特:《自然的经济体系:生态思想史》,侯文惠译,商务印书馆 1999 年版。
68、 李进之、王久华、李克宁、蒋丹宁著:《美国财产法》,法律出版社 1999年版。
69、 马新彦著:《美国财产法与判例研究》,法律出版社 2001 年版。
70、 [美] 凯斯·R·桑斯坦:《偏颇的宪法》,宋华琳、毕竞悦译,北京大学出版社 2005 年版。
71、 [英] 路德维希·维特根斯坦:《哲学研究》,陈嘉映译,上海人民出版社 2005 年版。
72、 [美] 约瑟夫·斯托里:《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店 2006年版。
73、 [加拿大] 简·雅各布斯:《美国大城市的死与生》,金衡山译,译林出版社 2005 年版。
74、 [美] 约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》,何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白译,中国社会科学出版社 1988 年版。
75、 [美] R.W.芬德利、D.A.法贝尔:《美国环境法简论》,程正康等译,中国环境科学出版社 1986 年版。
76、 [美] 理查德·A·波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》(上),将兆康译,林毅夫校,中国大百科全书出版社 1997 年版。
77、 《马克思恩格斯选集》(第三卷)中共中央马克思、恩格斯、列宁、斯大林著作编译局编译,人民出版社 1995 年第 2 版。
78、 [法] 孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》(上),张雁深译,商务印书馆 1985 年版。
79、 [德] 康德:《法的形而上学原理——权利的科学》,沈叔平译,林荣远校,商务印书馆 1991 年版。
80、 [美] 弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店 1997 年版。
81、 何勤华:《布莱克斯通与英美法律近代化》,载《法律科学》1996 年第 6期。
82、 王铁雄:《集体土地所有权制度之完善――民法典制定中不容忽视的问题》,载《法学》2003 年第 2 期。
83、 王铁雄:《域外古代土地产权制度比较研究》,载何勤华主编:《法律文化史研究》(第一卷),商务印书馆 2004 年版。
84、 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, 1957.
85、 Barthes, Roland, Mythologies, Vol.Ⅰ, Wendy Doninger trans., University of Chicago Press,1991.
86、 Lucius Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones, Vol.Ⅱ,Thomas H. Corcoran trans., Harvard University Press, 1972.
87、 R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.
88、 D. Bigongiari, The Political Ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. English Dominican Fathers, ed. New York: Hafner Press,1953.
89、 L B Curzon, English Legal History , Macdonald & Evans Ltd., 1979.
90、 A.W.B.Simpson, A History of the Land Law ,Clarendon Press, Oxford, Second Edition, 1986.
91、 [英] 西奥多·F·T·普拉克内特:《简明普通法史》(影印版),中信出版社 2003 年版第 5 版。
92、 Cf. Elie Halevy, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism , Beacon Press, 1955.
93、 Wolfgang Friedmann, Legal Theory, Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1947.
94、 Stephen Buckle, Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.
95、 H.Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), trans. F.W. Kelsey, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York: Oceana Publications, 1964.
96、 C.B.Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism:Hobbes to Locke, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
97、 K.Olivecrona, Law as Fact, London: Stevens ﹠Sons 2nd ed., 1971.
98、 Richard Tuck , Natural rights theories: their Origin and Development, Cambridge University Press, 1979.
99、 [英] 休谟:《人性论》(1739-1740)(影印本),中国社会科学出版 1999年版。
100、 塞缪尔·普芬道夫:《人和公民的义务》(影印本),中国政法大学出版社 2003 年版。
101、 George C. Christie, Jurisprudence: Text and Readings on the Philosophy of Law, St. Paul, Minn. West Publishing Co., 1973.
102、 Christopher B. Gray, The Philosophy of Law: an Encyclopedia, Vol.2, Carland Publishing Inc., 1999.
103、 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books Inc., 1974.
104、 R.Tuck, Hobbes, Oxford University Press, 1989.
105、 J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
106、 J. Locke, Essays on the Law of Nature, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954.
107、 J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government(1690), 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
108、 Sukhninder Panesar, General Principles of Property Law ,Pearson Education Limited, 2001.
109、 J.Tully, A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
110、 Grotius on the Freedom of the Seas, trans. R. V. D. Magoffin, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York: Oxford University Press, 1916.
111、 L. Becker, Property Rights: Philosophic Foundations, London:Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977.
112、 T. Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C. B. Macpherson, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968.
113、 J. Locke, An Essay concerning Human Understanding(1690), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
114、 Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence, ed. R. L. Meek, D.D. Raphael, and P.G. Stein, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
115、 J. Waldron, The Right to Private Property, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
116、 Hont and M. Ignatieff, Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
117、 R. W. Grant, John Locke’s Liberalism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
118、 Richard A. Epstein, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, Harvard University Press, 1985.
119、 William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),The University of Chicago Press, 1979.
120、 William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅲ, of Private Wrongs(1767),The University of Chicago Press, 1979.
121、 Miller, The Life of The Mind in America, From The Revolution to The Civil War, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1965.
122、 Robert P. Burns, Blackstone's Theory of the "Absolute" Rights of Property, 54 University of Cincinnati Law Review, 1985.
123、 Lawrence M .Friedman, A history of American Law, 2nd ed. Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1985.
124、 Sir William Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol,Ⅺ. Methuen& Co Ltd and Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, Third Impression, 1977.
125、 Thomas Jefferson, The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Adrienne Koch & William Peden eds., Modern Library, 1972.
126、 Louis Hartz, with an introduction by Tom Wicker, The Liberal Tradition in America: an interpretation of American political thought since the Revolution, New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991.
127、 Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution , New York: Alfred A. knopf, 1992.
128、 Gordon S .Wood , the Creation of the American Republic, 1776—1787(1969), Land Law and Real Property in American History, Garland Publishing, Inc., 1987.
129、 James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist No.10, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
130、 James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the Federalist papers, Penguin Books, 1987.
131、 George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Henry Holt and company, Inc., 1937.
132、 John Taylor, Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated (1820), Da Capo Press, 1970.
133、 Lawrence M Friedman , Harry N Scheiber, American law and the constitutional order : historical perspectives, Harvard University Press, 1988.
134、 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, Hamish Hamilton Inc., 1962.
135、 Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, Vintage Books, 1994.
136、 Daniel B. Botkin, Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press, 1990.
137、 Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1992.
138、 Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning [c1919], Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2001.
139、 Cass R. Sunstein, The Partial Constitution, Harvard University Press, 1993.
140、 John Patrick. Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics: Virtue, Self-Interest, and the Foundations of Liberalism, Basic Books Inc., 1984.
141、 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, Basil Blackwell, 1958.
142、 Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City & the rise of the American working class, 1788-1850, Oxford University Press, 1984.
143、 Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Harper & Row publishers, 1988.
144、 Bruce Palmer, “Man over Money”: The Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism, University of North Carolina Press, 1980.
145、 William E. Forbath, Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement, Harvard University Press, 1991.
146、 Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law.Vol.1, Foundation Press, 2000.
147、 Nancy F. Cott, No small courage : a history of women in the United States, Oxford University Press, 2000.
148、 Nancy F. Cott, Public vows : a history of marriage and the nation , Harvard University Press, 2000.
149、 Jeanne Boydston, Home & Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic, Oxford University Press, 1990.
150、 Douglass S. Massey & Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, 1993.
151、 Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization ofthe United States, Oxford University Press, 1985.
152、 Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War era, Basic Books, 1999.
153、 Linda K. Kerber, The Republican Mother: Female Political Imagination in the Early Republic, in Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1980.
154、 Curtis J. Berger, Land Ownership and Use, Little, Brown and Company, 1975.
155、 Ralph E. Boyer, Herbert Hovenkamp, Sheldon F. Kurtz: The Law of Property, 4th ed., West Publishing Co., 1991.
156、 Jane Jacobs, The Death And Life Of Great American Cities, Random House, 1961.
157、 Hudson , Alastair, New perspectives on property law, obligations and restitution, Cavendish, 2004.
158、 Albert O. Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph, Princeton University Press, 1977.
159、 Roger W. Findley & Daniel A. Farber, Cases and Materials on Environmental Law, West Pub. Co., 1995.
160、 J. M. Buchanan, G. Tullock, The Calculus of Consent, University of Michigan Press, 1962.
161、 John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999.
162、 Robert ⅴ.Percival, Alan S. Miller, Christoper H. Schroeder and James P. Leape, Environmental Regulation: Law, Science, and Policy, Little, Brown and Co., 1992.
163、 【美】约瑟夫·威廉·辛格:《财产法:规则·政策·实务》(第三版)(影印本),中信出版社 2003 年版,第 21 页。
164、 Plato, Timaeus, in Plato: The Collected Dialogues ,Edith Hamilton & Huntington Cairns eds., Lane Cooper et al. trans., Princeton University Press,1971.
165、 Encyclopedia Britannica(15th edition), Vol. 12, 1977.
166、 John Locke Critical Assessments, Edited by Richard Ashcraft, Vol.Ⅲ, Routledge & Kegan Paul,1991.
167、 John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government: New Interpretation, ed. Edward J. Harpham, University Press of Kansas, 1992.
168、 Land Law and Real Property in American History, Edited by Kermit L.Hall, Garland Publishing ,Inc., 1987.
169、 The Works of James Wilson, Vol.1, Robert Green McCloskey ed., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967.
170、 Henry Campbell Black, Black’ Law Dictionary, 5th ed., St. Paul Minn,.West Publishing Co., 1979.
171、 Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), William Peden ed., University of North Carolina Press, 1954.
172、 Myrl L. Duncan , Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, Environmental Law Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College, Winter 1996.
173、 Myrl L. Duncan, High Noon on the Ogallala Aquifer: Agriculture Does Not Live by Farmland Preservation Alone, 27 Washburn Law Journal,1987.
174、 Robert W. Gordon, Critical Legal Histories, 36 Stanford Law Review,1984.
175、 Lynn White, Jr., The Historical Roots of the Ecological Crisis, 155 Science, March 1967.
176、 Adam Mossoff, What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together, 2003 Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona Law Review, Summer 2003.
177、 E.Kamenka, “Maxrism and Politics”, 10 Bulletin of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy, March 1986.
178、 Karl Olivecrona, Appropriation in the State of Nature: Locke on the Origin of Property, 35 Journal of the History of Ideas, 1974.
179、 Carol M. Rose, Canons of Property Talk, or, Blackstone's Anxiety, Yale Law Journal, December, Yale Law Journal Company, 1998.
180、 Walton H. Hamilton, Property--According to Locke, 41 Yale Law Journal, 1932.
181、 Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E.Smith, Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle, 110 Yale Law Journal, 2000.
182、 Joan E. Schaffner, Patent Preemption Unlocked, Wisconsin Law Review, 1995.
183、 William Michael Treanor, The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, 94 Yale Law Journal, 1985.
184、 Terry W. Farzier, Property Ecological Integrity Within The Balancing Function of Property Law, Environmental Law Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College ,Spring 1998.
185、 Radhika Rao, Property, Privacy, and The Human Body, Trustees of Boston University Law Review, April 2000.
186、 J.E. Penner, The "Bundle of Rights" Picture of Property, The Regents of the University of California , 1996, UCLA Law Review ,February 1996.
187、 Felix Cohen, Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach,
35 Columbia Law Review, 1935.
188、 John Edward Cribbet, Concepts In Transition the Search For A NewDefinition of Property, The University of Illinois University of Illinois Law Review, 1986.
189、 Joan Williams , The Rhetoric of Property,83 Iowa Law Review ,January, 1998.
190、 William E. Forbath, The Shaping of the American Labor Movement,
102 Harvard Law Review, 1989.
191、 Martin S. Flaherty , History "Lite" In Modern American Constitutionalism, The Columbia Law Review , April, 1995.
192、 William H. Simon, Social-Republican Property, 38 The Regents of the University of California 1991,University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February,1991.
193、 Jared Diamond, Playing Dice with Megadeath, Discover, April 1990.
194、 Joseph William Singer & Jack M. Beermann, The Social Origins of Property, 6 Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 1993.
195、 Joseph William Singer, No Right to Exclude: Public Accommodations and Private Property, 90 Northwestern University Law Review, 1996.
196、 Joan C. Williams, At the Fusion of Horizons: Incommensurability and the Public Interest, 20 Vermont Law Review, 1996.
197、 Jack M. Beermann & Joseph William Singer, Baseline Questions in Legal Reasoning: The Example of Property in Jobs, 23 Georgia Law Review, 1989.
198、 Joseph W. Singer, Jobs and Justice: Rethinking the Stakeholder Debate, 43 U. Toronto Law Journal, 1993.
199、 Joseph W. Singer, The Reliance Interest in Property, 40 Stanley Law Review, 1988.
200、 Joseph W. Singer, Well Settled? The Increasing Weight of History in American Indian Land Claims, 28 Georgia Law Review, 1994.
201、 Joseph William Singer, Persuasion, 87 Michigan Law Review, 1989.
202、 Daniel T. Rodgers, Republicanism: The Career of a Concept, 79 TheJournal of American History, 1992.
203、 Cass R. Sunstein, Interest Groups in American Public Law, 38 Stanford Law Review, 1985.
204、 Frank I. Michelman, Political Markets and Community Self-Determination: Competing Judicial Models of Local Government Legitimacy, 53 Indiana Law Journal, 1978.
205、 Richard H. Fallon, What Is Republicanism and Is It Worth Reviving?, 102 Harvard Law Review,1989.
206、 Cass R. Sunstein, The Republican Civic Tradition, Beyond the Republican Revival, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
207、 Christopher F. Edley, The Governance Crisis, Legal Theory, and Political Ideology, 1991 Duke Law Journal, 1991.
208、 Hendrik Hartog, Imposing Constitutional Traditions, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1987.
209、 Derrick Bell & Preeta Bansal, The Republican Revival and Racial Politics, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
210、 Stephen M. Feldman, Whose Common Good? Racism in the Political Community, 80 Geo. Law Journal 1992.
211、 Frank I. Michelman, Law's Republic, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
212、 Frank I. Michelman, Bringing the Law to Life: A Plea for Disenchantment, 74 Cornell Law Review, 1989.
213、 Lawrence G. Sager, The Incorrigible Constitution, 65 New York University Law Review, 1990.
214、 Morton J. Horwitz, Republicanism and Liberalism in American Constitutional Thought, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1987.
215、 James T. Kloppenberg, The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism & Ethics in Early American Political Discourse, 74 The Journal of American History, 1987.
216、 Mark Tushnet, The Concept of Tradition in ConstitutionalHistoriography, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1987.
217、 Gordon S. Wood, Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation of a Civil Society, 64 Fordham Law Review, 1996.
218、 James Boyd White, Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law: The Arts of Cultural and Communal Life, 52 University of Chicago Law Review, 1985.
219、 Gregory S. Alexander, Time and Property in the American Republican Legal Culture, 66 New York University Law Review, 1991.
220、 Kathleen M. Sullivan, Rainbow Republicanism, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
221、 Richard Epstein, Modern Republicanism--Or the Flight from Substance, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
222、 William W. Fisher III, Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860, 39 Emory Law Journal 1990.
223、 Linda K. Kerber, Making Republicanism Useful, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
224、 Stanley N. Katz, Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America, 19 The Journal of Law and Economics, 1976.
225、 Paul Goodman, The Emergence of Homestead Exemption in the United States: Accommodation and Resistance to the Market Revolution, 1840-1880, 80 The Journal of American History, 1993.
226、 Lea S. Vander Velde, The Labor Vision of the Thirteenth Amendment, 138 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1989.
227、 Frank I. Michelman, Possession vs. Distribution in the Constitutional Idea of Property, 72 Iowa Law Review, 1987.
228、 Fred R. Shapiro, The Most-Cited Law Review Articles, 73 The Regents of the University of California, 1985,UCLA Law Review ,February, 1985.
229、 Charles Reich, The New Property, 73 Yale Law Journal, 1964.
230、 Suzanna Sherry, Civic Virtue and the Feminine Voice inConstitutional Adjudication, 72 Virginia Law Review, 1986.
231、 Carol Rose, Crystals and Mud in Property Law, 40 Stanford Law Review,1983.
232、 Sir William Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol, IV. Methuen & Co Ltd and Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, Third Impression 1977.
233、 John F. Hart, Colonial Land Use and Its Significance for Modern Takings Doctrine, 109 Harvard Law Review, 1996.
234、 William Michael Treanor, The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, 95 Columbia. Law Review, 1995.
235、 Lance Banning, Jeffersonian Ideology Revisited: Liberal and Classical Ideas in the New American Republic, 43 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1986.
236、 Isaac Kramnick, The "Great National Discussion": The Discourse of Politics in 1787, 45 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1988.
237、 Carol M. Rose, Rethinking Environmental Controls: Management Strategies for Common Resources, 1 Duke Law Journey, 1991.
238、 William Novak, Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America, 45 Hastings Law Journal, 1994.
239、 Harry N. Scheiber, Public Rights and the Rule of Law in American Legal History, 72 California Law Review, 1984.
240、 Meyers, The Covenant of Habitability and the American Law Institute, 27 Stanford Law Review, 1975.
241、 Hetland, The California Land Contract, 48 California Law Review, 1960.
242、 L. Simes & C. Taylor, The Improvement of Conveyancing By Legislation, the University of Michigan Law School, 1960.
243、 Note, Who Owns the Clouds?, 1 Stanford Law Review, 1948.
244、 Fisher, Weather Modification and the Right of Capture, 8 NaturalResources Journal, 1976.
245、 Comment, Obstruction of Sunlight as a Private Nuisance, 65 California Law Review , 1977.
246、 Comment, Solar Lights: Guaranteeing A Place in the Sun, 57 Oregon Law Review,1977.
247、 Eisenstadt, Access to Solar Energy: The Problem and its Current Status, 22 Natural Resources Journal, 1982.
248、 Cunningham, The New Implied and Statutory Warranties of Habitability in Residential Leases: From Contract to Status, 16 Urban Law Annual, 1979.
249、 Dolley & Carroll, Airport Noise Pollution Damages: The Case for Local Liability, 15 Fordham Urban Law Journal, 1983.
250、 Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman's Place: The Rhetoric of Women's History, 75 the American Historical Review, 1988.
251、 Uriel Reichman, Towards a Unified Concept of Servitudes, The Regents of the University of California 1982, 55 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February,1982.
252、 Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, The Defeasible Fee and the Birth of the Modern Residential Subdivision, 49 Missouri Law Review, 1984.
253、 Joan C. Williams, Domesticity as the Dangerous Supplement of Liberalism, 2 Journal of Women's History, 1991.
254、 Margaret J. Radin, Property and Personhood, 34 Stanford Law Review, 1982.
255、 William J. Novak, Public Economy and the Well-Ordered Market: Law and Economic Regulation in 19th Century America, 18 Law & Social Inquiry, 1993.
256、 Cribbet, Some Reflections on the Law of Land -- A View From Scandinavia, 62 Northwestern University Law Review, 1967.
257、 See Siegan, Non-Zoning in Houston, 13 The Journal of Law andEconomics, 1970.
258、 Symposium, Planned Unit Development, 114 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1965.
259、 See Ellickson, The Irony of "Inclusionary" Zoning, The Regents of the University of California 1981, 54 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review, 1981.
260、 Rose, The Mount Laurel II Decision: Is It Based on Wishful Thinking?, 12 Real Estate Law Journal, 1983.
261、 Silverman, Housing for All Under Law: The Limits of Legalist Reform, The Regents of the University of California 1979, 27 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review, 1979.
262、 Note, Zoning for the Regional Welfare, 89 Yale Law Journal, 1980.
263、 Caldwell, Rights of Ownership or Rights of Use? -- The Need for a New Conceptual Basis for Land Use Policy, 15 WILLIAM. & Mary Law Review, 1974.
264、 Norman Williams Jr. et al., The White River Junction Manifesto, 9 Vermont Law Review, 1984.
265、 J. Robert S. Prichard, A Market for Babies?, 34 University of Toronto Law Journal, 1984.
266、 Michael Perry, Toward an Ecumenical Politics, 60 George Washington Law Review, 1992.
267、 Curtis J. Berger, Response: Home Is Where the Heart Is: A Brief Reply to Professor Epstein, 54 Brooklyn Law Review, 1989.
268、 Margaret J. Radin, The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings, 88 Columbia Law Review, 1988.
269、 Edward H. Rabin, The Revolution on Residential Landlord-Tenant Law: Causes and Consequences, 69 Cornell Law Review, 1976.
270、 Margaret J. Radin, Market-Inalienability, 100 Harvard Law Review,1987.
271、 Stephen J. Schnably, Property and Pragmatism: A Critique of Radin's Theory of Property and Personhood, 45 Stanford Law Review, 1993.
272、 Wilson, The Law and the Facts, 5 America Political Science Review, 1911.
273、 Cf. Joseph L. Sax, Property Rights and the Economy of Nature: Understanding Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 45 Stanford Law Review, 1993.
274、 Richard A. Epstein, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: A Tangled Web of Expectations, 45 Stanford Law Review, 1993.
275、 Cf. Joseph L. Sax, Takings and the Police Power, 74 Yale Law Journal, 1964.
276、 Eric T. Freyfogle, Ownership and Ecology, 43 Case Western Reserve Law Review, 1993.
277、 Eric T. Freyfogle, Owning the Wolf, 41 Dissent, Fall 1994.
278、 Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith, What Happened to Property in Law and Economics?, 111 Yale Law Journal, 2001.
279、 Richard Posner, Some Uses and Abuses of Economics in Law, 46 University Chicago Law Review, 1979..
280、 Laura S. Underkuffler, On Property: An Essay, 100 Yale Law Journal, 1990.
281、 Adam Mossoff, Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800, 52 Hastings Law Journal, 2001.
282、 John Dunn, Justice and the Interpretation of Locke’s Political Theory, 16 Political Studies, 1968.
283、 Thomas W. Merrill, Property and the Right to Exclude, 77 Nebraska Law Review,1998.
284、 Nolan, Sir William Blackstone and the New American Republic: AStudy of Intellectual Impact, 51 New York University Law Review,1976.
285、 Carol M. Rose, Possession as the Origin of Property, 52 University of Chicago Law Review,1985.
286、 Harry N. Scheiber, Law and the Imperatives of Progress: Private Rights and Public Values in American Legal History, 24 Nomos,1982.
287、 Richard F. Babcock & Duane A. Fuerer, Land as a Commodity "Affected with a Public Interest," 52 Washington Law Review,1977.
288、 Eric T. Freyfogle, The Owning and Taking of Sensitive Lands, The Regents of the University of California 1995,43 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,1995.
289、 See A.G. Huntsman, Method in Ecology-Ectology, 43 Ecology, 1962.
290、 Joseph William Singer, Case Four: Choice of Law Theory, 29 New England Law Review,1995.
291、 Joseph William Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 California Law Review,1988.
292、 Joseph William Singer, The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld, Wiscinsin Law Review, 1982.
293、 Joseph W. Singer, Property and Coercion in Federal Indian Law: The Conflict Between Critical and Complacent Pragmatism, 63 Southern California Law Review,1990.
294、 Joseph W. Singer, Publicity Rights and the Conflict of Laws: Tribunal Court Jurisdiction in the Crazy Horse Case, 41 South Dakota Law Review,1996.
295、 Joseph W. Singer, Re-Reading Property, 26 New England Law Review,1992.
296、 Joseph William Singer, Sovereignty and Property, 86 Northwestern University Law Review,1991.
297、 Property, J. Roland Pennock & John W. Chapman eds., 22 Nomos,1980.
298、 Ruth H. Bloch, The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in RevolutionaryAmerica,13 Signs,1987.
299、 Samuel Olken, Justice George Sutherland and Economic Liberty, 6 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,1997.
300、 Pulliam, Brandeis Brief for Decontrol of Land Use: A Plea for Constitutional Reform, 13 Southwestern University Law Review,1983.
301、 Fulton, Building and Bargaining in California, 4 California Law Review, December 1984.
302、 Carol M. Rose, Mahon Reconstructed: Why the Takings Issue Is Still a Muddle, 57 Southern California Law Review, 1984.
303、 Akil Amar, Forty Acres and a Mule: A Republican Theory of Minimum Entitlement, 13 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 1990.
304、 Margaret J. Radin, Residential Rent Control, 15 Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1986.
305、 Hamilton & Till, Property, 12 Encyclopedia of the Social Science, 1933.
306、 Bearman, Caveat Emptor in Sales of Realty-Recent Assaults Upon the Rule, 14 Vanderbilt Law Review, 1961.
307、 Note, Builder's Liability for Latent Defects in Used Homes, 32 Stanford Law Review, 1980.
308、 Gutierrez, Liability of a Construction Lender Under Civil Code Section 3434: An Amorphous Epitaph to Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Association, 8 Pacific Law Journal, 1977.
309、 Hand, Right-To-Farm Laws: Breaking New Ground In the Preservation of Farmland, 45 University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 1984.
310、 Ausness, Water Rights Legislation in the East: A Program for Reform, 24 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1983.
311、 Tucker, Environmentalism: The Newest Toryism, Yale Law and Policy Review, 1980.
312、 Philbrick, Changing Conceptions of Property in Law, 86 Universityof Pennsylvania Law Review, 1938.
313、 Wenig, The Marital Property Act, 12 Probate and Property, Summer, 1983.
2 Robert W. Gordon, Critical Legal Histories, 36 Stanford Law Review,1984,p.57.
1 E.F. Schumacher, A Guide for the Perplexed 44 (1977).See supra note:Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1103.
2 参见【美】库恩:《科学革命的结构》,李宝恒、纪树立译,上海科学技术出版社 1980 年版,序言 viii。
3 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought,Harvard University Press,1957, p.199. pp.225-226.
1 参见前引《科学革命的结构》,第 62-68 页。
2 See supra note: The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, at226.
3 参见前引《科学革命的结构》,第 62-68 页。
4 参见【美】麦茜特、卡洛琳:《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,吴国盛译,吉林人民出版社 1999年版,序言 xxi.
5 Genesis 1: 27-28. See Lynn White, Jr., The Historical Roots of the Ecological Crisis, 155 Science, March 1967, pp.1203-1207.
1 参见【法】亨利·柏格森:《创化论》,诺贝尔文学奖全集编译委员会译,《诺贝尔文学奖全集》(15),《柏格森,Henri Bergson 1927》,九五文化事业有限公司、书华出版事业有限公司 1981 年初版,第 43 页。
2 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1105.
3 参见【美】赛班:《西方政治思想史》,李少军译,桂冠图书公司 1991 年版,第 355-361 页。
4 【英】史蒂文·卢克斯:《个人主义》,阎克文译,江苏人民出版社 2001 年版,第 8 页。
1 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom 2 (1989). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1113.
2 【美】约翰·E·克里贝特、科温·W·约翰逊、罗杰·W·芬德利、欧内斯特·E·史密斯:《财产法:案例与材料》,齐东祥、陈刚译,中国政法大学出版社 2003 年版第 7 版,第 3 页。
3 参见上引《财产法:案例与材料》,第 35 页。
4 前引《创化论》,第 42 页。
5 参见【美】E·博登海默:《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版,第 282 页。
1 参见【德】黑格尔:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆 1982 年版,第 7 页。
2 【美】爱德华·S·考文:《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,三联书店 1996 年版,第 61 页。
3 参见前引《财产法:案例与材料》,第 1182 页。
4 参见【英】S.F.C.密尔松:《普通法的历史基础》,李显冬、高翔、刘智慧、马呈元译,中国大百科全书出版社 1999 年版,引言Ⅰ。
1 1900 年巴黎国际比较法大会上讨论确定的比较法的目的。参见冉昊著《英美财产法基本构造分析――从身份到契约,从契约到关系》,中国社会科学院博士论文打印稿,第 1 页。
2 【日】大木雅夫:《比较法》,范愉译,朱景文审校,法律出版社 1999 年版,第 124-125 页。
3 【德】弗里德里希·卡尔·冯·萨维尼:《论立法与法学的当代使命》,许章润译,中国法制出版社2001 年版,第 10 页。
4 参见前引《比较法》,第 242 页。
5 参见前引《比较法》,第 122 页。
6 【德】K.茨威格特,H.克茨:《比较法总论》,潘汉典,米健,高鸿钧,贺卫方译,贵州人民出版社 1992年版,第 428 页。
1 参见上引《比较法总论》,第 184 页。
2 参见李进之、王久华、李克宁、蒋丹宁著:《美国财产法》,法律出版社 1999 年版。
3 参见马新彦著:《美国财产法与判例研究》,法律出版社 2001 年版。
4 参见梅雪芹:《财产与政权――论约翰·洛克的财产观》,南京大学历史系博士论文打印稿。
5 【德】黑格尔:《逻辑学》(下卷),杨一之译,商务印书馆 1976 年版,第 450 页。
6 吕世伦著:《法理念探索》,法律出版社 2002 年版,序第 1-2 页。
1 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,序言Ⅴ。
2 【法】米歇尔福柯:《知识考古学》,谢强、马月译,生活读书新知三联书店 1998 年版,第 22 页。
1 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom 3 (1989). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1105.
2 Barthes,Roland, Mythologies,Vol.Ⅰ, Wendy Doninger trans.,University of Chicago Press,1991,pp.121-22,pp.452-56,pp.611-12.
3 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 3 页。
1 参见上引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 32 页。
2 Lucius Seneca,Naturales Quaestiones,Vol.Ⅱ,Thomas H. Corcoran trans.,Harvard University Press, 1972,pp.103-05.
3 Plato, Timaeus, in Plato: The Collected Dialogues ,Edith Hamilton & Huntington Cairns eds., Lane Cooper et al. trans., Princeton University Press,1971,p.1163.
4 Aristotle, Metaphysics, in The Basic Works of Aristotle (Richard McKeon ed., 1941). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1106.
5 R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957, p.4.
6 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,序言 xxi。
1 See supra note: Naturales Quaestiones, Vol.Ⅱ,at103-05.
2 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 24 页。
3 Aristotle, Metaphysics, in The Basic Works of Aristotle1130 (Richard McKeon ed., 1941). See supra note:Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1107.
4 参见《阿奎那政治著作选》,马清槐译,商务印书馆 1963 年版,第 88 页。
5 参见上引,《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 142 页。
1 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 201 页。
2 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom 24 (1989) (quoting 2 Tol'Doth, The Zohar (Harry Sperling & Maurice Simon trans., 1984)). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at 1110.
3 欧几里得,约公元前 3 世纪的古希腊数学家。
1 Alan W. Watts, Nature, Man and Woman 40-41 (1958). See supra note:Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1110.
1 参见 W.UUman,The Individual and Society in the Middle Ages ,London, 1967, p.32,p.40,p.42。转引自前引《个人主义》,第 44 页。
2 Alfred O'Rahilly, S. Thomas's Theory of Property , 7 Studies 337 (1920). See supra note:Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1108.
3 Paschal Larkin, Property in the Eighteenth Century 5 (1930). Id.at1108.
4 参见拙作《域外古代土地产权制度比较研究》,载何勤华主编《法律文化史研究》(第一卷),商务印书馆 2004 年版,第 317-318 页。
1 参见【美】约翰·H·威格摩尔:《世界法系概览》(下),何勤华、李秀清、郭光东等译,上海人民出版社 2004 年版,第 897 页。
2 See L B Curzon, English Legal History , Macdonald & Evans Ltd., 1979, p.18.
3 See A.W.B.Simpson, A History of the Land Law,Oxford: Clarendon Press, Second Edition, 1986, p.2.
4 参见《财产法:案例与材料》,第 3 页、第 187 页。
5 非自由保有人,即租赁地产保有人,是指在封建土地保有制下一度只能是不定期租户的隶农。在封建制度下,只有国王才能所有土地,而其他人只能从他那里取得土地的保有。所以,土地保有实际上是一种存在于领主和佃户之间的关系,分为自由保有和非自由保有。自由保有人享有对自由地产的法定世袭占有;非自由保有人只能是对租赁地产的单纯占有。这一区别是十分重要的,因为,最初只有自由地产保有人在其土地被强占时才可以提起恢复其保有的诉讼。参见【英】F·H·劳森、B·拉登:《财产法》,施天涛、梅慎实、孔祥俊译,中国大百科全书出版 1998 年版第 2 版,第 78 页、147 页。前引《财产法:案例与材料》,第 3 页、第 186 页。
1 彼拉多(Poutius Pilatus),罗马帝国驻犹太的总督(约 26——约 36 年)。据《新约全书》记载,耶稣由他判决钉死在十字架上。参见【美】罗斯科·庞德:《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,沈宗灵、董世忠译,杨昌裕、楼邦彦校,商务印书馆 1984 年版,第 20 页。
2 参见上引《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,第 20 页。
3 参见前引《个人主义》,第 45 页。
1 L. Ali Khan, The Extinction of Nation-States: A World Without Boundaries 25-26 (1996). See supra note:Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1111.
2 参见【英】西奥多·F·T·普拉克内特:《简明普通法史》(影印版),中信出版社 2003 年版第 5 版,第533 页。
1 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom41 (1989). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1111.
2 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 55-65 页。
3 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom44 (1989). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1112.
4 L. Ali Khan, The Extinction of Nation-States: A World Without Boundaries 25-26 (1996). Id.at1112.
5 Margaret Jacob, The Cultural Meaning of the Scientific Revolution 44-46 (1988). Id.at1112.
1 Paul Devereux, Earthmind: A Modern Adventure in Ancient Wisdom 2 (1989). Id.at1113.
2 Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method, reprinted in 1 The Philosophical Works of Descartes 81, 115. Id.at1113.
3 参见【英】罗素:《西方哲学史》(下卷),马元德译,商务印书馆 1976 年版,第 63 页、第 84 页。
4 江华骆通:《英美法通论》,群益书社 1909 年版,第 4 页。
5 参见【英】培根:《新工具》,许宝二译,商务印书馆 1984 年版,第 246 页。
6 参见【荷兰】斯宾诺莎:《笛卡儿哲学原理》,王荫庭、洪汉鼎译,商务印书馆 1980 年版,第 45 页。
7【英】索利:《英国哲学史》,段德智译,山东人民出版社 1992 年版,第 25 页。
1 Margaret Jacob, The Cultural Meaning of the Scientific Revolution 44-46 (1988). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1116.
1 Frederic William Maitland, The Forms of Action at Common Law 1 (reprint 1968) (1909). Id.at1117.
2 Cf. Elie Halevy, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism, Beacon Press, 1955, p.6.
3 【美】雅·布伦诺斯基:《科学进化史》,李斯译,海南出版社 2002 年版,第 220-67 页。
4 Curtin v. Benson, 222 U.S. 78, 86 (1911).
1 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 64 页。
2 参见前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 39 页。
3 【意】登特列夫:《自然法——法律哲学导论》,李日章译,台北联经出版事业公司 1984 年版,第 58 页。
4 E. DurKheim, Individualism and the Intellectuals’ (1898), tr. S. and J. Lukes, Political Studies, XVII(1969), p.99. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 68 页。
5 Contributions to Indian Sociology, No. VIII(October 1965), p.29.转引自前引《个人主义》,第69 页。
1 John W. Yolton, The Locke Reader 1-9 (1973). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at 1119.
2 参见《人类理解论》,第一篇,第三章,第二十二节,第 51 页。转引自【德】黑格尔:《哲学史讲演录》(第四卷),贺麟、王太庆译,商务印书馆 1978 年版,第 144 页。
3Neal Wood, The Politics of Locke's Philosophy: A Social Study of "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" 6-30 (1983). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1120.
1 Encyclopedia Britannica(15th edition), Vol. 12, 1977, p.863.
2 参见【美】施特劳斯和克罗波西主编《政治哲学史》(上),李天然等译,河北人民出版社 1993 年版,第 2 页。
3 Wolfgang Friedmann,Legal Theory, 5th ed. Stevens & Sons, Ltd.,1967, p.21.
1 参见【美】萨拜因:《政治学说史》(上册),盛葵阳、崔妙因译,商务印书馆 1986 年版,第 53 页。
2 参见【德】文德尔班:《哲学史教程》(上卷),罗达仁译,商务印书馆 1987 年版,第 105 页。
3 参见杨适著:《古希腊哲学探本》,商务印书馆 2003 年版,第 265 页。
4 参见【苏】涅尔谢相茨:《古希腊政治学说》,蔡拓译,商务印书馆 1991 年版,第 165 页。
5 【古希腊】亚里士多德:《政治学》,吴寿彭译,商务印书馆 1965 年版,第 138 页。
6 肘尺,古代的一种度量单位,约等于 17 或 20 英寸。
7 参见【荷】格劳秀斯:《战争与和平法》,【美】A·C·坎贝尔英译,何勤华等译,上海人民出版社 2005年版,第 130—31 页。
1 参见前引《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 141 页。
2 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 122 页。
3 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 138 页。
4 See Stephen Buckle, Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991, p.69. 该书正由笔者译出。
5 参见前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 17 页。
1 参见前引《政治学说史》(上册),第 204—205 页。
2 参见【古罗马】西塞罗:《论共和国 论法律》,王焕生译,中国政法大学出版社 1997 年版,第 190 页。
3 参见【古罗马】西塞罗:《论义务》,王焕生译,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版,第 195 页。
4 Cicero, De Legibus I, 10, 12—28, 33,转引自前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 9 页。
5 See H.Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), trans. F.W. Kelsey, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York: Oceana Publications, 1964, at II.2.ii.1.
6 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume , at13.
7 I Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory(1927)7—8,转引自前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 9 页。
1 Justinian’s Digest I. 5.4.转引自前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 17 页。
2 Dig. L. 17. 32.转引自前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 17 页。
3 I Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory(1927)47,转引自前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 10 页。
4 参见前引《论义务》,第 265 页。
5 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 130 页。
1 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 130 页。
2 参见前引《论义务》,第 271 页。
3 维吉尔,古罗马诗人。
4 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 132—133 页,第 137 页。
1 拉托娜,宙斯的情人。
2 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 133 页。
3 塞维鲁·图利乌斯,古罗马的埃特鲁斯王。
4 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 138—139 页。
1 参见【英】梅因:《古代法》,沈景一译,商务印书馆 1959 年版,第 139—142 页。
2 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 144 页。
3 参见前引《论义务》,第 239 页。
4 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 154—155 页。
1 Isidore, Etymologia (in Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. 82), BK, V, Ch4.转引自前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 28 页。
2 参见前引《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 141 页。
3 参见上引《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 141 页。
4 参见上引《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 141 页。
1 参见上引《阿奎那政治著作选》,第 142 页。
2 Gierke, Political Theories of Middle Ages (Maitland tr. 1922), pp.80-81,n.278,279; Gierke, Althusius (Zur deutschen Staats u. Reehts Geschichte 1879-80), pp. 270-71,n.18,19.转引自前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 14 页。
3 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法“背景》,第 21 页。
1 Figgis, Divine, Right of Kings (2d ed. 1914), pp.228-230.转引自前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 30 页。
2 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 20 页。
3 Fortescue, De Laudibus. Legum Angliae (Amos ed. 1825). pp.125-136,转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 31 页。
4 Id.at125-136.转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 31 页。
1 Id.at136-138.转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 31—32 页。
2 Hansard, Parliamentary History (1628),vol.2, 第 333 页。转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 25 页。
3 Adams, Origin of the English Constitution(1912), 第 282 页。转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 27 页。
1 Adams, Origin of the English Constitation (1912), 第 264 页。转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 27 页。
2 McIlwain, “Magna carta and Common Law” 载 Magna Carta Commemoration Essays (Malden ed. 1917)第 170-172 页。转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 27 页。
3 2 Hansard, Parliamentary History (1628) 327. 转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 55页。
4 2 Co. Inst. 45。转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 55 页。
5 8 Co. 107a(1610), I Brownl. 225(1610).
6 8 Co.118a (1610).
1 Semayne’s Case, 5 Co. 91(1605).
2 Henry Campbell Black, Black’ Law Dictionary, 5th ed. St. Paul Minn,.West Publishing Co 1979, p.1238.
3 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume ,at2.
4 参见前引《自然法――法律哲学导论》,第 47 页。
5 前引《战争与和平法》,第 32 页。
6 See Adam Mossoff, What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together, 2003 Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona Law Review, Summer 2003, p.379.
1 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 122 页。
2 此处“查士丁”应译为“贾斯廷”。
3 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 122 页。
4 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 123 页。
1 参见【荷】格劳秀斯:《海洋自由论》,宇川译,上海三联书店 2005 年版,第 228 页。
2 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at11.
3 D. Bigongiari, The Political Ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. English Dominican Fathers, ed.New York:Hafner Press,1953,pp.45-6.
1 Seneca, Epistle cxxiv.See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at25.
2 Seneca, Epistle, I. Cf. Id.at25.
3 Cicero, De Finibus, Ⅳ.ⅶ.16-17. Id.at26.
1 Cicero, De Finibus, Ⅳ.ⅶ.17. Id.at27.
1 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), Ⅰ.2.ⅰ.5.
2 Id.atⅠ.2.ⅰ.5.
1 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 150 页。
1 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625),at Ⅴ. 194.
2 C.B.Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962, pp.263-264.
3 【法】卢梭:《社会契约论》,何兆武译,商务印书馆 1980 年第 2 版,第 38 页。
1 F. Hutcheson, A System of Moral Philosophy(1755)(Hildesheim: Olms, 1969),ⅱ.224-5. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at33.
2 See K.Olivecrona, Law as Fact, London: Stevens ﹠Sons, 2nd ed., 1971, pp.275-296.
1 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 129-130 页。
2 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 132-140 页。
1 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 129 页。
2 Richard Tuck,Natural rights theories: their Origin and Development, Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp.79-80.
3 Id,at80.
4 Id,at80.
5 See supra note: The Political Ideas of St.Thomas Aquinas,at138.
6 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 129-130 页。
1 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 131 页。
2 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 132-137 页。
3 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 139-140 页。
4 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 154-155 页。
1 Id.at Ⅱ.2.ⅱ.Ⅰ.
1 Id.at Ⅱ.2.ⅱ.Ⅰ.
2 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 123-124 页。
3 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 124 页。
4 Gen. 9: 20 ff. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at39.
1 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 124 页。
2 参见上引《战争与和平法》,第 124 页。
3 Gen. 10: Ⅱ. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at39.
1 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 124-125 页。
2 Gen. 13. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at40.
1 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625),at Ⅱ.2.ⅱ.4.
2 Id.at Ⅱ.2.ⅱ.5.
1 参见前引《海洋自由论》,第 228 页。
2 参见上引《海洋自由论》,第 228 页。
3 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), at Ⅱ.2.ⅱ.Ⅰ.
1 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development,at71.
1 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 228 (G.L. Williams & W.H. Zeydel trans.,1964). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at380.
2 Id.at381.
3 Adam Mossoff, Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800, 52 Hastings Law Journal,2001,p.1255,pp.1281-83.
1 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 227. See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at382.
2 【英】休谟:《人性论》(1739-1740),(影印本)中国社会科学出版社 1999 年版,第 542-49 页。
3 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), at II.2.ii.5.
4 Id.at II.2.ii.5.
1 Id.at I.2.i.5.
2 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 322. See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at 383.
3 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development,at60.
4 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 227(G.L. Williams & W.H. Zeydel trans., 1964). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at384.
1 参见前引《海洋自由论》, 第 25-26 页。
2 参见上引《海洋自由论》, 第 27 页。
3 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 238(G.L. Williams & W.H. Zeydel trans.,1964). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at385.
4 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development,at86-87.
5 Aristotle, Rhetoric 1361a21-22 (W. Rhys Roberts trans., 1954). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at 391.
1 Alan Watson, The Law of the Ancient Romans 49-70 (1970). Id.at391.
2 William C. Morey, Outlines of Roman Law 282-83 (1884). Id.at392.
3 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), at II.2.ii.1.
4 Id.at II.6.i.1.
5 Barry Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law 154 (1962). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at 392.
6 George C. Christie, Jurisprudence: Text and Readings on the Philosophy of Law, St. Paul, Minn. West Publishing Co., 1973, p.160.
7 【日】寺田四郎:《国际法学界之七大家》,韩逋仙译,吴旭阳校,中国政法大学出版社 2003 年版,第188 页。
1 【美】但宁:《政治学说史》(中册),谢义伟译,神州国光社 1931 年版,第 254 页。
2 Christopher B. Gray, The Philosophy of Law: an Encyclopedia, Vol.2, Carland Publishing Inc., 1999, p.705.
3 Id.at 33-35.
4Elementa jurisprudentiae, transl. W. A. Oldfather(Oxford, 1931),Bk.Ⅱ,observ. ⅳ,4. 转引自前引《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》,第 44 页。
1 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at92.
2 S. Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),trans. C.H. and W. A. Oldfather(New York:Oceana Publications; London: Wildby and Sons, 1964),Ⅰ.Ⅰ.16. Id.at78.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.3. Id.at92.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.5. Id.at92.
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.3.6. Id.at92.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.2. Id.at93.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.2. Id.at93.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.3. Id.at94.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.3. Id.at94.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4. Id.at94.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.5. Id.at94.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.2. Id.at94.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.6. Id.at104.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.9. Id.at106.
2 塞缪尔·普芬道夫:《人和公民的义务》(影印本),J·塔利,M·希尔弗索恩编,中国政法大学出版社2003 年版,第 34 页。
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.7.See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at69.
4 马可·奥里利乌斯(公元 121-180):罗马皇帝兼斯多葛学派哲学家。
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.3.14. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at70.
2 Id.at70.
3 Id.at70.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.3.14. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at71.
1 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books Inc., 1974, p.33.
2 参见前引《人性论》(1739-40)(影印本),第 485 页。
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.3.15. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at72.
4 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625),at I.2.i.5.
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.3.15. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at72.
6 See R.Tuck, Hobbes, Oxford University Press, 1989, p.3.
7 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2.3. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at72.
8 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2.6. Id.at72.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2.3. Id.at72.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2.9. Id.at72.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2.4. Id.at73.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.3.15. Id.at73.
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅲ.3.Ⅰ. Id.at73.
6 De Officio, Ⅰ.8.Ⅰ. Id.at73.
7 【英】洛克:《政府论》(下篇),叶启芳,瞿菊农译,商务印书馆 1981 年版,第 6-7 页。
1 De Officio, Ⅱ.Ⅰ.9. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume , at76.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.5.1. Id.at77.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅷ.3.2. Id.at77.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅷ.3.2. Id.at78.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.3. Id.at78.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.3.Ⅰ. Id.at78.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.Ⅰ. Id.at108.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2. Id.at108.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.2. Id.at108.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.2. Id.at109.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅰ.6.18. Id.at111.
2 E.Kamenka, Maxrism and Politics, 10 Bulletin of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy, 1986,March,p.20.
3 See e.g. De Officio,Ⅰ.3.7. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at112.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.2. Id.at112.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅲ.7.Ⅰ. Id.at112.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.3. Id.at112.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.2. Id.at113.
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.2. Id.at113.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.2. Id.at114.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.5. Id.at114.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.2. Id.at115.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.5. Id.at115.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.6. Id.at116.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.6. Id.at116.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅱ.6.6. Id.at117.
1 See John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971, pp.152-153.同时参见【美】约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》,何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白译,中国社会科学出版社 1988 年版,第 14 页、第 81 页。
2 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 27-28 页。
3 D.Hume, “Of Commerce”, in Essays Moral, Political, and Literary, ed. T.H. Green and T. H.Grose(London,1882), ⅰ.295. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at122.
4 “Of Refinement in the Arts”, ibid. ⅰ.300. Id.at122.
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅴ.Ⅰ.Ⅱ. Id.at122.
6 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),4. Id.at122.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅰ. Id.at123.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),12. Id.at123.
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),13. Id.at123.
4 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 24-25 页。
5 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅴ.Ⅰ.9. Id.at123.
6 John Dunn, Justice and the Interpretation of Locke’s Political Theory, 16 Political Studies, 1968,pp.68-87.
1 John Locke Critical Assessments, Edited by Richard Ashcraft, Vol.Ⅲ, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1991, p.328.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.6.See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at100.
2 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),8. Id.at100.
3 参见前引《战争与和平法》,第 124 页。
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),Ⅳ.4.6. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at101.
2 See supra note: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, at174.
3 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at95.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672),13.See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at101.
2 参见前引《海洋自由论》,第 2 页。
3 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672), Ⅳ.4.1.See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at102.
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672), Ⅳ.4.6. Id.at102.
1 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672), Ⅳ.4.6. Id.at103.
2 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 21 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 21 页。
4 De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo(1672), Ⅳ.4.6. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume,at104.
1 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development, at547.
1 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development,at16.
2 参见前引《人和公民的义务》(影印本),第 85 页。
3 J. Locke, Essays on the Law of Nature, ed. W. von Leyden, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954, p.125.
4 J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government(1690), 2nd ed., ed. P. Laslett, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967, p.74, p.137, p.142.
5 参见前引《政治学说史》(中册),第 288 页。
1 【美】施特劳斯:《自然权利与历史》,彭刚译,三联书店 2003 年版,第 121 页。
2 John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government: New Interpretation, ed. Edward J. Harpham, University Press of Kansas, 1992, p.3.
3 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
4 参见前引《政治学说史》(中册),第 589 页。
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
2 参见前引《政府论》(上篇),第 25 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(上篇),第 20-21 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(上篇),第 24-25 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(上篇),第 35 页。
3 See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690),ⅱ27.
4 See Sukhninder Panesar, General Principles of Property Law ,? Pearson Education Limited 2001, p. 31.该书正由笔者译出。
5 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 53 页。
6 See J.Tully, A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980, pp.60-61.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
2 Grotius on the Freedom of the Seas, trans. R. V. D. Magoffin, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York: Oxford University, Press, 1916, p.24.
3 See supra note: De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), at II.17.ii.1.
4 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 6 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 16 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
3 对财产权概念被理解为“一束”权利,See e.g. L. Becker, Property Rights: Philosophic Foundations, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977.
4 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 18-19 页。
1 See supra note: Grotius on the Freedom of the Seas,at25.
2 Karl Olivecrona, Appropriation in the State of Nature: Locke on the Origin of Property, 35 Journal of the History of Ideas,1974, pp.221-230.
3 T.Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C. B. Macpherson, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968, ch. 15.
4 Id.at ch.30.
5 J. Locke, An Essay concerning Human Understanding(1690), ed. P. H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979, Ⅳ.3.18n.
1 See supra note: Appropriation in the State of Nature: Locke on the Origin of Property, at219.
2 See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690), introd. at101-102.
3 See supra note: An Essay concerning Human Understanding(1690), Ⅳ.3.18n.
4 See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690), introd.
5 See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690), ⅱ.37.
6 See Laslett’s editorial footnote, See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690), ⅱ.27.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
2 上引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 20 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 20-21 页。
4 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 21-22 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 22-23 页。
2 See supra note: A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries, at135-145.
3 See supra note: Essays on the Law of Nature, at211.
1 得文郡(Devonshire),英格兰西南部的一个郡名。
2 前引《政府论》(下篇),第 25 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 27 页。
4 See Gen. 3: 17-19. See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at151..
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 28-29 页。
2 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume, at152.
3 See supra note: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, at174-175.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19-25 页。
2 参见前引《政府论》(上篇),第 36 页。
3 前引《政府论》(下篇),第 21 页。
1 A. Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence, ed. R. L. Meek, D.D. Raphael, and P.G. Stein, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978, p.254.
2 Id.at255.
3 Id.at245.
4 Id.at245,258.
1 See supra note:Anarchy, State, and Utopia, at174-182.
2 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
3 J. Waldron, The Right to Private Property, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988, pp.207-218.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 22 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 30 页。
1 参见前引《政府论》(上篇),第 36 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(上篇),第 36 页。
3 See supra note: Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume , at160.
4 See supra note: Essays on the Law of Nature, at195.
1 参见前引《政府论》(上篇),第 74-75 页。
2 See I. Hont and M. Ignatieff, Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.41.
1 See R. W. Grant, John Locke’s Liberalism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp.66-83.
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
4 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 18 页。
2 参见前引《政府论》(上篇),第 25 页。
3 See supra note: A Treatise of Human Nature, at542-549.
4 See supra note: A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries,at61.
5 See supra note: Two Treatises of Government(1690), at271.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
2 See supra note: The Right to Private Property, at178-181.
3 See supra note: Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development, at60.
4 See supra note: Two Treatises of Government(1690), at287.
5 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
6 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 20 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 77 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 77 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 82 页。
4 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 83 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 86 页。
2 See generally John Locke, Questions Concerning the Law of Nature 251 (Robert Horwitz et al. trans. & eds., 1990). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together, at392.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 53 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 77 页。
3 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Praedae Commentarius 228 (G.L. Williams & W.H. Zeydel trans., 1964). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together, at 401.
4 Laura S. Underkuffler, On Property: An Essay, 100 Yale Law Journal,1990,p.127,p.136.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 20 页。
2 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19-20 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
4 See Richard A. Epstein, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, Harvard University Press, 1985, p.16.
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 22-23 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 25 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 28 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 29 页。
3 马歇尔认为:“让美国土著人占有这个国家,就是让这个国家变成一片荒地”。Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 590 (1823).
4 Myrl L. Duncan, High Noon on the Ogallala Aquifer: Agriculture Does Not Live by Farmland Preservation Alone, 27 Washburn Law Journal,1987,p.16,p.48.
5 See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1031 (citing Curtin v. Benson, 222 U.S. 78, 86 (1911)).
1 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 21 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 24 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 24 页。
4 这种“伦理观”的现代表述,通常可参见唐奈勒 H· 梅多斯,丹尼斯·梅多斯,约恩·兰德斯:《超越极限:正视全球性崩溃,展望可持续的未来》,上海译文出版社 2001 年版。
5 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 24 页。
6 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 31 页。
1 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 31 页。
2 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 32 页。
3 参见上引《政府论》(下篇),第 31 页。
1 See William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766),The University of Chicago Press, 1979, Introduction to Book Ⅱ, Iv. 王铁雄译,打印稿,待由上海人民出版社出版,原文简介 IV。
2 See generally William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),The University of Chicago Press, 1979, pp.1-115.
3 Id.at38. 此处“自然法”定义的译文借鉴何勤华:《布莱克斯通与英美法律近代化》,载《法律科学》,1996 年第 6 期。
1 麦克伊:《第三种理论》(中译文),《法学译丛》,1985 年第 3 期,第一页。转引自张文显著:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版社 1996 年版。第 39 页。
2 See Miller, The Life of The Mind in America, From The Revolution to The Civil War, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1965, p.224.
3 Id.at224.
4 参见【奥】凯尔森:《法与国家的一般理论》,沈宗灵译,中国大百科全书出版社 1996 年版,第 493 页。
5 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766), Introduction to BookⅡ,atⅤ.
6 Nathaniel Chipman,Principles of Government: A Treatise on Free Institutions 78 (1793). See Robert P. Burns, Blackstone's Theory of the "Absolute" Rights of Property,54 University of Cincinnati Law Review, 1985, p.68.
1 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765), at38.
2 Id.at38-39.
3 Id.at39.
4 Id.at39-40 (emphasis added).
5 Id.at40.
6 Id.at40.
7 Id.at40.
8 Id.at40.
1 Id.at44.
2 Id.at122-24.
3 Id.at124.
4 Id.at124.
5 Id.at125.
6 Id.at125.
7 Id.at125.
8 Id.at127.
9 Id.at127-28.
10 Id.at129.
11 Id.at129.
12 Id.at129
1 Id.at121-45
2 Id.at133-34.
3 See Id.at134-35.
4 See Id.at134-35.
5 Id.at138.
6 Id.at138.
7 Id.at138-39.
8 See supra note:The Life of The Mind in America, From The Revolution to The Civil War, at224.
1 Id.at139.
2 Id.at139.(emphasis added).
3 Id.at139.
4 Id.at139.
5 Id.at139.(emphasis added).
6 Id.at140.
7 Id.at140.
8 Id.at140.
9 Id.at140.
10 Blackstone, Commentaries Ⅱ:Ⅰ. See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766), Introduction to BookⅡ,atⅢ.
1 Id.atⅢ.
2 Id.at2.
3 Carol M. Rose, Canons of Property Talk, or, Blackstone's Anxiety, Yale Law Journal, December 1998,p.601.
4 See James Madison, Property, Nat'l Gazette, Mar. 27, 1792, reprinted in 14 The Papers of James Madison 266 (Robert A. Rutland et al. eds., 1983). Id.at602.
5 Margaret Jane Radin, Reinterpreting Property 131 (1993). Id.at602.
6 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766),at2.
1 Id.at2.
2 Id.at2.
3 Gen, Ⅰ.28. Id.at2-3.
4 Id.at3.
5 Justin,Ⅰ.43.c.Ⅰ.Id.at3.
1 Id.at3.
2 Id.at8.
3 Id.at8.
4 Id.at4.
1 Id.at5.
1 Gen.21.30. Id.at5.
2 Gen.26.15.18. Id.at6.
3 Gen. c. 13. Id.at6.
1 Id.at7.
2 Id.at8.
1 Id.at9.
1 Id.at9.
2 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766),at2.
3 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),at38.
4 Thomas W. Merrill, Property and the Right to Exclude, 77 Nebraska Law Review,1998,p.734,p.736.
1 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),at135.
1 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766),at8.
2 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),at135.
3 Id.at1-115.
4 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766),at9.
5 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),at135.
1 See William C. Morey, Outlines of Roman Law 282-83 (1884). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at400.
2 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766),at8.
3 Samuel Pufendorf, On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law(James Tully ed., Michael Silverthorne trans., 1991) (1673). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at400.
1 【美】因斯蒂图特:《美国法律整编》(第四册,财产法),法治斌译,司法周刊杂志社 1987 年版,第 3页。
2 【日】高柳贤三:《英美法源理论》,杨磊、黎晓译,林向荣校,西南政法学院法制史教研室科研处编译室 1983 年编译,第 124 页。
3 Lawrence M .Friedman, A history of American Law, 2nd ed. Simon and Schuster, Inc. 1985. p59.
1 Land Law and Real Property in American History, Edited by Kermit L.Hall, Garland Publishing ,Inc., 1987.IX.该书正由笔者译出。
2 参见前引《比较法总论》,第 430 页。
3 【台】丘宏达,杨崇森,陈长文著:《法律学》,台湾学生书局 1973 年版,第 155 页。
4 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, at16,29.
1 See Walton H. Hamilton, Property--According to Locke,41Yale Law Journal,1932,p.873.
2 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 75 页。
3 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 78 页。
4 MacDonald, Documentary Source Book, p.43.转引自上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 78 页。
1 Warren, History of the American Bar,(1911)第 2-8 章;参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 80 页。
2 10 Adams, Life and Works 275. 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 81 页。
3 这本小册子的出版日期为 1765 年。亚当斯在《生平与著作》(卷十,第 293 页)中对它的概括就是对洛克《政府论》(下篇)第十一章的概括。在奥提斯的《为众议院辩护》(1762)中,洛克被描写为“有生以来最智慧……最诚实……最公正的人……他作为为英国争光的伟人……连英国教会也不得不予以称颂。” 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 81 页。
4 Adams, Life and Works, 卷三,第 448—464 页,尤其是第 449 页,463 页。参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 82 页。
1 MacDonald, Documentary Source Book 146-50.参阅 Vattel, Law of Nations (London tr. 1797)卷一,第 3 章,第 34 节。立法机关和君主服从于宪法是这一章和下一章讨论的主题。这部著作首次出现于 1758年。参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 83 页。
2 Adams, Life and Works 248. 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 80 页。
3 参见前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 56 页。
4 See supra note: Property-- According to Locke. at783.
5 参见前引《美国法律整编》(第四册,财产法),第 5 页。
6 【美】纳尔逊·曼弗雷德·布莱克:《美国社会生活与思想史》(上册),许季鸿译,商务印书馆 1994 年版,第 196 页。
7 参见前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 58 页。
1 See supra note: Legal Theory, 5th ed.at136-151.
2 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766), at18.
3 参见【美】罗斯科·庞德:《普通法的精神》,唐前宏、廖湘文、高雪原译,夏登峻校,法律出版社 2001年版,第 104 页。
4 参见前引《美国法律整编》(第四册,财产法),第 12 页。
5 See Sir William Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol.Ⅺ, Methuen & Co Ltd and Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, Third Impression, 1977, p.277.
6 参见前引《普通法的精神》,第 67 页。
1 Warren, History of the American Bar 178. 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 88 页。
2 11 Jefferson, Writings (Mem. Ed. 1903)iv. 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 88 页。
3 参见上引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 88 页。
4 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765), at125-126.
5 Id.at127-29.
1 See supra note:What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at378.
2 James Madison, Property, Nat'l Gazette, Mar. 5, 1792, reprinted in James Madison, The Mind of the Founder186 (Marvin Meyer ed., 1981)(emphasis added). Id.at377.
3 See Thomas Jefferson, The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson , Adrienne Koch & William Peden eds., Modern Library, 1972, p.577.
4 James Madison, Property, Nat'l Gazette, Mar. 5, 1792, reprinted in JamesMadison, The Mind of the Founder186(Marvin Meyer ed., 1981) (emphasis added). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at401.
1 Id.at401.
2 Id.at401.
3 See supra note: The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson,at296.
4 参见《普通法的精神》,第 25 页。
5 See supra note: Property-- According to Locke,at873-874.
1 20 Wall. 655, at 662-663, 22L. Ed. 455,at 461(1875).
2 参见前引《法理学 法律哲学与法律方法》,第 58 页。
3 See supra note:A History of English Law, Vol.Ⅺ, at278.
4 Id.at290.
5 参见前引《美国法律整编》(第四册,财产法),第 14 页。
1 参见【美】莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社 2004年版,第 40-42 页。
2【英】吉米·边沁:《立法理论》,李贵芳等译,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年版,第 177 页。
3【英】边沁:《道德与立法原理导论》,时殷弘译,商务印书馆 2000 年版,第 81 页。
4 See supra note: General Principles of Property Law, at35.
5 参见【美】伯纳德·施瓦茨:《美国法律史》,王军等译,中国政法大学出版社 1990 年版,第 23 页。
6 参见上引《美国法律史》,第 98 页。
7 参见前引《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,第 71 页。
1 参见上引《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),前言第 7 页。
2 参见上引《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),第 43-44 页。
3 See F. Bohlen, “The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher,” 59 U. Pa. L. Rev. 298 (1911). 参见上引《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),第 44 页。
4 参见上引《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),第 45 页。
1 “马基雅维里之手”:马基雅维里,意大利政治家兼历史学家,“马基雅维里之手”是指为达到目的而不择手段。
1 伊利:《财产、契约与财富分配的关系》,第 1 卷,第 105 页。转引自前引《美国法律史》,第 143 页。
2 沃纳:《论美国行政法》第 1 卷,第 4 节(1889 年)。转引自上引《美国法律史》,第 143 页。
3 同上书,第 3 节(1889 年)。转引自上引《美国法律史》,第 143 页。
4 伊利:前引书,第 614 页。转引自上引《美国法律史》,第 144 页。
5 参见上引《美国法律史》,第 145 页。
1 参见上引《美国法律史》,第 145 页。
2 参见前引《普通法的精神》,第 35 页。
3 Nolan, Sir William Blackstone and the New American Republic: A Study of Intellectual Impact, 51New York University Law Review,1976,pp.767-68.
1 See supra note: Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766),at9.
2 See, e.g., 2 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law 255-76 (1826). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at404.
3 See, e.g., 2 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law 256-258 (1826). Id.at404.
4 Id.at405.
1 Carol M. Rose, Possession as the Origin of Property, 52 University of Chicago Law Review,1985,p.73.
2 Thomas Rutherforth, Institutes of Natural Law 34-35 (American 2d ed.,(1832). Id.at405.
3 See Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E.Smith, Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle, 110 Yale Law Journal, 2000, p.37.
4 Stephen Martin Leake, Law of Property in Land 2 (1874). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together, at405.
5 McKeon v. Bisbee, 9 Cal. 137, 142 (1858).
6 Young v. McKenzie, 3 Ga. 31 (1847).
7 See, e.g., 2 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law 256-258 (1826). See supra note: What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together,at407.
8 See Joan E. Schaffner, Patent Preemption Unlocked, Wisconsin Law Review, 1995, pp.1099-1103.
1 Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 65-66 (1979).
2 William Michael Treanor, The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, 94 Yale Law Journal, 1985, p.694.
3 Eaton v. Boston C. & M. R.R., 51 N.H. 504 (1872).
4 Id.at506.
5 Id.at510-11.
6 Id.at511.
1 Id.at511-12.
2 See supra note: The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment,at812.
3 Eaton v. Boston C. & M. R.R., 51 N.H. 504, 513 (1872).
4 Id.at516.
5 See March v. Portsmouth & Concord R.R., 19 N.H. 372 (1849).
1 Id.at380.
2 Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford & New Haven R.R. Co., 17 Conn. 40, 60 (1845).
3 Id.at62.
4 See William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅲ, of Private Wrongs(1767),The University of Chicago Press, 1979, p.219.
5 See City of Pekin v. Brereton, 67 Ill. 477, 480 (1873)。
6 41 Ill. 502 (1866).
1 Id.at510.
2 Id.at510-511..
3 Id.at511-512.
4 See Rhodes v. City of Cleveland, 10 Ohio 159 (1840).
5 Id.at161.
6 McCombs v. Town Council of Akron, 15 Ohio 474, 480 (1846).
1 8 Ohio St. 333, 346 (1858).
2 Id.at 347.
3 See supra note:Possession as the Origin of Property,at73.
4 Louisville v. Louisville Rolling Mill Co., 66 Ky. (3 Bush) 416, 430 (1867).
5 Id.at429.
6 Id.at 427.
7 Id.at 429.
8 Id.at 429.
1 Perry v. City of Worcester, 72 Mass. 544 (1856).
2 Id.at 547.
3 103 Mass. 10 (1869).
4 Id.at 11.
5 Id.at 14.
6 See Perry, 72 Mass.at 265-266.
1 Pumpelly v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 166, 177 (1871).
2 Id.at177.
3 Id.at 177-178.
4 Id.at 180-181.
5 See also Pettigrew v. Village of Evansville, 25 Wis. 223, 237-238 (1870).
6 2 Johns. Ch. 162 (N.Y. Ch. 1816).
7 Gardner, 2 Johns. Ch. at165.
1 Pumpelly v. Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co., 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 166, 179(1871).
2 Gardner, 2 Johns. Ch. at165.
3 See supra note: The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, at792.
1 参见前引《美国法律史》,第 24 页。
2 【古罗马】优士丁尼:《法学阶梯》,徐国栋译,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版,第 11 页。
1 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1133.
2 William J. Novak, Intellectual Origins of the State Police Power: The Common Law Vision of a Well-Regulated Society 108 (1989). Id. at1139.
3 Huntington, American Politics the Promise of Disharmany, Harvard University Press, 1981,p.16.转引自《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,第 30 页。
4 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1133.
1 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 64-65 (1973). Id. at1134.
2 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 65-66 (1973). Id. at1134.
3 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 66 (1973). Id. at1134.
4 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 66 (1973). Id. at1134.
5 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 66-68 (1973). Id.at1134.
6 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 69-75 (1973). Id.at1134.
7 See Sir William Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol.IV, Methuen & Co Ltd and Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, Third Impression 1977, p.316.
8 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 77 (1973).See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1134.
1 Id. at1135.
2 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 82(1973). Id. at1135.
3 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 82(1973). Id. at1135.
4 John F. Hart, Colonial Land Use and Its Significance for Modern Takings Doctrine, 109 Harvard Law Review, 1996, p.1252, pp.1259-1273.
5 Fred Bosselman et al., The Takings Issue: An Analysis of the Constitutional Limits of Land Use Control 83(1973). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1135.
6 William Michael Treanor, The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, 95 Columbia Law Review, 1995, p.782, p.789.
1 See supra note:Colonial Land Use and Its Significance for Modern Takings Doctrine, at1252, at1273-1281.
2 See supra note: The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment,at694,at697 n.9.
3 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at787.
4 Lindsay v. Commissioners, 2 S.C.L. (2 Bay) 38, 53 (1796).
5 Lindsay v. Commissioners, 2 S.C.L. (2 Bay) 50 (1796).
6 Lindsay v. Commissioners, 2 S.C.L. (2 Bay) 57 (1796).
7 See supra note: The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, at695.
8 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at788.
9 Id.at787.
10 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
1 Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
2 参见【英】舒马赫:《小是美好的》,虞鸿均、郑关林译,商务印书馆 1984 年版,第 200-209。
3 Harry N. Scheiber, Law and the Imperatives of Progress: Private Rights and Public Values in American Legal History, 24 Nomos,1982,p.303,p.306.
4 【美】托马斯·杰斐逊:《杰斐逊选集》,朱曾汶译,商务印书馆 1999 年版,第 327 页。
5 刘祚昌著:《杰斐逊》,中国社会科学出版社 1996 年版,第 343 页。
6 【美】帕灵顿、沃浓·路易:《美国思想史:1620-1920》,陈永国、李增、郭乙瑶译,吉林人民出版社2002 年版,第 300 页。
1 See Louis Hartz,with an introduction by Tom Wicker, The Liberal Tradition in America:an interpretation of American political thought since the Revolution, New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991,p.140.
2 See Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution , New York:Alfred A. knopf, 1992.另参见【美】路易斯·哈茨:《美国自由主义传统:独立革命以来美国政治思想阐释》,张敏谦译,金灿荣校,中国社会科学出版 2003 年版。
3 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1138.
4 Gordon S .Wood , the Creation of the American Republic, 1776—1787(1969).See Land Law and Real Property in American History, Edited by Kermit L Hall, Garland Publishing, Inc. 1987, p.268.该书正由笔者译出。
5 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1138.
6 Lance Banning, Jeffersonian Ideology Revisited: Liberal and Classical Ideas in the New American Republic, 43 The William and Mary Quarterly,1986,p.3,p.12.
7 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1138.
8 James T. Kloppenberg, The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism, and Ethics in Early American Political Discourse, 74 The Journal of American History ,1987,p.9, pp.22-23, pp.28-30 .
9 See supra note:The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at823.
1 Isaac Kramnick, The "Great National Discussion": The Discourse of Politics in 1787, 45 The William and Mary Quarterly,1988, p.4.
2 See supra note:Jeffersonian Ideology Revisited: Liberal and Classical Ideas in the New American Republic, at3-4.
3 See supra note:The "Great National Discussion": The Discourse of Politics in 1787, at15-16.
4 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1139.
5 Benjamin Franklin, Queries and Remarks Respecting Alterations in the Constitution of Pennsylvania (1789), in 10 The Writings of Benjamin Franklin 54, 59 (Albert H. Smyth ed., 1907).Id.at1139.
6 Jennifer Nedelsky, Private Property and the Limits of American Constitutionalism 181 (1990). Id.at1139.
7 Jennifer Nedelsky, Private Property and the Limits of American Constitutionalism 181 (1990). Id.at1139.
8 See James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton,edited by Terence Ball, the Federalist No.
10, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p.82.
9 Id.at82-83.
10 Id.at83.
1 See supra note:The "Great National Discussion": The Discourse of Politics in 1787, at14.
2 See supra note:The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at849 .
3 Drew McCoy, The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America 68 (1980). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1140.
4 Id. at1140.
5 See supra note: The Liberal Tradition in America: an an interpretation of American political thought since the Revolution, at140.
6 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1031 n.15.
7 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at 825-855.
8 Carol M. Rose, Rethinking Environmental Controls: Management Strategies for Common Resources,
1 Duke Law Journey, 1991, pp.29-38.
9 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, 1995, p.842.
1 See supra note: the Federalist No.10,at80.
2.See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1141.
3 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at837..
4 Id.at837-840.
5 Daniel T. Rodgers, Republicanism: The Career of a Concept, 79 The Journal of American History, 1992, pp.9-20.
1 William Novak, Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America, 45 Hastings Law Journal, 1994, p.1069.
2 Harry N. Scheiber, Public Rights and the Rule of Law in American Legal History, 72 California Law Review, 1984, p.219.
3 See supra note:Two Treatises of Government(1690), at 123.
4 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1143.
5 The Works of James Wilson,Vol.1, Robert Green McCloskey ed., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967, p.227.
6 Id.at227.
7 Id.at229.
8 Id.at233-234.
1 Nathaniel Chipman, Sketches of the Principles of Government, reprinted in The Legal Mind in America: From Independence to the Civil War 21, 26 (Perry Miller ed., 1962). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1143.
2 Id.at1143.
3 Id.at1144.
4 Id.at1144.
5 See George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Henry Holt and company, Inc., 1937, pp.247-251.
6 John Taylor, Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated(1820), Leonard W. Levy ed.,Da Capo Press,1970, p.29.
7 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1144.
8 James Willard Hurst, Justice Holmes on Legal History 55 (1964). Id. at1144.
1 See supra note: Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America,at1072-73.
2 See Lawrence M Friedman , Harry N Scheiber, American law and the constitutional order : historical perspectives, Harvard University Press, 1988, p.327.
3 See supra note: Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America,at1073-80.
4 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1146.
5 Id. at1148.
6 参见前引《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,第 24 页。
1 参见前引《美国法律史》,第 45 页。
2 显然,在布朗诉马里兰州案中,第一次使用了这一措词。
3 科温:“内战前法律的正当程序的理论”,载于《哈佛法律评论》第 24 期,第 460,461 页(1911 年)。转引自前引《美国法律史》,第 46 页。
4 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 (1837).
1 See supra note: Land Law and Real Property in American History, atIX.
2 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1146.
3 Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law 106 (1938 ed.). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1145.
4 Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law 106 (1938 ed.). Id.at1145.
5 Leonard Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw (1957). Id.at1145.
1 Leonard Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw 306 (1957). Id.at1146.
2 Leonard Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw 306 (1957). Id.at1146.
3 Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow. 349, 351-52 (N.Y. 1827).
4 Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow. 352 (N.Y. 1827).
5 Leonard Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw (1957). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1147.
6 Id.at1147.
7 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 55 (1846).
1 Henry Campbell Black, Black’ Law Dictionary, 5th ed. St. Paul Minn,.West Publishing Co 1979, p.1238.
2 Leonard Levy, The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw (1957).at246-47. See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1147.
3 52 Mass. (11 Met.) at 57-58.
4 52 Mass. (11 Met.) at 56, 59.
5 See supra note: Public Rights and the Rule of Law in American Legal History,at224.
6 Id.at224.
7 See supra note: A Discourse on Property: John Locke and His Adversaries,at61.
1 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53 (1851).
2 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 58-59, 63.
3 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 81-83, 90-94.
4 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 83,94.
5 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 83.
6 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 104.
7 See supra note: Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America,at2.
8 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 94-95.
1 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) at 84-85.
2 See supra note: Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America,at59.
3 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 85 (1851).
4 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 85 (1851).
1 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 96,104(1851).
2 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.)102-103 (1851).
3 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 102 (1851).
1 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1152.
2 83 U.S. 36 (1873).
3 94 U.S. 113 (1877).
4 123 U.S. 623 (1887).
5 123 U.S. 668-669 (1887).
6 123 U.S. 444(1887).
7 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
8 Miller v. Board of Public Works, 234 p. 381, 383-84 (Cal. 1925).
9 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
10 94 U.S. 113, 126 (1877).
11 Richard F. Babcock & Duane A. Fuerer, Land as a Commodity "Affected with a Public Interest,"
52 Washington Law Review,1977,p.289,pp.299-313.
12 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
13 438 U.S. 134 (1978).
14 36 U.S. (11 Pet.)548 (1837).
15 Eric T. Freyfogle, The Owning and Taking of Sensitive Lands, The Regents of the University of California 1995,43 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,1995,p.77,pp.101-07.p.123.
1 See John C. Esposito, Vanishing Air: The Ralph Nader Study Group on Air Pollution (1970). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1127.
2 Wendell Berry, Two Economies, in Home Economics 64 (1987). Id.at1127.
3 See Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, Hamish Hamilton Inc., 1962, pp.21-3.
4 Edward O. Wilson, The Current State of Biological Diversity, in Biodiversity 3 (Edward O. Wilson ed., 1988), See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1128.
1 Jared Diamond, Playing Dice with Megadeath, Discover, April, 1990, p.55.
2 United Nations Envtl. Programme, The Impact of Ozone-Layer Depletion 1-3 (1992). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1128.at1128.
3 Arnold Newman, Tropical Rainforest 148 (1990). Id.at1128.
4 Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 (1994).
5 See Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, Vintage Books,1994, pp.261-82.
1 See Daniel B. Botkin, Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press, 1990, pp.148-150.
2 Eugene P. Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology 34-36 (3d ed. 1971). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1130.
3 赫拉克利特,公元前五世纪的希腊哲学家。
4 See supra note: Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century, at151.
5 参见【美】沃斯特:《自然的经济体系:生态思想史》,侯文惠译,商务印书馆 1999 年版,第 152-154页。
6 See A.G. Huntsman, Method in Ecology-Ectology, 43 Ecology, 1962, p.552,pp.553-54.
1 National Academy of Sciences, Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries 36-41 (1995). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1131.
2 See Terry W. Farzier, Property Ecological Integrity Within The Balancing Function of Property Law, Environmental Law Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College,Spring 1998, p.110.
1 See Radhika Rao, Property, Privacy, and The Human Body, Trustees of Boston University Law Review April 2000, p.431.
2 See Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1992, p.128.该书正由笔者译出。
3 Id.at221.
4 Id.at129.
5 Id.at219.
6 See J.E. Penner, The "Bundle of Rights" Picture of Property, The Regents of the University of California 1996,University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February 1996, p.744.
7 See Sukhninder Panesar, General Principles of Property Law , Pearson Education Limited, 2001, p.17.该书正由笔者译出。
1 See supra note:The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960, at219.
2 参见前引《普通法的精神》,第 130 页。
3 See supra note:The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960, at190.
4 参见前引《美国法律史》,第 213-216 页。
5 Pound, The Law of Property and Recent Juristic Thought, 25 A.B.A. J. 993, 997 (1939). See John Edward Cribbet, Concepts In Transition the Search For A New Definition of Property, The University of Illinois University of Illinois Law Review, 1986, p.6.
6 Joseph William Singer, Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices 56 (2d ed. 1997). See JoanWilliams, The Rhetoric of Property, 83Iowa Law Review,January, 1998, p.296.
1 Felix Cohen, Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach, 35 Columbia Law Review,1935,p.820.
2 See Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning [c1919], Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2001, p.710.
3 Joseph William Singer & Jack M. Beermann, The Social Origins of Property, 6 Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence,1993 pp.242-48.
4 Joseph William Singer, No Right to Exclude: Public Accommodations and Private Property, 90Northwestern University Law Review, 1996, p.1454.
1 反占有(adverse possession):又译为时效占有,是指一个不拥有任何财产权利的人公开和众所周知地占有一块土地,并满足了当地法律规定的占有时间之后,占有人就获得了该土地的所有权。参见前引《美国财产法》,第 75 页。
2 Joseph W. Singer, Property and Social Relations: From Title to Entitlement, in Property on the Threshold of the 21st Century 69. See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at297.
3 终生所有权(Life Estate)是指土地所有权为受让土地所有权的权利人终生享有,权利人本人死亡,所有权终止;将来所有权(Future Interests)是指权利人无权现实占有标的物,待将来条件成就时方可取得标的物占有权的一种所有权。将来所有权的权利本身是一种现实的权利,只是所有权中的占有权是未来的权利――权利人无权现实占有标的物,将来取得对标的物的占有权。在当代英美法中,这两种财产权是英美财产法区别于大陆法系的重要标志,也是遗嘱及遗产安排法律中的焦点。参见前引《美国财产法与判例研究》,第 58 页、第 71 页;前引《美国财产法》,第 73 页。
4 See Joseph William Singer, Case Four: Choice of Law Theory, 29 New England Law Review,1995,p.669,p.692; Joseph William Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 California Law Review,1988,p.465; Joseph William Singer, The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld, Wiscinsin Law Review, 1982,p.975,pp.978-79; Joseph William Singer, Persuasion, 87 Michigan Law Review,1989,p.2442; Joseph W. Singer, Property and Coercion in Federal Indian Law: The Conflict Between Critical and Complacent Pragmatism, 63 Southern California Law Review,1990,p.1821,p.1841; Joseph W. Singer, Publicity Rights and the Conflict of Laws: Tribunal Court Jurisdiction in the Crazy Horse Case, 41 South Dakota Law Review,1996,p.1,p.43; Joseph W. Singer, The Reliance Interest in Property, 40 Stanford Law Review,1988,p.611,p.751; Joseph W. Singer, Re-Reading Property, 26 New England Law Review,1992, p.711, p.729; Joseph William Singer, Sovereignty and Property, 86 Northwestern University Law Review,1991,p.1; Joseph W. Singer, Well Settled? The Increasing Weight of History in American Indian Land Claims, 28 Georgia Law Review, 1994,p.481,p.532.
1 Thomas C. Grey, The Disintegration of Property (citing Bruce Ackerman, Private Property and the Constitution 97-100, 113-67 (1977)), See Property, J. Roland Pennock & John W. Chapman eds., 22 Nomos,1980,p.69.
2 Joan C. Williams, At the Fusion of Horizons: Incommensurability and the Public Interest, 20 Vermont Law Review,1996,p.625.
3 See supra note: The Social Origins of Property, p.219.
4 Id.at218.
5 See supra note: No Right to Exclude: Public Accommodations and Private Property, at1448 .
6 Id. at1453.
7 Id.at1456.
1 Id.at1459.
2 The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique (David Kairys ed., rev. ed. 1990). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at299.
3 See supra note: Baseline Questions in Legal Reasoning: The Example of Property in Jobs, 23 Georgia Law Review,1989,p.980.
4 See supra note: The Social Origins of Property,at218.
5 Joseph W. Singer, Jobs and Justice: Rethinking the Stakeholder Debate, 43 U. Toronto Law Journal,1993,p.481.
6 See supra note: The Reliance Interest in Property,at653.
7 【美】约瑟夫·威廉·辛格:《财产法:规则·政策·实务》(第三版)(影印本),中信出版社 2003 年版,第 21 页。
8 See supra note: No Right to Exclude: Public Accommodations and Private Property, at1471.
9Id.at1361.
10 See supra note: The Reliance Interest in Property,at662.
1 参见前引《财产法:案例与材料》(第七版),第 58 页。
2 See supra note: Well Settled? The Increasing Weight of History in American Indian Land Claims, at528-29.
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at300.
4 See supra note: Persuasion, at2442.
5 Joseph W. Singer, Property and Social Relations: From Title to Entitlement, in Property onthe Threshold of the 21st Century 82.See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at300.
1See supra note: Republicanism: The Career of a Concept, at11.
2 Id.at33.
3 Id.at34.
4 Id.at11.
5 Cass R. Sunstein, Interest Groups in American Public Law, 38 Stanford Law Review,1985,p.29,p.32.
1 Frank I. Michelman, Political Markets and Community Self-Determination: Competing Judicial Models of Local Government Legitimacy, 53 Indiana Law Journal,1978,p.145,p.149.
2 Richard H. Fallon, What Is Republicanism and Is It Worth Reviving?, 102 Harvard Law Review,1989,p.1695,pp.1725-27.
3 See supra note: Interest Groups in American Public Law,at31.
4 Id.at64.
5 Id.at68.
6 Id.at82.
7 Cass R. Sunstein, The Republican Civic Tradition, Beyond the Republican Revival, 97Yale Law Journal,1988,p.1539,pp.1548-49.
8 Laura Kalman, The Strange Career of Liberal Legalism 67 (1996). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at309.
9 See supra note: Interest Groups in American Public Law,at84.
1 See supra note: A Theory of Justice,pp.118-192.
2 See supra note: Political Markets and Community Self-Determination: Competing Judicial Models of Local Government Legitimacy, at149.
3 Id.at149.
4 Christopher F. Edley, The Governance Crisis, Legal Theory, and Political Ideology, 1991 Duke Law Journal,p.561,p.593.
5 Hendrik Hartog, Imposing Constitutional Traditions, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly,1987,p.75,p.76.
6 Kathleen M. Sullivan, Rainbow Republicanism, 97 Yale Law Journal,1988,p.1713,pp.1713-14.
7 Derrick Bell & Preeta Bansal, The Republican Revival and Racial Politics, 97 Yale Law Journal,1988,p. 1609,pp.1610-11.
8 Stephen M. Feldman, Whose Common Good? Racism in the Political Community, 80 Geo. Law Journal 1992,p.1835,p.1836.
9 Frank I. Michelman, Law's Republic, 97 Yale Law Journal,1988,p.1493,p.1495.
10 See supra note:The Republican Civic Tradition, Beyond the Republican Revival,at1541.
11 See Cass R. Sunstein, The Partial Constitution, Harvard University Press, 1993, p.134, pp.353-354 . 同时参见中译本【美】凯斯·R·桑斯坦:《偏颇的宪法》,宋华琳、毕竞悦译,北京大学出版社 2005 年版,第 340-55 页。
1 Frank I. Michelman, Bringing the Law to Life: A Plea for Disenchantment, 74 Cornell Law Review,1989,p.256,pp.257-58.
2 See supra note: Law's Republic,at1494.
3 Lawrence G. Sager, The Incorrigible Constitution, 65 New York University Law Review,1990,p.920.
4 Morton J. Horwitz, Republicanism and Liberalism in American Constitutional Thought, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly,1987,p.57,p.58.
5 See supra note: Imposing Constitutional Traditions,at77.
6 Id.at77.
7 Id.at77.
8 Id.at78.
1 Id.at78.
2 Mark Tushnet, Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law (1988). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at312.
3 Mark Tushnet, Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law 13 (1988). Id.at312.
4 See supra note: The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism & Ethics in Early American Political Discourse,at9.
5 Mark Tushnet, Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law 5-7, 167, 186-87, 248, 274-75.(1988). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at313.
6 See John Patrick.Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics: Virtue, Self-Interest, and the Foundations of Liberalism, Basic Books Inc., 1984, p.247, 271, pp.277-346.
7 See supra note: The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism & Ethics in Early American Political Discourse, at9.
8 Mark Tushnet, Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law 274-75 (1988). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at313.
1 Mark Tushnet, The Concept of Tradition in Constitutional Historiography, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly,1987,p.93,p.94.
2 Id.at94.
3 Id.at95.
4 Daniel T. Rodgers, Contested Truths: Keywords in American Politics Since Independence 6-7 (1987). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at314.
5 Gordon S. Wood, Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation of a Civil Society, 64 Fordham Law Review,1996,p.2133.
1 See supra note: Imposing Constitutional Traditions,at75.
2 See Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, G.E.M.Anscombe, trans., Basil Blackwell, 1958, p.34e.另参见中译本【英】路德维希· 维特根斯坦:《哲学研究》,陈嘉映译,上海人民出版社 2005 年版,第 32-38 页。
3 See supra note: Republicanism: The Career of a Concept,at38.
4 Id.at32-33.
5 Id.at38.
6 James Boyd White, Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law: The Arts of Cultural and Communal Life, 52 University of Chicago Law Review,1985,p.684.
1 See supra note: Republicanism: The Career of a Concept,at37.
2 William W. Fisher III, The Law of the Land: An Intellectual History of American Property Doctrine, 1776-1880 (1991). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at316.
3 Gregory S. Alexander, Time and Property in the American Republican Legal Culture, 66 New York University Law Review,1991,p.273.
4 Richard Epstein, Modern Republicanism--Or the Flight from SubStanfordce, 97 Yale Law Journal,1988,p.1633,p.1634.
5 See supra note: Time and Property in the American Republican Legal Culture,at273-76.
1 Ruth H. Bloch, The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in Revolutionary America,13 Signs,1987,p.37.
2 See Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), William Peden ed., University of North Carolina Press, 1954, p.161.
3 William W. Fisher III, Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860, 39 Emory Law Journal,1990,p.65,p.74.
4 Linda K. Kerber, Making Republicanism Useful, 97 Yale Law Journal,1988,p.1664.
5 Stanford N. Katz, Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America, 19 The Journal of Law and Economics,1976,p.475.
6 Id.at476-81.
7 Salus populi,此处译为“人民福利”,是为了与叶启芳、瞿菊农在《政府论》中的翻译保持一致。参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 97 页:“Salus populi suprema lex : 人民的福利是最高的法律。”
1 See supra note: Making Republicanism Useful,at1672.
2 Id.at1664.
3 See supra note:Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America,at273.
4 Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Constitution: Third Draft of Jefferson, in 1 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 356, 362 (Julian P. Boyd ed., 1950). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at318.
1 See supra note: Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America,at472.
2 Allan David Heskin, Tenants and the American Dream: Ideology and the Tenant Movement 5 (1983) (describing Jefferson's fear that, without reform, land monopoly would increase). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at319.
3 See supra note: Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America,at480.
4 Id.at480.
5 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 35 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at320.
1 See Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City & the rise of the American working class,1788-1850, Oxford University Press, 1984, p.14.
2 Thomas Skidmore, The Rights of Man to Property 239 (New York, Thomas Skidmore 1829). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at320.
3 See supra note: Chants Democratic: New York City & the rise of the American working class,1788-1850, at186.
4 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 35 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at320.
5 Rowland Berthoff, Independence and Attachment, Virtue and Interest: From Republican Citizen to Free Enterpriser, 1787-1837, in Uprooted Americans 97, 106 (Richard L. Bushman et al. eds., 1979). Id.at320.
1 Paul Goodman, The Emergence of Homestead Exemption in the United States: Accommodation and ResiStanfordce to the Market Revolution, 1840-1880, 80 The American Historical Review, 1993,p.470,p.486.
2 See Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Harper & Row publishers, 1988, pp.159-160.
3 Id.at164.
4 Id.at159.
5 Lea S. Vander Velde, The Labor Vision of the Thirteenth Amendment, 138 University of Pennsylvania Law Review,1989,p.437,p.441.
6 See William E. Forbath, The Shaping of the American Labor Movement, 102 Harvard Law Review, 1989, p.1109, pp.1121-1122 .
7 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at321.
8 See Bruce Palmer, “Man over Money”: The Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism, University of North Carolina Press, 1980, pp.13-4.
9 See William E. Forbath, Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement, Harvard University Press, 1991, p.13.
1 Frank I. Michelman, Possession vs. Distribution in the Constitutional Idea of Property, 72 Iowa Law Review,1987,p.1319,pp.1330-31.
2 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at322.
3 William H. Simon, Social-Republican Property, 38 The Regents of the University of California 1991,University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February,1991,p.1335.
4 赖希的新财产理论系指:赖希将那些为日益扩张的政府所创造的诸如:收入和利益、工作、职业执照、特权、合同、补贴、公共资源的利用及服务等作为所谓的“新财产”的客体。赖希认为,在一个尤其重视物质福利的社会里,控制这些福利的一部分的能力是个人独立的根本。美国在过去 10 年里最重要的变化之一就是政府作为一个主要财富源泉的出现。政府是一个巨大的虹吸管。它吸入税收和权力,喷出财富:金钱、利益、服务、合同、特权和执照。政府一直有这个职能。但是在过去,这种职能是次要的,而今天对物品的分配则是巨大规模的。政府分配的有价值的东西有许多形式,但是它们都有一个共同的特性。它们正在逐步取代传统形式的财富――作为私有财产被占有的财富形式。社会保险代替了储蓄;政府合同代替了商人的顾客和商誉。越来越多的美国人的财富取决于与政府的关系。美国人越来越依赖于政府的恩赐――由政府分配,按照政府的条件,接受者受限于表现“公共利益”的条件占有这些物品。政府恩赐的增长,伴随着一系列特殊的法律,正在产生深远的影响。它影响了个人主义和独立的基础。它影响人权法案的运作方式。它影响私人权益在其彼此之间的关系及其与政府的关系中的能力。它正在促进形成一个新社会┅┅赖希在《个人权利和社会福利:正在出现的法律问题》,74 Yale L. J. 1245(1945)一文中进一步探讨了“新财产”的概念,并注意到:“今天的社会是建立在权利(entitlement)上的。汽车经销商有其特许经营权,医生和律师有他们的专业执照,工人有他们的工会会员资格、合同和获得退休金的权利;管理人员有合同和股票期权;所有这些都是帮助人们获得安全和独立的设计。这些权利中一些最重要的权利现在是来自政府的;给农民和商人的补贴,航空公司的航线和电视台的频道;国防,航空和教育行业的长期合同;个人的社会安全养老金。这些安全来源,不论是私人的还是公共的,都不再被认为是奢侈或者赏赐了;对于接受者来说,它们是必不可少的完全应该得到的,而且决不是施舍。只不过穷人的权利,虽然为公众政策所承认,但是还没有得到有效的执行。”简而言之,现在把这些各种各样的“权利”,包括福利款,看成是新财产而不是赏赐可能是现实的。赖希开创性的文章在法律评论刊物和其他地方引起了若干评论。例如,范阿尔斯提恩的《“新财产”的缺陷:行政国家中的司法正当程序》,62Cornell L. Rev.(1977)和 Haar and Liebman 的教科书 Property and law(Little, Brown and Company,(1977))的第二十章“新财产”。后者收集了一些优秀的案例和材料,标题为“新财产”,各节标题为:作为程序的财产,程序和自由,作为合同的财产,以及作为权利和作为政治的财产。这些材料描述了宪法、行政法和财产法相交叉的一个领域。参见前引《财产法:案例与材料》,第 57-58 页。
5 Fred R.Shapiro, The MostCited Law Review Articles,The Regents of the University of California1985,73University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February,1985,p.1540,p.1549.
6 See Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law.Vol.1, Foundation Press, 2000, p.682.
1 Charles Reich, The New Property, 73 Yale Law Journal,1964,p.734.
2 Id.at778.
3 Id.at785.
4 Id.at785.
5 Id.at785.
6 Id.at785.
1 Id.at787.
2 Id.at733.
3 Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (discussing a state teacher's challenge of his without-cause dismissal on Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds).
4 Joy v. Daniels, 479 F.2d 1236 (4th Cir. 1973) (discussing a tenant challenging her eviction on Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds).
5 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 510 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at324.
6 Id.at324.
7 Carol Rose, Crystals and Mud in Property Law, 40 Stanford Law Review,1983,p.577,p.608.
8 Roth, 408 U.S. at 577.
1 Daniels, 479 F.2d 1236.
2 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 510 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at325.
3 See supra note: American Constitutional Law, at685.
4 Suzanna Sherry, Civic Virtue and the Feminine Voice in Constitutional Adjudication, 72 Virginia Law Review,1986,p.543.
5 445 U.S. 573, 601 (1980).
6 See Nancy F. Cott, No small courage : a history of women in the United States, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.63-99; Nancy F. Cott, Public vows : a history of marriage and the nation , Harvard University Press, 2000, pp.70-86.
1 Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae National Housing Survey (June 1992). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at326.
2 Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae National Housing Survey 9 (June 1992). Id.at326.
3 Id.at326.
4 Frank S. Levy & Richard C. Michel, The Economic Future of American Families Income and Wealth Trends 63 (1991). Id.at326.
5 Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae National Housing Survey 10 (June 1992). Id.at327.
6 Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae National Housing Survey 3 (June 1992). Id.at327.
7 See Jeanne Boydston, Home & Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic, Oxford University Press, 1990.
1 Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman's Place: The Rhetoric of Women's History, 75 the American Historical Review,1988,p.9.
2 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at327.
3 ConStanfordce Perin, Everything in Its Place 64 (1977). Id.at327.
4 ConStanfordce Perin, Everything in Its Place 72 (1977). Id.at328.
5 Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae National Housing Survey 8 (June 1992). Id.at328.
6 Michael Harloe, Private Rented Housing in the United States and Europe 64 (1985). Id.at328.
7 George Sternlieb & James W. Hughes, Demographics and Housing in America, 4 Population Bull. 2, 5 (1986). Id.at328.
8 Joan C. Williams, It's High Time to Get Homeowners' Deductions Under Control, 12 Tax Notes 963 (1981). Id.at328.
9 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 60 (4th ed. 1997). Id.at328.
1 ConStanfordce Perin, Everything in Its Place 64,71-72(1977). Id.at328.
2 See Douglass S. Massey & Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, 1993, p.9.
3 E.g., Southern Burlington County v. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A.2d 713 (N.J. 1975) (dealing with a township which used land regulations to prevent certain classes of people from entering the community).
4 See Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, Oxford University Press, 1985, p.300; Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War era, Basic Books Inc., 1999.
5 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
6 关于 Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty 一案支持分区制合宪性问题,在下面的土地征用权部分还将会有具体的论述。
7 E.g.,Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 108-14 (1928).
8 Lochner, 198 U.S. at 45.
9 Samuel Olken, Justice George Sutherland and Economic Liberty, 6 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,1997,p.1.
1 EuclId. 272 U.S. at 390.
2 EuclId. 272 U.S. at 394.
3 Marsha Ritzdorf, Whose American Dream? The Euclid Legacy and Cultural Change, 56 J. Am. Plan. Ass'n 386 (1990). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at330.
4 Linda K. Kerber, The Republican Mother: Female Political Imagination in the Early Republic, in Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1980, pp.283-288.
5 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at331.
1 永远管业限制(dead hand control):指对所占有的财产,尤指不动产,不能变卖或转售的限制规定。
2 Edward H. Rabin, Fundamentals of Modern Property Law 489 (1974). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at331.
3 See Curtis J. Berger, Land Ownership and Use, Little, Brown and Company, 1975, p.576.
4 Jesse Dukeminier & James E. Krier, Property 879-89 (2d ed. 1988) (applying private nuisance law where a neighbor's home limited the amount of sunlight available to the homeowner). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at331.
5 Uriel Reichman, Towards a Unified Concept of Servitudes,The Regents of the University of California 1982, 55 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February,1982,p.1177,p.1244.
6 Jesse Dukeminier & James E. Krier, Property 299-318 (2d ed. 1988). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at332.
7 Edward H. Rabin, Fundamentals of Modern Property Law 489 (1974). Id.at332.
1 See supra note: Land Ownership and Use, at572.
2 See supra note: Land Ownership and Use, at595-96.
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at332.
4 Tulk v. Moxhay, 41 Eng. Rep. 1143 (Ch. 1848).
5 See supra note: Land Ownership and Use, at589.
6 Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 N.Y. 440 (1877).
1 Sanborn v. McLean, 206 N.W. 496, 497 (Mich. 1925).
2 See supra note: Land Ownership and Use, at596.
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at333.
1 See supra note: Towards a Unified Concept of Servitudes,at1184.
2 Id.at1184-90.
3 Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, The Defeasible Fee and the Birth of the Modern Residential Subdivision, 49 Missouri Law Review,1984,p.695,p.707.
1 See supra note: Land Ownership and Use, at652,655-56.
2 Ludgate v. Somerville, 256 P. 1043, 1046 (Or. 1927).
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at335.
4 Joan C. Williams, Domesticity as the Dangerous Supplement of Liberalism, 2 Journal of Women's History,1991,p.69.
5 Margaret J. Radin, Property and Personhood, 34 Stanford Law Review,1982,p.957.
6 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at335.
1 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 84-85 (1851).
2 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, at782,at863.
1 William J. Novak, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America 2 (1996). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at337.
2 William J. Novak, Salus Populi: The Roots of Regulation in America, 1787-1873 (1992),at22. Id.at337.
3 William J. Novak, Salus Populi: The Roots of Regulation in America, 1787-1873 (1992),at23. Id.at337.
4 See supra note: Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation of a Civil Society, at2133.
5 William J. Novak, Public Economy and the Well-Ordered Market: Law and Economic Regulation in 19th Century America, 18 Law & Social Inquiry,1993,p.1.
6 William J. Novak, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America 12 (1996). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at337.
7 William J. Novak, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America 26 (1996). Id.at338.
1 Thomas Cooper, M.D., Two Essays: 1. On the Foundation of Civil Government, 2.On the Constitution of the United States 15 (Columbia, S.C. 1826).Id.at338. 另参见【美】约瑟夫·斯托里:《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店 2006 年版。
2 Nathaniel Chipman, Sketches of the Principles of Government 164-65 (Rutland Vt., J. Lyon 1793). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at338.
3 John Taylor, Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated (Richmond, Shepherd & Pollard 1820). Id.at338.
4 Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 84-85 (1851).
5 William J. Novak, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America 20 (1996). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at338.
6 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
7 See supra note: The White River Junction Manifesto,at193,at199.
1 201 N.W.2d 761 (Wis. 1972).
2 201 N.W.2d 767 (Wis. 1972).
3 913 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1990).
4 254 A.2d 700 (Md. 1972).
5 254 A.2d 706 (Md. 1972).
6 Carter v. South Carolina Coastal Comm'n, 314 S.E.2d 327, 329 (S.C. 1984).
7 260 U.S. 393, 416 (1922)(Brandeis, J., dissenting).
8 260 U.S. 393, 417 (1922)(Brandeis, J., dissenting).
1 260 U.S. 393, 420 (1922)(Brandeis, J., dissenting).
2 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 404 S.E.2d 895, 898 (S.C. 1991).
3 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 404 S.E.2d 895, 899 (S.C. 1991).
4 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
5 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1027 (1992).
6 Carol M. Rose, Mahon Reconstructed: Why the Takings Issue Is Still a Muddle, 57 Southern California Law Review,1984,p.561,pp.587-97.
7 William J. Novak, The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth Century America 19-26 (1996). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at340.
8 Akil Amar, Forty Acres and a Mule: A Republican Theory of Minimum Entitlement, 13 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy,1990,p.37.
1 277 A.2d 369 (N.J. 1971).
2 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at343.
3 J. Robert S. Prichard, A Market for Babies?, 34 University of Toronto Law Journal,1984,p.341.
1 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at343.
2 Apartment House Council v. Mayor of Ridgefield 301 A.2d 484, 488 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1973).
3 See supra note: A Market for Babies?,at351.
4 See supra note: A Market for Babies?,at353.
5 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at344.
6 Id.at344.
7 277 A.2d 369 (N.J. 1971).
1 Shack, 277 A.2d at 372. See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at345.
2 Shack, 277 A.2d at 372. Id.at345.
3 Id.at345.
4 Shack, 277 A.2d at 373 (quoting 5 Powell, Real Property § 746, at 494-96 (1970)). Id.at345.
5 Shack, 277 A.2d at 373 (quoting 5 Powell, supra note 412, § 746, at 494-96).. Id.at346.
1 322 S.E.2d 854 (W. Va. 1984).
2 joint tenancy:在英美财产法中,通常表示“合有”或“联合共有”,在夫妻之间,则表现为“整体共有(tenancy by the entirety)”,是与“共同共有(tenancy in common)”相对应的一种财产共有形式。这里是指夫妻作为共同承租人对住房的“共同租赁”。参见拙作:《集体土地所有权制度之完善――民法典制定中不容忽视的问题》,载《法学》2003 年第 2 期。
3 Crowder, 322 S.E.2d at 860. See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at346.
1 John Dunn, Rethinking Modern Political Theory: Essays, 1979-83, at 21-26(1985). Id.at347.
2 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 19 页。
3 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 21 页。
4 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 6 页。
1 See supra note: The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism & Ethics in Early American Political Discourse,at16.
2 Id.at16.
3 Immanuel Kant, The Moral Law: Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 91 (H.J. Paton trans., 1967). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at348.
4 参见前引《正义论》,第 12 页。
5 See supra note: A Theory of Justice, pp.136-142.
6 Basil Mitchell, Should Law Be Christian?, 96/97 Law & Just. 12, 21 (1988), quoted in Michael Perry, Toward an Ecumenical Politics, 60 George Washington Law Review,1992,p.599,p.605.
1 John A. Coleman, An American Strategic Theology 196 (1982). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at348.
2 See supra note: Toward an Ecumenical Politics, at604.
3 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 94 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at349.
4 See supra note:Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law: The Arts of Cultural and Communal Life,at688.
1 E.g.,Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Commentary 17-55 (Asbjorn Eide et al. eds., 1992). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at349.
2 Yates v. Keene, 14 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1160 (Mich. Cir. Ct. 1987); Anna J. v. Mark C., 12 Cal. App. 4th 977. (1991).;
3 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
4 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 295 n.30 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at350.
5 Javins, 428 F.2d at 1079-80. Id.at351.
6 478 A.2d 202 (Vt. 1984).
1 478 A.2d 205-06 (Vt. 1984).
1 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at352.
2 Maticka v. City of Atlantic City, 524 A.2d 416, 425 (N.J. 1987).
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at352.
4 William A. Galston, Liberal Purposes, Good Virtues and Diversity in the Liberal State (1991). Id.at353.
5 See supra note: The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism & Ethics in Early American Political Discourse,at9,at16.
6 Id.at29.
7 Id.at16.
1 See supra note: The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution, at7-11.
2 See Hudson Alastair, New perspectives on property law, obligations and restitution, Cavendish, 2004, p.173.
3 See supra note: Property and Personhood,at957.
4 Id.at957.
1 黑格尔的人格财产观,参见【德】黑格尔:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆 1982 年版,第 55 页。
2 See supra note: Property and Personhood,at985-86.
3 Id.at990.
4 Id.at990.
5 588 N.Y.S.2d 93, 97 (Sup. Ct. 1992).
6 727 F.2d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
7 E.g., Curtis J. Berger, Response: Home Is Where the Heart Is: A Brief Reply to Professor Epstein,
\54 Brooklyn Law Review,1989,p.1239,p.1240.
8 Margaret J. Radin, Residential Rent Control, 15 Philosophy and Public Affairs,1986,p.350,p.364.
9 See supra note: Property and Personhood,at1005-06.
10 Margaret J. Radin, The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings, 88 Columbia Law Review,1988,p.1667,p.1689.
1 See supra note: Property and Personhood,at987.
2 Id.at987.
3 See supra note: The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings,at1689.
4 Edward H. Rabin, The Revolution on Residential Landlord-Tenant Law: Causes and Consequences, 69 Cornell Law Review 1976,p.1,p.517,p.520.
5 Charles J. Meyers, The Covenant of Habitability and the American Law Institute, 27 Stanford Law Review,1975,p.879,pp.902-03.
6 See supra note: Property and Personhood,at987,at996-97.
7 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 20 (1993). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at302.
8 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 20 (1993). Id.at302.
1 Margaret J. Radin, Market-Inalienability, 100 Harvard Law Review,1987,p.1849,p.1880.
2 Id.at1849,at1880.
3 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at340.
4 Silverman v. Barry, 727 F.2d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
5 588 N.Y.S.2d 93 (1992).
6 Stephen J. Schnably, Property and Pragmatism: A Critique of Radin's Theory of Property and Personhood, 45 Stanford Law Review,1993,p.364.
7 Id.at365.
8 Id.at365-67.
1 Curtis J. Berger & Joan C. Williams, Property: Land Ownership and Use 60-63 (4th ed. 1997). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at341.
2 See supra note: Market-Inalienability, at1855.
3 Id.at1856.
4 Id.at1918.
5 Id.at1918.
6 See Albert O. Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph , Princeton University Press,1977,pp.70-78.
7See supra note: Market-Inalienability,at1918-20.
8 Id.at1884.
9 Id.at1886.
1 Id.at1903-06.
2 Id.at1904.
3 Id.at1904.
4 Id.at1904.
5 Id.at1881.
6 See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property,at355.
7 公元 1 世纪初耶路撒冷犹太教的圣经注释家。
8 The Jewish Encyclopedia (Isidore Singer ed., 1962). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at355.
9 Dalai Lama of Tibet, My Land and My People: The Autobiography of His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet 29 (1997). Id.at355.
10 Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P.2d 776, 792-93 (Cal. 1993).
1 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 7 (1993). See supra note: The Rhetoric of Property, at303.
2 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 8 (1993). Id.at303.
3 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 9 (1993). Id.at303.
4 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 2,7,11 (1993). Id.at303.
5 Margaret J. Radin, Reinterpreting Property 18 (1993). Id.at304.
1 J. CRIBBET, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 471-72 (2d ed. 1975). See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property,at4.
2 Hamilton & Till, Property, 12 Encyclopedia of the Social Science,1933, p.536.
3 MacIver, Government and Property, 4 J. LEGAL & POL. SOC, 5 (1945). See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property,at4.
4 MacIver, Government and Property, 4 J. LEGAL & POL. SOC, 5 (1945). Id.at4.
5 Hamilton, Property Rights in the Market, 1 J. LEGIS. & POL. SCI. 10 (1943). Id.at5.
6 Wilson, The Law and the Facts, 5 America Political Science Review, 1911, p.1.
7 See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property,at6.
1 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir.), cert denied 400 U.S. 925 (1970).
2 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir.), cert denied 400 U.S. 925 (1970).
3 Gardiner v. Wm. S. Butler & Co., 245 U.S. 603 (1918).
4 Cunningham, The New Implied and Statutory Warranties of Habitability in Residential Leases: From Contract to Status, 16 Urban Law Annual, 1979, p.3.
5 See supra note: The Covenant of Habitability and the American Law Institute,at879.
1 107 Ill. 2d 1, 479 N.E.2d 915, 88 Ill. Dec.895(1985).
2 38 Cal. 3d 454, 698 P.2d 116, 213 Cal. Rptr.213(1985).
3 See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property, at8.
4 82 N.J. 214, 412 A.2d 436 (1980).
5 393 Mich. 393, 224 N.W.2d 843 (1975).
6 393 Mich. 421, 224 N.W.2d 855 (1975)(Levin,J.,dissenting).
7 Removal of Residental Tenants Act, N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2A:18-61.1 (West Supp. 1985) and Senior Citizens and Disabled Protected Tenancy Act, N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2A:18-61.22 to 61.39 (West Supp. 1985). See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property, at9.
1 Orange Taxpayers Council, Inc. v. City of Orange, 83 N.J. 246, 416 A.2d 3 53 (1980).
2 Flynn v. City of Cambridge, 383 Mass. 152, 418 N.E.2d 335 (1981).
3 Fresh Pond Shopping Center v. Rent Control Bd., 388 Mass. 1051, 446 N.E.2d 1060
4 37 Cal. 3d 97, 688 P.2d 894, 207 Cal. Rptr. 285 (1984), appeal dismissed, 105 S. Ct. 1740 (1985).
5 37 Cal. 3d 105, 688 P.2d 900, 207 Cal. Rptr. 291(1984), appeal dismissed, 105 S. Ct. 1740 (1985).
6 37 Cal. 3d 106, 688 P.2d 894, 207 Cal. Rptr. 285 (1984), appeal dismissed, 105 S. Ct. 1740 (1985).
7 37 Cal. 3d 106, 688 P.2d 894, 207 Cal. Rptr. 285 (1984), appeal dismissed, 105 S. Ct. 1740 (1985).
8 E.g., compare J. CRIBBET, W. FRITZ & C. JOHNSON, CASES AND MATERIALS ON PROPERTY 318-466 (1960) with J. CRIBBET & C. JOHNSON, CASES AND MATERIALS ON PROPERTY 440-603 (5th ed. 1984). See supra note: Concepts in Transition:the Search for A New Definition of Property, at9.
1 Javins, 428 F.2d at 1075.Id.at9.
2 Druid Homes, Inc. v. Cooper, 272 Ala. 415, 416, 131 So. 2d 884, 885 (1961).
3 Cochran v. Keeton, 287 Ala. 439, 252 So. 2d 313 (1971).
4 E.g., Bearman, Caveat Emptor in Sales of Realty-Recent Assaults Upon the Rule, 14 Vanderbilt Law Review,1961,p.541.
5 Petersen v. Hubschman Constr. Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31, 389 N.E.2d 1154, 27 Ill. Dec. 746 (1979); Herlihy v. Dunbar Builders Corp., 92 Ill. App. 3d 310, 415 N.E.2d 1224,47 Ill. Dec. 911 (1st Dist, 1980).
1 Peterson v. Hubschman Constr. Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31, 41, 389 N.E.2d 1154, 1158, 27 Ill. Dec. 746, 750 (1979).
2 Peterson v. Hubschman Constr. Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31, 41, 389 N.E.2d 1154, 1158, 27 Ill. Dec. 746, 750 (1979).
3 Peterson v. Hubschman Constr. Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31, 42, 389 N.E.2d 1154, 1159, 27 Ill. Dec. 746, 751 (1979).
4 UNIFORM LAND TRANSACTIONS ACT (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 1975).
5 UNIFORM LAND TRANSACTIONS ACT (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 1975).
6 Note, Builder's Liability for Latent Defects in Used Homes, 32 Stanford Law Review,1980,p.607.
7 69 Cal. 2d 850, 447 P.2d 609, 73 Cal. Rptr. 369 (1968).
8 69 Cal. 2d 872, 447 P.2d 621, 73 Cal. Rptr. 381 (1968).
9 Gutierrez, Liability of a Construction Lender Under Civil Code Section 3434: An Amorphous Epitaph to Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Association, 8 Pacific Law Journal,1977,p.1.
1 Chotka v. Fidelco Growth Investors, 383 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. App. 1980).
2 Allison v. Home Sav. Ass'n, 643 S.W.2d 847 (Mo. App. 1982).
3 R. KRATOVIL, REAL ESTATE LAW 203-12, 220 (5th ed. 1969). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at13.
4 Pease v. Baxter, 12 Wash. 567, 41 P. 899 (1895).
5 J. CRIBBET, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY 137 (2d ed. 1975). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at13.
6 Skendzel v. Marshall, 261 Ind. 226, 301 N.E.2d 641 (1973).
7 E.g., Petersen v. Hartell, 707 P.2d 232, 219 Cal. Rptr 170 (1985); Union Bond & Trust Co. v. Blue Creek Redwood Co., 128 F. Supp. 709 (1955), aff'd, 243 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1957).
1 Hetland, The California Land Contract, 48 California Law Review, 1960, p.729.
2 E.g., Bishop v. Beecher, 67 N.M. 339, 355 P.2d 277 (1960).
3 E.g., Mid-State Inv. Corp. v. O'Steen, 133 So. 2d 455, 457 (Fla. 1961) (decision based on Florida statute).
4 See supra note: The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph,at78.
1 P. BASYE, CLEARING LAND TITLES (2d ed. 1970). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at14.
2 Id.at15.
3 E.g., Presbytery of Southwest Iowa v. Harris, 226 N.W.2d 232 (Iowa 1975) (discussing IOWA CODE § 614.24 (1975)).
4 L. Simes & C. Taylor, The Improvement of Conveyancing By Legislation,the University of Michigan Law School, 1960, pp.6-16.
5 Board of Educ. v. Miles, 15 N.Y.2d 364, 207 N.E.2d 181, 259 N.Y.S.2d 129 (1965).
6 Presbytery of Southwest Iowa v. Harris, 226 N.W.2d 232, 244 (Iowa 1975)(Rees, J., dissenting).
7 IND. CODE § § 32-5-11-1 to 32-5-11-8 (1979 & Supp. 1985). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at15.
8 Short v. Texaco, Inc., 273 Ind. 518, 406 N.E.2d 625 (1980), aff'd, 454 U.S. 516 (1982).
1 Short v. Texaco, Inc., 273 Ind. 524-26, 406 N.E.2d 629-31 (1980), aff'd, 454 U.S. 516 (1982).
2 Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516 (1982).
3 Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 554 (1982)(Brennan, J., dissenting).
4 273 Ind. at 524, 406 N.E.2d at 629.
5 Short v. Texaco, Inc., 273 Ind. 518, 526, 406 N.E.2d 625, 631 (1980) ("The State through this statute is not actually taking the mineral interest for its own use and benefit."), aff'd, 454 U.S. 516 (1982).
6 273 Ind. at 521, 406 N.E.2d at 627.
1 Powell v. Taylor, 222 Ark. 896, 263 S.W.2d 906 (1954) (funeral home in an unzoned residential area).
2 Rose v. Chaikin, 187 N.J. Super. 210, 453 A.2d 1378 (1982).
3 Prah v. Maretti, 108 Wis. 2d 3223, 321 N.W.2d 182 (1982).
1 208 N.Y. 1, 101 N.E. 805 (1913).
2 26 N.Y.2d 219, 257 N.E.2d 870, 309 N.Y.S.2d 312 (1970).
3 26 N.Y.2d 228, 257 N.E.2d 875, 309 N.Y.S.2d 319 (1970).
4 26 N.Y.2d 321, 257 N.E.2d 876, 309 N.Y.S.2d 230(1970) (Jasen, J., dissenting).
5 See Roger W. Findley & Daniel A . Farber, Cases and Materials on Environmental Law, West Pub. Co., 1995, pp.151-168. 另参见【美】R.W.芬德利、D.A.法贝尔:《美国环境法简论》,程正康等译,中国环境科学出版社 1986 年版。
1 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972).
2 108 Ariz. 186, 494 P.2d 708 (1972).
3 108 Ariz. 186, 494 P.2d 708 (1972).
4 108 Ariz. 186, 494 P.2d 708 (1972).
5 Hand, Right-To-Farm Laws: Breaking New Ground In the Preservation of Farmland, 45 University of Pittsburgh Law Review,1984,p.289.
1 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766), at18.
2 328 U.S. 256 (1946).
3 E.g., Batten v. United States, 306 F.2d 580 (10th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 955 (1963).
4 Dolley & Carroll, Airport Noise Pollution Damages: The Case for Local Liability, 15 Fordham Urban Law Journal, 1983, p.621.
5 Note, Who Owns the Clouds?, 1 Stanford Law Review, 1948,p.43 .
6 Fisher, Weather Modification and the Right of Capture, 8 Natural Resources Journal,1976,p.639.
7 Southwestern Weather Research, Inc. v. Rounsaville, 320 S.W.2d 211 (Tex. Civ. App. 1958).
1 Pfeiffer, Ancient Lights: Legal Protection of Access to Solar Energy, 68 A.B.A. J. 288 (1982). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at21.
2 Comment, Solar Lights: Guaranteeing A Place in the Sun, 57 Oregon Law Review,1977,p.94,p.112.
3 See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for A New Defenition of Property,at21.
4 Prah v. Maretti, 108 Wis. 2d 223, 321 N.W.2d 182 (1982).
5 114 So. 2d 357 (Fla. App. 1959), cert denied, 117 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1960).
6 114 So. 2d 359 (Fla. App. 1959), cert denied, 117 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1960).
7 People ex rel Hoogasian v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 52 Ill. 2d 301, 287 N.E.2d 677 (1972).
8 108 Wis. 2d 223, 321 N.W.2d 182 (1982).
1 108 Wis. 2d 239 n.13, 321 N.W.2d 191 n.13 (1982).
2 108 Wis. 2d 239 n.13, 321 N.W.2d 191 n.13 (1982).
3 108 Wis. 2d 243-57, 321 N.W.2d 193-99 (1982)(Callow, J., dissenting).
4 Comment, Obstruction of Sunlight as a Private Nuisance, 65 California Law Review ,1977,p.94.
5 Prah, 108 Wis. 2d at 237, 321 N.W.2d at 190.
6 E.g., New Mexico's Solar Rights Act, N.M. STAT. ANN. § 47-3-1 (1978); Solar Recordation Act, N.M. STAT. ANN. § 47-3-6 (1978).
7 Eisenstadt, Access to Solar Energy: The Problem and its Current Status, 22 Natural ResourcesJournal,1982, p.21.
1 Id.at23.
2 E.g., Ausness, Water Rights Legislation in the East: A Program for Reform, 24 The William and Mary Quarterly,1983,p.547.
3 E.g., Baker v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 95 Idaho 575, 513 P.2d 627 (1973).
4 33 Cal. 3d 419, 658 P.2d 709, 189 Cal. Rptr. 346 (1983).
1 National Audubon Soc'y, 33 Cal. 3d at 441, 658 P.2d at 724, 189 Cal. Rptr. at360-61.
2 United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978) (particularly the dissenting opinions of Justices Powell, Brennan, White and Marshall).
3 E.g., Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahan, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
4 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
5 Tucker, Environmentalism: The Newest Toryism,Yale Law and Policy Review,1980,p.141.
6 See supra note: Concepts in Transition the Search for A New Definition of Property,at25.
1 See supra note:Cases and Materials on Enviornmental Law, at xvii (emphasis added).
2 42 U.S.C. § § 4321-4335 (1977) (The NEPA became effective on Jan. 1, 1970).
3 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 313-33 (1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition the Search for A New Definition of Property,at25.
4 Id.at25.
1 Beekman v. Saratoga & S.R. Co., 3 N.Y. (Paige) 45, 73 (1831).
2 Beekman v. Saratoga & S.R. Co., 3 N.Y. (Paige) 45, 73 (1831).
3 Cribbet, Some Reflections on the Law of Land -- A View From Scandinavia, 62 Northwestern University Law Review,1967,p.277.
4 U.S. CONST. amend. V.
5 Shizas v. Detroit, 333 Mich. 44, 52 N.W.2d 589 (1952).
6 无条件继承不动产(fee simple absolute):又称“完全所有权”或“绝对所有权”,是法律所赋予的最大的土地权利,它给予权利人对土地的全方位的权利,包括对土地的排他占有权、使用权、收益权和通过契书或遗嘱对土地的处分权以及基于土地对他人行使的为一定行为或不为一定行为的法律上的请求权。See Ralph E. Boyer, Herbert Hovenkamp, Sheldon F. Kurtz: The Law of Property, 4th ed., West Publishing Co., 1991, p.123. 参见前引《美国财产法与判例研究》,第 52 页;《美国财产法》,第 65页。
7 See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property, at26.
1 348 U.S. 26 (1954).
2 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (zoning).
3 See Jane Jacobs,The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, 1961, p.186. 另参见中译本【加拿大】简·雅各布斯:《美国大城市的死与生》,金衡山译,译林出版社 2005 年版。
4 348 U.S. 33(1954).
5 348 U.S. 22(1954).
6 348 U.S. 361954).
1 E.g., City of Chicago v. R. Zwick Co., 27 Ill. 2d 128, 188 N.E.2d 489 (1963); Annot., 44 A.L.R.2d 1414 (1955).
2 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 1010-13 (1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property, at28.
3 410 Mich. 616, 304 N.W.2d 455 (1981).
4 410 Mich. 633-34, 304 N.W.2d 459 (1981).
5 410 Mich. 636,645, 304 N.W.2d 460,464 (1981) (Fitzgerald, J., dissenting and Ryan, J., dissenting).
1 City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 32 Cal. 3d 60, 646 P.2d 835, 183 Cal. Rptr. 673 (1982).
2 City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 32 Cal. 3d 64, 646 P.2d 837, 183 Cal. Rptr. 675 (1982).
3 City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 32 Cal. 3d 79, 646 P.2d 847, 183 Cal. Rptr. 685 (1982)(Bird, C.J., concurring and dissenting) (emphasis added).
4 City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 32 Cal. 3d 78, 646 P.2d 846, 183 Cal. Rptr. 684 (1982) (emphasis added).
5 104 S. Ct. 2321 (1984).
6 HAWAII REV. STAT. § § 516-1 to 516-186 (1976 & Supp. 1984). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property, at29.
7 Midkiff v. Tom, 702 F.2d 788 (1983).
8 Midkiff v. Tom, 702 F.2d 790 (1983).
1 Midkiff v. Tom, 702 F.2d 790 (1983).
2 Midkiff v. Tom, 702 F.2d 797 (1983).
3 Midkiff v. Tom, 702 F.2d 813 (1983)(Ferguson, J., dissenting).
4 104 S. Ct. 2321, 2331-32 (1984).
5 See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property,at30.
1 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 313-33 (1981). Id.at30.
2 Pulliam, Brandeis Brief for Decontrol of Land Use: A Plea for Constitutional Reform, 13 Southwestern University Law Review,1983,p.435.
3 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 547-64 (1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at31.
4 G. AMICK, THE AMERICAN WAY OF GRAFT 77 (1976).Id.at31.
5 Fulton, Building and Bargaining in California, 4 California Law Review,December 1984,p.36.
6 R. BABCOCK, THE ZONING GAME: MUNICIPAL PRACTICES AND POLICIES (1966). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at31.
7 See Siegan, Non-Zoning in Houston, 13 The Journal of Law and Economics,1970,p.71.
8 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
9 92 N.J. 158, 456 A.2d 390 (1983).
1 EuclId,272 U.S. at 388. See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property, at31.
2 277 U.S. 183 (1928).
3 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 361-412(1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at32.
1 Grubel v. MacLaughlin, 286 F. Supp. 24 (D.V.I. 1968).
2 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 253-65(1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at32.
3 See generally Symposium, Planned Unit Development, 114 University of Pennsylvania Law Review,1965,pp.1-170.
4 See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property,at32.
5 D. MANDELKER & R. CUNNINGHAM, PLANNING AND CONTROL OF LAND DEVELOPMENT 443-51 (2d ed. 1985). Id.at32.
6 Collard v. Incorporated Village of Flower Hill, 52 N.Y.2d 594, 421 N.E.2d 818, 439 N.Y.S.2d 326 (1981).
7 30 N.Y.2d 359, 285 N.E.2d 291, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972).
8 18 Cal. 3d 582, 557 P.2d 473, 135 Cal. Rptr. 41 (1976).
9 30 N.Y.2d 383, 285 N.E.2d 304-05, 334 N.Y.S.2d 156.
1 Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. 151, 336 A.2d 713 (1975) (Mount Laurel).
2 Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 92 N.J. 158, 456 A.2d 390 (1983) (Mount Laurel II).
3 Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 92 N.J. 212-13, 456 A.2d 417(1983) (Mount Laurel II).
4 See Ellickson, The Irony of "Inclusionary" Zoning, The Regents of the University of California 1981, 54 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,1981,p.1167; Rose, The Mount Laurel II Decision: Is It Based on Wishful Thinking?, 12 Real Estate Law Journal,1983,p.115; Silverman, Housing for All Under Law: The Limits of Legalist Reform, The Regents of the University of California 1979, 27 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,1979,p.99; Note, Zoning for the Regional Welfare, 89 Yale Law Journal,1980,p.748.
1 MINN. STAT. ANN. § 462.14, Subd. 5 (West 1963) (enacted 1915). See supra note: Concepts in Transition : the Search for a New Definition of Property,at34.
2 E. BASSETT, ZONING 27 (1940). Id.at34.
3 Id.at35.
4 307 N.Y. 493, 121 N.E.2d 517 (1954).
5 307 N.Y. 502, 121 N.E.2d 521 (1954)(Fuld, J., dissenting).
1 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
2 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 695-703(1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at35.
3 438 U.S. 150 (1978)(Burger, Rehnquist, Stevens, J.J., dissenting).
4 R. ELLICKSON & A. TARLOCK, CASES AND MATERIALS ON LAND-USE CONTROLS 75(1981). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property, at35.
5 Id.at35.
6 24 Cal. 3d 266, 598 P.2d 25, 157 Cal. Rptr. 372 (1979), aff'd, 447 U.S. 255 (1980).
7 24 Cal. 3d 277, 598 P.2d 31, 157 Cal. Rptr. 378 (1979), aff'd, 447 U.S. 255 (1980).
8 24 Cal. 3d 277, 598 P.2d 31, 157 Cal. Rptr. 378 (1979), aff'd, 447 U.S. 255 (1980)(emphasis added).
1 Ed Zaagman, Inc. v. City of Kentwood, 406 Mich. 137, 277 N.W.2d 475 (1979). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property, at36.
2 San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621 (1981); Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980).
3 729 F.2d 402 (6th Cir. 1984).
4 450 U.S. at 661 n.26 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
5 729 F.2d 409(6th Cir. 1984).
6 E.g.,Supreme Court Weighs Zoning and Individual Rights, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Mar.3, 1985, at E5.
7 Williams, Smith, Siemon, Mandelker & Babcock, The White River Junction Manifesto, 9 Vermont Law Review,1984,p.193.
1 Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 105 S. Ct. 3108 (1985).
2 Tarlock, A Correlative Rights Approach to the Taking Issue in PLANNING WITHOUT PRICES 159 (B. Siegan ed. 1977). See supra note: Concepts in Transition: the Search for a New Definition of Property,at38.
3 Tarlock, A Correlative Rights Approach to the Taking Issue in PLANNING WITHOUT PRICES 159 (B. Siegan ed. 1977). Id.at38.
4 Caldwell, Rights of Ownership or Rights of Use? -- The Need for a New Conceptual Basis for Land Use Policy, 15 The William and Mary Quarterly,1974,p.759.
1 T. BERGIN & P. HASKELL, PREFACE TO ESTATES IN LAND AND FUTURE INTERESTS 1-18 (2d ed. 1984). See supra note: Concepts in Transition the Search for A New Definition of Property,at39.
2 T. BERGIN & P. HASKELL, PREFACE TO ESTATES IN LAND AND FUTURE INTERESTS 18 (2d ed. 1984). Id.at39.
3 Philbrick, Changing Conceptions of Property in Law, 86 University of Pennsylvania Law Review,1938,p.691,p.710.
1 See supra note:Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of things (1766), at2.
2 命定说(manifest destiny):是指一种认为某一民族扩张其领土系天命所定的反动史观。
3 W. LIPPMAN, THE METHOD OF FREEDOM 102 (1934). See supra note: Concepts in Transition the Search for A New Definition of Property,at39.
4 Id.at40
1 Wenig, The Marital Property Act, 12 Probate and Property,Summer,1983, p.9.
2 See supra note: Concepts in Transition the Search for A New Definition of Property,at40.
3 R. VON JHERING, DER GEIST DES ROMISCHEN RECHTS AUF DEN VERSCHIEDENEN STUFEN SEINER ENTWICKLUNG 7 (4th ed. 1878). Id.at41.
4 See supra note:Changing Conceptions of Property in Law,at691,at710.
5 Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Comm'n, 298 Minn. 471, 485, 216 N.W.2d 651, 661 (1974).
1 State v. Shack, 58 N.J. 297, 303-05, 277 A.2d 369, 372-73 (1971).
1 See H.Clews,Inciridudism Versus Socialism,New York , 1907, pp.1-3. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 28 页。
2 See supra note: Property Ecological Integrity Within The Balancing Function of Property Law,at85.
3 See supra note, The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960,at226.
4 Pound, Report of the Special Committee on Administrative Law, 63 Rep. Am. B. Ass’N(1938). Id.at219.
5 Pound, Do We Need a Philosophy of Law?, 5 COLUM. L. REV.339, 352(1905). Id.at220.
1 参见前引《个人主义》,第 24-28 页。
2 Arieli, Individualism and Nationalism in American Ideology, Cambridge, Mass., 1964, pp.191-2. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 25 页。
1 ‘Catholicism’, Boston Quarterly Review,IV(1841),p.320. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 25 页。
2 See supra note: Individualism and Nationalism in American Ideology, p.9. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 26 页。
3 Id. pp.345-6. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 26 页。
4 R. W. Emerson, Journals(1846), Vol. VII, Cambridge, Mass., 1909—14, pp.322-3. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 26 页。
1 R. W. Emerson, ‘New England Reformers’(1844) in Complete Writings, New York, 1929, Vol. I, pp.317-18. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 26 页。
2 Id.at551. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
3 J. W. Draper, History of the American Civil War, 3Vols., New York, 1868-70, Vol. I, pp. 207-8. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
4 W. Whitman, Democratic Vistas in Complete Prose Works(1871), Philadelphia, 1891, Vol. II, p. 67. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
5 引自 R. Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought, New York, 1959, p.51. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
6 W. G. Sumner, Earth Hunger and Other Essays, New Haven, 1913, pp.127-8. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
7 See supra note: Social Darwinism in American Thought, at34. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 27 页。
1 H.Clews, Individualism Versus Socialism, New York, 1907, pp.1-3. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第28 页。
2 J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, London and New York, 1888, Vol.II, p.404. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 28 页。
3 参见前引《普通法的精神》,第 25 页。
1 参见【美】理查德·A·波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》(上),将兆康译,林毅夫校,中国大百科全书出版社 1997 年版,中文版译者序言第 28 页。
2 See J. M. Buchanan, G. Tullock, The Calculus of Consent, University of Michigan Press, 1962, p.5.
1 See Martin S. Flaherty , History "Lite" In Modern American Constitutionalism, Columbia Law Review, April 1995, p.563.
2 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain,at2.
3 Id.at12-13.
4 参见前引《政府论》(下篇),第 105 页。
5 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, at13.
6 Id.at13.
7 See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999.p.119.
1 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, at14-15。
2 See supra note: Two Treatises of Government, at120.
3 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, at15.
4 Id.at15
1 Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith, What Happened to Property in Law and Economics?, 111 Yale Law Journal,2001,p.357.
2 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
3 See supra note: The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, p.782.
4 Id. at283.
5 See, e.g., Ashley v. Port Huron, 35 Mich. 296 (1877); Richardson v. Vt.Cent. R.R. Co., 25 Vt. 465 (1853).
6 see Booth v. Town ofWoodbury, 32 Conn. 118 (1864).
7 See also Mason v. Harper's Ferry Bridge Co., 17 W. Va. 396, 417 (1880).
1 See Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1036-61 (1992).
2 Id. at 1019.
3 United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 377 (1945).
4 see Richard Posner, Some Uses and Abuses of Economics in Law, 46 University of Chicago Law Review,1979,p.292,p.294.
5 Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415 (1922).
6 Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 127 (1978).
7 See supra note: On Property: An Essay, at127,at136.
8 Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 (1992).
9 Id. at 1064 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
1 See Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 629-31 (2001).
2 Penn Central, 438 U.S. at124 (quoting U.S. v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155, 168 (1958)).
3 See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 394 (1994).
4 See supra note: Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain.p.60.
5 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
1 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
2 505 U.S. 1027 (1992).
3 See supra note: Property Ecological Integrity Within The Balancing Function of Property Law,at86.
4 505 U.S. 1031(1992)(emphasis added).
5 505 U.S. 1018(1992)(emphasis added).
1 33 U.S.C. 1344 (1994); 16 U.S.C. 1538 (1994).
2 Cf. Joseph L. Sax, Property Rights and the Economy of Nature: Understanding Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 45 Stanford Law Review,1993,p.1433,pp.1438-39.
3 505 U.S. at 1020-27.
4 505 U.S. at 1027.
5 Richard A. Epstein, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: A Tangled Web of Expectations, 45 Stanford Law Review,1993,p.1369,p.1375-77.
1 Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach, 510 U.S. 1207 (1994)(Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of cert.).
2 See Robert ⅴPercival, Alan S. Miller, Christoper H. Schroeder and James P. Leape, Environmental Regulation: Law, Science, and Policy, Little, Brown and Co., 1992, p.72.
3 Cf. Joseph L. Sax, Takings and the Police Power, 74 Yale Law Journal,1964,p.36,pp.54-60.
4 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
5 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1157.
6 Florida Rock Indus., Inc. v. United States, 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 28 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
1 Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1035 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
2 Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1035 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
3 E.g., Eric T. Freyfogle, Ownership and Ecology, 43 Case Western Reserve Law Review,1993,p.1269; Eric T. Freyfogle, Owning the Wolf, 41 Dissent, Fall 1994,p.481.
1 Wes Jackson, Becoming Native to This Place 107-09 (1994). See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis,at1158.
1 参见前引《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,第 P89 页。
2 See supra note: Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, at1159.
3 参见前引《财产法:案例与材料》,第 1182 页。
4 “古代法”出现的时期,也是人类思想史上有最深远影响的事件之一,即达尔文(Darwin)自然选择原则形成的时期。“物种起源”(The Origin Of Species)发表于“古代法”出版前两年。无疑,梅因在历史法律学方面的著作自然地同十九世纪中叶广为传布的新的研究精神平列在一起。参见前引《古代法》,第8-9 页。
1 参见上引《古代法》,第 17 页、97 页。
2 参见上引《古代法》,第 8-9 页。参见前引《美国法律史》,第 209-213 页。
3 参见前引《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,第 58 页。
4 参见前引《创化论》,第 44 页、第 46 页。
5 参见《马克思恩格斯选集》(第三卷)中共中央马克思、恩格斯、列宁、斯大林著作编译局编译,人民出版社 1995 年第 2 版,第 477-485 页。
6 参见前引《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,第 69-70 页。
1 参见上引《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,第 80-90 页。
2 参见前引《政治学》,第 273 页。
3 【法】孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》(上),张雁深译,商务印书馆 1985 年版,第 166 页。
4 See Jhering, Law As a Means to an End ,transl. I.Husik (New York 1942), pp.408-409. 转引自前引《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》,第 109 页。
5 参见前引《社会契约论》,第 9 页。
6 【德】康德:《法的形而上学原理——权利的科学》,沈叔平译,林荣远校,商务印书馆 1991 年版,第26 页。
7 See I.Kant ,The Moral Law (1785)transl ed ,H·J·Pafon,3rd,London1956,pp.95-96. 转引自前引《个人主义》,第 44 页。
8 参见前引《美国法律史》,第 244 页
9 参见前引《正义论》,第 60 页、第 106 页。
1 参见前引《政治学》,第 273 页。
2 参见【美】弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店1997 年版,第 159-160 页。
1、[美] 库恩:《科学革命的结构》,李宝恒、纪树立译,上海科学技术出版社1980 年版。
2、[美] 麦茜特、卡洛琳:《自然之死:妇女,生态和科学革命》,吴国盛译,吉林人民出版社 1999 年版。
3、[法] 亨利·柏格森:《创化论》,诺贝尔文学奖全集编译委员会译,《诺贝尔文学奖全集》(15),《柏格森,Henri Bergson 1927》,九五文化事业有限公司、书华出版事业有限公司 1981 年初版。
4、[美] 赛班:《西方政治思想史》,李少军译,桂冠图书公司 1991 年版。
5、[英] 史蒂文·卢克斯:《个人主义》,阎克文译,江苏人民出版社 2001 年版。
6、[美] 约翰·E·克里贝特、科温·W·约翰逊、罗杰·W·芬德利、欧内斯特·E·史密斯:《财产法:案例与材料》,齐东祥、陈刚译,中国政法大学出版社 2003年版第 7 版。
7、[美] E·博登海默:《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》,邓正来译,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版。
8、[德] 黑格尔:《法哲学原理》,范扬、张企泰译,商务印书馆 1982 年版。
9、[美] 爱德华·S·考文:《美国宪法的“高级法”背景》,强世功译,三联书店 1996 年版。
10、 【英】S.F.C.密尔松:《普通法的历史基础》,李显冬、高翔、刘智慧、马呈元译,中国大百科全书出版社 1999 年版。
11、 冉昊著《英美财产法基本构造分析――从身份到契约,从契约到关系》,中国社会科学院博士论文打印稿。
12、 【日】大木雅夫:《比较法》,范愉译,朱景文审校,法律出版社 1999年版。
13、 【德】弗里德里希·卡尔·冯·萨维尼:《论立法与法学的当代使命》,许章润译,中国法制出版社 2001 年版。
14、 梅雪芹:《财产与政权――论约翰·洛克的财产观》,南京大学历史系博士论文打印稿。
15、 【德】黑格尔:《逻辑学》(下卷),杨一之译,商务印书馆 1976 年版。
16、 吕世伦著:《法理念探索》,法律出版社 2002 年版。
17、 【法】米歇尔福柯:《知识考古学》,谢强、马月译,生活读书新知三联书店 1998 年版。
18、 《阿奎那政治著作选》,马清槐译,商务印书馆 1963 年版。
19、 [美] 约翰·H·威格摩尔:《世界法系概览》(下),何勤华、李秀清、郭光东等译,上海人民出版社 2004 年版。
20、 [英] F·H·劳森、B·拉登:《财产法》,施天涛、梅慎实、孔祥俊译,中国大百科全书出版 1998 年版第 2 版
21、 [美] 罗斯科·庞德:《通过法律的社会控制 法律的任务》,沈宗灵、董世忠译,杨昌裕、楼邦彦校,商务印书馆 1984 年版。
22、 [英] 罗索:《西方哲学史》(下卷),马元德译,商务印书馆 1976 年版。
23、 江华骆通:《英美法通论》,群益书社 1909 年版。
24、 [英] 培根:《新工具》,许宝二译,商务印书馆 1984 年版。
25、 [荷兰] 斯宾诺莎:《笛卡儿哲学原理》,王荫庭、洪汉鼎译,商务印书馆 1980 年版。
26、 [英] 索利:《英国哲学史》,段德智译,山东人民出版社 1992 年版。
27、 [美] 雅·布伦诺斯基:《科学进化史》,李斯译,海南出版社 2002 年版。
28、 [德] 黑格尔:《哲学史讲演录》(第四卷),贺麟、王太庆译,商务印书馆 1978 年版。
29、 [意] 登特列夫:《自然法——法律哲学导论》,李日章译,台北联经出版事业公司 1984 年版。
30、 [美] 施特劳斯和克罗波西主编《政治哲学史》(上),李天然等译,河北人民出版社 1993 年版。
31、 [美] 萨拜因:《政治学说史》(上册),盛葵阳、崔妙因译,商务印书馆1986 年版。
32、 [德] 文德尔班:《哲学史教程》(上卷),罗达仁译,商务印书馆 1987年版。
33、 杨适著:《古希腊哲学探本》,商务印书馆 2003 年版。
34、 [苏] 涅尔谢相茨:《古希腊政治学说》,蔡拓译,商务印书馆 1991 年版。
35、 [古希腊] 亚里士多德:《政治学》,吴寿彭译,商务印书馆 1965 年版。
36、 [荷] 格劳秀斯:《战争与和平法》,[美]A·C·坎贝尔英译,何勤华等译,上海人民出版社 2005 年版。
37、 [古罗马] 西塞罗:《论共和国 论法律》,王焕生译,中国政法大学出版社 1997 年版。
38、 [古罗马] 西塞罗:《论义务》,王焕生译,中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版。
39、 [英] 梅因:《古代法》,沈景一译,商务印书馆 1959 年版。
40、 [荷] 格劳秀斯:《海洋自由论》,宇川译,上海三联书店 2005 年版。
41、 [法] 卢梭:《社会契约论》,何兆武译,商务印书馆 1980 年第 2 版。
42、 [日] 寺田四郎:《国际法学界之七大家》,韩逋仙译,吴旭阳校,中国政法大学出版社 2003 年版。
43、 [美] 但宁:《政治学说史》(中册),谢义伟译,神州国光社 1931 年版。
44、 [英] 洛克:《政府论》(下篇),叶启芳,瞿菊农译,商务印书馆 1981年版。
45、 [英] 洛克:《政府论》(上篇),瞿菊农、叶启芳译,商务印书馆 1982年版。
46、 [美] 施特劳斯:《自然权利与历史》,彭刚译,三联书店 2003 年版。
47、 唐奈勒 H· 梅多斯,丹尼斯·梅多斯,约恩·兰德斯:《超越极限:正视全球性崩溃,展望可持续的未来》,上海译文出版社 2001 年版。
48、 张文显著:《二十世纪西方法哲学思潮研究》,法律出版 1996 年版。
49、 [奥] 凯尔森:《法与国家的一般理论》,沈宗灵译,中国大百科全书出版社 1996 年版。
50、 [美] 因斯蒂图特:《美国法律整编》(第四册,财产法),法治斌译,司法周刊杂志社 1987 年版。
51、 [日] 高柳贤三:《英美法源理论》,杨磊、黎晓译,林向荣校,西南政法学院法制史教研室科研处编译室 1983 年编译。
52、 [德] K.茨威格特,H.克茨:《比较法总论》,潘汉典,米健,高鸿钧,贺卫方译,贵州人民出版社 1992 年版。
53、 [台] 丘宏达,杨崇森,陈长文著:《法律学》,台湾学生书局 1973 年版。
54、 [美] 纳尔逊·曼弗雷德·布莱克:《美国社会生活与思想史》(上册),许季鸿译,商务印书馆 1994 年版。
55、 [美] 罗斯科·庞德:《普通法的精神》,唐前宏、廖湘文、高雪原译,夏登峻校,法律出版社 2001 年版。
56、 [美] 莫顿·J·霍维茨:《美国法的变迁》(1780—1860),谢鸿飞译,中国政法大学出版社 2004 年版。
57、 [英] 吉米·边沁:《立法理论》,李贵芳等译,中国人民公安大学出版社 2004 年版。
58、 [英] 边沁:《道德与立法原理导论》,时殷弘译,商务印书馆 2000 年版。
59、 [美] 伯纳德·施瓦茨:《美国法律史》,王军等译,中国政法大学出版社 1990 年版。
60、 [古罗马] 优士丁尼:《法学阶梯》,徐国栋译,中国政法大学出版社 1999年版。
61、 William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅱ, of the Rights of Things(1766),The University of Chicago Press, 1979, 王铁雄译,打印稿,待由上海人民出版社出版。
62、 [英] 舒马赫:《小是美好的》,虞鸿均、郑关林译,商务印书馆 1984 年版。
63、 [美] 托马斯·杰斐逊:《杰斐逊选集》,朱曾汶译,商务印书馆 1999 年版。
64、 刘祚昌著:《杰斐逊》,中国社会科学出版社 1996 年版。
65、 [美] 帕灵顿、沃浓·路易:《美国思想史:1620-1920》,陈永国、李增、郭乙瑶译,吉林人民出版社 2002 年版。
66、 [美] 路易斯·哈茨:《美国自由主义传统:独立革命以来美国政治思想阐释》,张敏谦译,金灿荣校,中国社会科学出版 2003 年版。
67、 [美] 沃斯特:《自然的经济体系:生态思想史》,侯文惠译,商务印书馆 1999 年版。
68、 李进之、王久华、李克宁、蒋丹宁著:《美国财产法》,法律出版社 1999年版。
69、 马新彦著:《美国财产法与判例研究》,法律出版社 2001 年版。
70、 [美] 凯斯·R·桑斯坦:《偏颇的宪法》,宋华琳、毕竞悦译,北京大学出版社 2005 年版。
71、 [英] 路德维希·维特根斯坦:《哲学研究》,陈嘉映译,上海人民出版社 2005 年版。
72、 [美] 约瑟夫·斯托里:《美国宪法评注》,毛国权译,上海三联书店 2006年版。
73、 [加拿大] 简·雅各布斯:《美国大城市的死与生》,金衡山译,译林出版社 2005 年版。
74、 [美] 约翰·罗尔斯:《正义论》,何怀宏、何包钢、廖申白译,中国社会科学出版社 1988 年版。
75、 [美] R.W.芬德利、D.A.法贝尔:《美国环境法简论》,程正康等译,中国环境科学出版社 1986 年版。
76、 [美] 理查德·A·波斯纳:《法律的经济分析》(上),将兆康译,林毅夫校,中国大百科全书出版社 1997 年版。
77、 《马克思恩格斯选集》(第三卷)中共中央马克思、恩格斯、列宁、斯大林著作编译局编译,人民出版社 1995 年第 2 版。
78、 [法] 孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》(上),张雁深译,商务印书馆 1985 年版。
79、 [德] 康德:《法的形而上学原理——权利的科学》,沈叔平译,林荣远校,商务印书馆 1991 年版。
80、 [美] 弗里德利希·冯·哈耶克:《自由秩序原理》(上),邓正来译,生活·读书·新知三联书店 1997 年版。
81、 何勤华:《布莱克斯通与英美法律近代化》,载《法律科学》1996 年第 6期。
82、 王铁雄:《集体土地所有权制度之完善――民法典制定中不容忽视的问题》,载《法学》2003 年第 2 期。
83、 王铁雄:《域外古代土地产权制度比较研究》,载何勤华主编:《法律文化史研究》(第一卷),商务印书馆 2004 年版。
84、 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, 1957.
85、 Barthes, Roland, Mythologies, Vol.Ⅰ, Wendy Doninger trans., University of Chicago Press,1991.
86、 Lucius Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones, Vol.Ⅱ,Thomas H. Corcoran trans., Harvard University Press, 1972.
87、 R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.
88、 D. Bigongiari, The Political Ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. English Dominican Fathers, ed. New York: Hafner Press,1953.
89、 L B Curzon, English Legal History , Macdonald & Evans Ltd., 1979.
90、 A.W.B.Simpson, A History of the Land Law ,Clarendon Press, Oxford, Second Edition, 1986.
91、 [英] 西奥多·F·T·普拉克内特:《简明普通法史》(影印版),中信出版社 2003 年版第 5 版。
92、 Cf. Elie Halevy, The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism , Beacon Press, 1955.
93、 Wolfgang Friedmann, Legal Theory, Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1947.
94、 Stephen Buckle, Natural Law and the Theory of Property : Grotius to Hume , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.
95、 H.Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres(1625), trans. F.W. Kelsey, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York: Oceana Publications, 1964.
96、 C.B.Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism:Hobbes to Locke, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
97、 K.Olivecrona, Law as Fact, London: Stevens ﹠Sons 2nd ed., 1971.
98、 Richard Tuck , Natural rights theories: their Origin and Development, Cambridge University Press, 1979.
99、 [英] 休谟:《人性论》(1739-1740)(影印本),中国社会科学出版 1999年版。
100、 塞缪尔·普芬道夫:《人和公民的义务》(影印本),中国政法大学出版社 2003 年版。
101、 George C. Christie, Jurisprudence: Text and Readings on the Philosophy of Law, St. Paul, Minn. West Publishing Co., 1973.
102、 Christopher B. Gray, The Philosophy of Law: an Encyclopedia, Vol.2, Carland Publishing Inc., 1999.
103、 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books Inc., 1974.
104、 R.Tuck, Hobbes, Oxford University Press, 1989.
105、 J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
106、 J. Locke, Essays on the Law of Nature, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954.
107、 J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government(1690), 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
108、 Sukhninder Panesar, General Principles of Property Law ,Pearson Education Limited, 2001.
109、 J.Tully, A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
110、 Grotius on the Freedom of the Seas, trans. R. V. D. Magoffin, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York: Oxford University Press, 1916.
111、 L. Becker, Property Rights: Philosophic Foundations, London:Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977.
112、 T. Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C. B. Macpherson, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968.
113、 J. Locke, An Essay concerning Human Understanding(1690), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
114、 Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence, ed. R. L. Meek, D.D. Raphael, and P.G. Stein, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
115、 J. Waldron, The Right to Private Property, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
116、 Hont and M. Ignatieff, Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
117、 R. W. Grant, John Locke’s Liberalism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
118、 Richard A. Epstein, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, Harvard University Press, 1985.
119、 William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅰ, of the Rights of persons(1765),The University of Chicago Press, 1979.
120、 William Blackstone, Commentaries, On the Laws of England (1765—1769)Vol.Ⅲ, of Private Wrongs(1767),The University of Chicago Press, 1979.
121、 Miller, The Life of The Mind in America, From The Revolution to The Civil War, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1965.
122、 Robert P. Burns, Blackstone's Theory of the "Absolute" Rights of Property, 54 University of Cincinnati Law Review, 1985.
123、 Lawrence M .Friedman, A history of American Law, 2nd ed. Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1985.
124、 Sir William Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol,Ⅺ. Methuen& Co Ltd and Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, Third Impression, 1977.
125、 Thomas Jefferson, The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Adrienne Koch & William Peden eds., Modern Library, 1972.
126、 Louis Hartz, with an introduction by Tom Wicker, The Liberal Tradition in America: an interpretation of American political thought since the Revolution, New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991.
127、 Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution , New York: Alfred A. knopf, 1992.
128、 Gordon S .Wood , the Creation of the American Republic, 1776—1787(1969), Land Law and Real Property in American History, Garland Publishing, Inc., 1987.
129、 James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist No.10, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
130、 James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the Federalist papers, Penguin Books, 1987.
131、 George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Henry Holt and company, Inc., 1937.
132、 John Taylor, Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated (1820), Da Capo Press, 1970.
133、 Lawrence M Friedman , Harry N Scheiber, American law and the constitutional order : historical perspectives, Harvard University Press, 1988.
134、 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, Hamish Hamilton Inc., 1962.
135、 Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time, Vintage Books, 1994.
136、 Daniel B. Botkin, Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press, 1990.
137、 Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law 1870-1960, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1992.
138、 Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning [c1919], Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2001.
139、 Cass R. Sunstein, The Partial Constitution, Harvard University Press, 1993.
140、 John Patrick. Diggins, The Lost Soul of American Politics: Virtue, Self-Interest, and the Foundations of Liberalism, Basic Books Inc., 1984.
141、 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, Basil Blackwell, 1958.
142、 Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City & the rise of the American working class, 1788-1850, Oxford University Press, 1984.
143、 Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Harper & Row publishers, 1988.
144、 Bruce Palmer, “Man over Money”: The Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism, University of North Carolina Press, 1980.
145、 William E. Forbath, Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement, Harvard University Press, 1991.
146、 Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law.Vol.1, Foundation Press, 2000.
147、 Nancy F. Cott, No small courage : a history of women in the United States, Oxford University Press, 2000.
148、 Nancy F. Cott, Public vows : a history of marriage and the nation , Harvard University Press, 2000.
149、 Jeanne Boydston, Home & Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic, Oxford University Press, 1990.
150、 Douglass S. Massey & Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Harvard University Press, 1993.
151、 Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization ofthe United States, Oxford University Press, 1985.
152、 Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War era, Basic Books, 1999.
153、 Linda K. Kerber, The Republican Mother: Female Political Imagination in the Early Republic, in Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1980.
154、 Curtis J. Berger, Land Ownership and Use, Little, Brown and Company, 1975.
155、 Ralph E. Boyer, Herbert Hovenkamp, Sheldon F. Kurtz: The Law of Property, 4th ed., West Publishing Co., 1991.
156、 Jane Jacobs, The Death And Life Of Great American Cities, Random House, 1961.
157、 Hudson , Alastair, New perspectives on property law, obligations and restitution, Cavendish, 2004.
158、 Albert O. Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph, Princeton University Press, 1977.
159、 Roger W. Findley & Daniel A. Farber, Cases and Materials on Environmental Law, West Pub. Co., 1995.
160、 J. M. Buchanan, G. Tullock, The Calculus of Consent, University of Michigan Press, 1962.
161、 John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999.
162、 Robert ⅴ.Percival, Alan S. Miller, Christoper H. Schroeder and James P. Leape, Environmental Regulation: Law, Science, and Policy, Little, Brown and Co., 1992.
163、 【美】约瑟夫·威廉·辛格:《财产法:规则·政策·实务》(第三版)(影印本),中信出版社 2003 年版,第 21 页。
164、 Plato, Timaeus, in Plato: The Collected Dialogues ,Edith Hamilton & Huntington Cairns eds., Lane Cooper et al. trans., Princeton University Press,1971.
165、 Encyclopedia Britannica(15th edition), Vol. 12, 1977.
166、 John Locke Critical Assessments, Edited by Richard Ashcraft, Vol.Ⅲ, Routledge & Kegan Paul,1991.
167、 John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government: New Interpretation, ed. Edward J. Harpham, University Press of Kansas, 1992.
168、 Land Law and Real Property in American History, Edited by Kermit L.Hall, Garland Publishing ,Inc., 1987.
169、 The Works of James Wilson, Vol.1, Robert Green McCloskey ed., Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967.
170、 Henry Campbell Black, Black’ Law Dictionary, 5th ed., St. Paul Minn,.West Publishing Co., 1979.
171、 Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), William Peden ed., University of North Carolina Press, 1954.
172、 Myrl L. Duncan , Property as A Public Conversation, Not A Lockean Soliloquy: A Role For Intellectual and Legal History In Takings Analysis, Environmental Law Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College, Winter 1996.
173、 Myrl L. Duncan, High Noon on the Ogallala Aquifer: Agriculture Does Not Live by Farmland Preservation Alone, 27 Washburn Law Journal,1987.
174、 Robert W. Gordon, Critical Legal Histories, 36 Stanford Law Review,1984.
175、 Lynn White, Jr., The Historical Roots of the Ecological Crisis, 155 Science, March 1967.
176、 Adam Mossoff, What Is Property? Putting The Pieces Back Together, 2003 Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona Law Review, Summer 2003.
177、 E.Kamenka, “Maxrism and Politics”, 10 Bulletin of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy, March 1986.
178、 Karl Olivecrona, Appropriation in the State of Nature: Locke on the Origin of Property, 35 Journal of the History of Ideas, 1974.
179、 Carol M. Rose, Canons of Property Talk, or, Blackstone's Anxiety, Yale Law Journal, December, Yale Law Journal Company, 1998.
180、 Walton H. Hamilton, Property--According to Locke, 41 Yale Law Journal, 1932.
181、 Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E.Smith, Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle, 110 Yale Law Journal, 2000.
182、 Joan E. Schaffner, Patent Preemption Unlocked, Wisconsin Law Review, 1995.
183、 William Michael Treanor, The Origins and Original Significance of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, 94 Yale Law Journal, 1985.
184、 Terry W. Farzier, Property Ecological Integrity Within The Balancing Function of Property Law, Environmental Law Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College ,Spring 1998.
185、 Radhika Rao, Property, Privacy, and The Human Body, Trustees of Boston University Law Review, April 2000.
186、 J.E. Penner, The "Bundle of Rights" Picture of Property, The Regents of the University of California , 1996, UCLA Law Review ,February 1996.
187、 Felix Cohen, Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach,
35 Columbia Law Review, 1935.
188、 John Edward Cribbet, Concepts In Transition the Search For A NewDefinition of Property, The University of Illinois University of Illinois Law Review, 1986.
189、 Joan Williams , The Rhetoric of Property,83 Iowa Law Review ,January, 1998.
190、 William E. Forbath, The Shaping of the American Labor Movement,
102 Harvard Law Review, 1989.
191、 Martin S. Flaherty , History "Lite" In Modern American Constitutionalism, The Columbia Law Review , April, 1995.
192、 William H. Simon, Social-Republican Property, 38 The Regents of the University of California 1991,University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February,1991.
193、 Jared Diamond, Playing Dice with Megadeath, Discover, April 1990.
194、 Joseph William Singer & Jack M. Beermann, The Social Origins of Property, 6 Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 1993.
195、 Joseph William Singer, No Right to Exclude: Public Accommodations and Private Property, 90 Northwestern University Law Review, 1996.
196、 Joan C. Williams, At the Fusion of Horizons: Incommensurability and the Public Interest, 20 Vermont Law Review, 1996.
197、 Jack M. Beermann & Joseph William Singer, Baseline Questions in Legal Reasoning: The Example of Property in Jobs, 23 Georgia Law Review, 1989.
198、 Joseph W. Singer, Jobs and Justice: Rethinking the Stakeholder Debate, 43 U. Toronto Law Journal, 1993.
199、 Joseph W. Singer, The Reliance Interest in Property, 40 Stanley Law Review, 1988.
200、 Joseph W. Singer, Well Settled? The Increasing Weight of History in American Indian Land Claims, 28 Georgia Law Review, 1994.
201、 Joseph William Singer, Persuasion, 87 Michigan Law Review, 1989.
202、 Daniel T. Rodgers, Republicanism: The Career of a Concept, 79 TheJournal of American History, 1992.
203、 Cass R. Sunstein, Interest Groups in American Public Law, 38 Stanford Law Review, 1985.
204、 Frank I. Michelman, Political Markets and Community Self-Determination: Competing Judicial Models of Local Government Legitimacy, 53 Indiana Law Journal, 1978.
205、 Richard H. Fallon, What Is Republicanism and Is It Worth Reviving?, 102 Harvard Law Review,1989.
206、 Cass R. Sunstein, The Republican Civic Tradition, Beyond the Republican Revival, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
207、 Christopher F. Edley, The Governance Crisis, Legal Theory, and Political Ideology, 1991 Duke Law Journal, 1991.
208、 Hendrik Hartog, Imposing Constitutional Traditions, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1987.
209、 Derrick Bell & Preeta Bansal, The Republican Revival and Racial Politics, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
210、 Stephen M. Feldman, Whose Common Good? Racism in the Political Community, 80 Geo. Law Journal 1992.
211、 Frank I. Michelman, Law's Republic, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
212、 Frank I. Michelman, Bringing the Law to Life: A Plea for Disenchantment, 74 Cornell Law Review, 1989.
213、 Lawrence G. Sager, The Incorrigible Constitution, 65 New York University Law Review, 1990.
214、 Morton J. Horwitz, Republicanism and Liberalism in American Constitutional Thought, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1987.
215、 James T. Kloppenberg, The Virtues of Liberalism: Christianity, Republicanism & Ethics in Early American Political Discourse, 74 The Journal of American History, 1987.
216、 Mark Tushnet, The Concept of Tradition in ConstitutionalHistoriography, 29 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1987.
217、 Gordon S. Wood, Thomas Jefferson, Equality, and the Creation of a Civil Society, 64 Fordham Law Review, 1996.
218、 James Boyd White, Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Law: The Arts of Cultural and Communal Life, 52 University of Chicago Law Review, 1985.
219、 Gregory S. Alexander, Time and Property in the American Republican Legal Culture, 66 New York University Law Review, 1991.
220、 Kathleen M. Sullivan, Rainbow Republicanism, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
221、 Richard Epstein, Modern Republicanism--Or the Flight from Substance, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
222、 William W. Fisher III, Ideology, Religion, and the Constitutional Protection of Private Property: 1760-1860, 39 Emory Law Journal 1990.
223、 Linda K. Kerber, Making Republicanism Useful, 97 Yale Law Journal, 1988.
224、 Stanley N. Katz, Thomas Jefferson and the Right to Property in Revolutionary America, 19 The Journal of Law and Economics, 1976.
225、 Paul Goodman, The Emergence of Homestead Exemption in the United States: Accommodation and Resistance to the Market Revolution, 1840-1880, 80 The Journal of American History, 1993.
226、 Lea S. Vander Velde, The Labor Vision of the Thirteenth Amendment, 138 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1989.
227、 Frank I. Michelman, Possession vs. Distribution in the Constitutional Idea of Property, 72 Iowa Law Review, 1987.
228、 Fred R. Shapiro, The Most-Cited Law Review Articles, 73 The Regents of the University of California, 1985,UCLA Law Review ,February, 1985.
229、 Charles Reich, The New Property, 73 Yale Law Journal, 1964.
230、 Suzanna Sherry, Civic Virtue and the Feminine Voice inConstitutional Adjudication, 72 Virginia Law Review, 1986.
231、 Carol Rose, Crystals and Mud in Property Law, 40 Stanford Law Review,1983.
232、 Sir William Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol, IV. Methuen & Co Ltd and Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, Third Impression 1977.
233、 John F. Hart, Colonial Land Use and Its Significance for Modern Takings Doctrine, 109 Harvard Law Review, 1996.
234、 William Michael Treanor, The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, 95 Columbia. Law Review, 1995.
235、 Lance Banning, Jeffersonian Ideology Revisited: Liberal and Classical Ideas in the New American Republic, 43 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1986.
236、 Isaac Kramnick, The "Great National Discussion": The Discourse of Politics in 1787, 45 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1988.
237、 Carol M. Rose, Rethinking Environmental Controls: Management Strategies for Common Resources, 1 Duke Law Journey, 1991.
238、 William Novak, Common Regulation: Legal Origins of State Power in America, 45 Hastings Law Journal, 1994.
239、 Harry N. Scheiber, Public Rights and the Rule of Law in American Legal History, 72 California Law Review, 1984.
240、 Meyers, The Covenant of Habitability and the American Law Institute, 27 Stanford Law Review, 1975.
241、 Hetland, The California Land Contract, 48 California Law Review, 1960.
242、 L. Simes & C. Taylor, The Improvement of Conveyancing By Legislation, the University of Michigan Law School, 1960.
243、 Note, Who Owns the Clouds?, 1 Stanford Law Review, 1948.
244、 Fisher, Weather Modification and the Right of Capture, 8 NaturalResources Journal, 1976.
245、 Comment, Obstruction of Sunlight as a Private Nuisance, 65 California Law Review , 1977.
246、 Comment, Solar Lights: Guaranteeing A Place in the Sun, 57 Oregon Law Review,1977.
247、 Eisenstadt, Access to Solar Energy: The Problem and its Current Status, 22 Natural Resources Journal, 1982.
248、 Cunningham, The New Implied and Statutory Warranties of Habitability in Residential Leases: From Contract to Status, 16 Urban Law Annual, 1979.
249、 Dolley & Carroll, Airport Noise Pollution Damages: The Case for Local Liability, 15 Fordham Urban Law Journal, 1983.
250、 Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman's Place: The Rhetoric of Women's History, 75 the American Historical Review, 1988.
251、 Uriel Reichman, Towards a Unified Concept of Servitudes, The Regents of the University of California 1982, 55 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,February,1982.
252、 Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, The Defeasible Fee and the Birth of the Modern Residential Subdivision, 49 Missouri Law Review, 1984.
253、 Joan C. Williams, Domesticity as the Dangerous Supplement of Liberalism, 2 Journal of Women's History, 1991.
254、 Margaret J. Radin, Property and Personhood, 34 Stanford Law Review, 1982.
255、 William J. Novak, Public Economy and the Well-Ordered Market: Law and Economic Regulation in 19th Century America, 18 Law & Social Inquiry, 1993.
256、 Cribbet, Some Reflections on the Law of Land -- A View From Scandinavia, 62 Northwestern University Law Review, 1967.
257、 See Siegan, Non-Zoning in Houston, 13 The Journal of Law andEconomics, 1970.
258、 Symposium, Planned Unit Development, 114 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1965.
259、 See Ellickson, The Irony of "Inclusionary" Zoning, The Regents of the University of California 1981, 54 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review, 1981.
260、 Rose, The Mount Laurel II Decision: Is It Based on Wishful Thinking?, 12 Real Estate Law Journal, 1983.
261、 Silverman, Housing for All Under Law: The Limits of Legalist Reform, The Regents of the University of California 1979, 27 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review, 1979.
262、 Note, Zoning for the Regional Welfare, 89 Yale Law Journal, 1980.
263、 Caldwell, Rights of Ownership or Rights of Use? -- The Need for a New Conceptual Basis for Land Use Policy, 15 WILLIAM. & Mary Law Review, 1974.
264、 Norman Williams Jr. et al., The White River Junction Manifesto, 9 Vermont Law Review, 1984.
265、 J. Robert S. Prichard, A Market for Babies?, 34 University of Toronto Law Journal, 1984.
266、 Michael Perry, Toward an Ecumenical Politics, 60 George Washington Law Review, 1992.
267、 Curtis J. Berger, Response: Home Is Where the Heart Is: A Brief Reply to Professor Epstein, 54 Brooklyn Law Review, 1989.
268、 Margaret J. Radin, The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings, 88 Columbia Law Review, 1988.
269、 Edward H. Rabin, The Revolution on Residential Landlord-Tenant Law: Causes and Consequences, 69 Cornell Law Review, 1976.
270、 Margaret J. Radin, Market-Inalienability, 100 Harvard Law Review,1987.
271、 Stephen J. Schnably, Property and Pragmatism: A Critique of Radin's Theory of Property and Personhood, 45 Stanford Law Review, 1993.
272、 Wilson, The Law and the Facts, 5 America Political Science Review, 1911.
273、 Cf. Joseph L. Sax, Property Rights and the Economy of Nature: Understanding Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 45 Stanford Law Review, 1993.
274、 Richard A. Epstein, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: A Tangled Web of Expectations, 45 Stanford Law Review, 1993.
275、 Cf. Joseph L. Sax, Takings and the Police Power, 74 Yale Law Journal, 1964.
276、 Eric T. Freyfogle, Ownership and Ecology, 43 Case Western Reserve Law Review, 1993.
277、 Eric T. Freyfogle, Owning the Wolf, 41 Dissent, Fall 1994.
278、 Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith, What Happened to Property in Law and Economics?, 111 Yale Law Journal, 2001.
279、 Richard Posner, Some Uses and Abuses of Economics in Law, 46 University Chicago Law Review, 1979..
280、 Laura S. Underkuffler, On Property: An Essay, 100 Yale Law Journal, 1990.
281、 Adam Mossoff, Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550-1800, 52 Hastings Law Journal, 2001.
282、 John Dunn, Justice and the Interpretation of Locke’s Political Theory, 16 Political Studies, 1968.
283、 Thomas W. Merrill, Property and the Right to Exclude, 77 Nebraska Law Review,1998.
284、 Nolan, Sir William Blackstone and the New American Republic: AStudy of Intellectual Impact, 51 New York University Law Review,1976.
285、 Carol M. Rose, Possession as the Origin of Property, 52 University of Chicago Law Review,1985.
286、 Harry N. Scheiber, Law and the Imperatives of Progress: Private Rights and Public Values in American Legal History, 24 Nomos,1982.
287、 Richard F. Babcock & Duane A. Fuerer, Land as a Commodity "Affected with a Public Interest," 52 Washington Law Review,1977.
288、 Eric T. Freyfogle, The Owning and Taking of Sensitive Lands, The Regents of the University of California 1995,43 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review,1995.
289、 See A.G. Huntsman, Method in Ecology-Ectology, 43 Ecology, 1962.
290、 Joseph William Singer, Case Four: Choice of Law Theory, 29 New England Law Review,1995.
291、 Joseph William Singer, Legal Realism Now, 76 California Law Review,1988.
292、 Joseph William Singer, The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld, Wiscinsin Law Review, 1982.
293、 Joseph W. Singer, Property and Coercion in Federal Indian Law: The Conflict Between Critical and Complacent Pragmatism, 63 Southern California Law Review,1990.
294、 Joseph W. Singer, Publicity Rights and the Conflict of Laws: Tribunal Court Jurisdiction in the Crazy Horse Case, 41 South Dakota Law Review,1996.
295、 Joseph W. Singer, Re-Reading Property, 26 New England Law Review,1992.
296、 Joseph William Singer, Sovereignty and Property, 86 Northwestern University Law Review,1991.
297、 Property, J. Roland Pennock & John W. Chapman eds., 22 Nomos,1980.
298、 Ruth H. Bloch, The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in RevolutionaryAmerica,13 Signs,1987.
299、 Samuel Olken, Justice George Sutherland and Economic Liberty, 6 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,1997.
300、 Pulliam, Brandeis Brief for Decontrol of Land Use: A Plea for Constitutional Reform, 13 Southwestern University Law Review,1983.
301、 Fulton, Building and Bargaining in California, 4 California Law Review, December 1984.
302、 Carol M. Rose, Mahon Reconstructed: Why the Takings Issue Is Still a Muddle, 57 Southern California Law Review, 1984.
303、 Akil Amar, Forty Acres and a Mule: A Republican Theory of Minimum Entitlement, 13 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 1990.
304、 Margaret J. Radin, Residential Rent Control, 15 Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1986.
305、 Hamilton & Till, Property, 12 Encyclopedia of the Social Science, 1933.
306、 Bearman, Caveat Emptor in Sales of Realty-Recent Assaults Upon the Rule, 14 Vanderbilt Law Review, 1961.
307、 Note, Builder's Liability for Latent Defects in Used Homes, 32 Stanford Law Review, 1980.
308、 Gutierrez, Liability of a Construction Lender Under Civil Code Section 3434: An Amorphous Epitaph to Connor v. Great Western Savings & Loan Association, 8 Pacific Law Journal, 1977.
309、 Hand, Right-To-Farm Laws: Breaking New Ground In the Preservation of Farmland, 45 University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 1984.
310、 Ausness, Water Rights Legislation in the East: A Program for Reform, 24 The William and Mary Quarterly, 1983.
311、 Tucker, Environmentalism: The Newest Toryism, Yale Law and Policy Review, 1980.
312、 Philbrick, Changing Conceptions of Property in Law, 86 Universityof Pennsylvania Law Review, 1938.
313、 Wenig, The Marital Property Act, 12 Probate and Property, Summer, 1983.