La propriété est respectée comme un droit inviolable et sacré en France depuis 1789 en vertu de l’article 17 de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen. Cependant, au Vietnam, par effet de la colonisation, la législation civile avant 1980 n’a pas obtenu des résultats remarquables, particulièrement en matière de la propriété. Actuellement, après le Code Napoléon de 1804 en France ou le Code civil de 1995 au Vietnam, les biens et la propriété jouent un rôle important dans les deux systèmes juridiques. Le Code civil français déclare que l’accession est une mode d’acquisition originaire, à côté des modes d’acquisition dérivés, de la propriété des biens. Par les dispositions diverses concernant la propriété dans le Code civil de 2005, le droit vietnamien constate tacitement le droit d’accession comme une manière d’acquérir de la propriété. Les propositions concernant l’accession des biens dans le droit civil vietnamien, en revanche, ne sont pas suffisantes et systématiques. / The property is respected as a sacred and an inviolable right in France from 1789 according to article 17 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. However, due to the colonization, the Vietnamese civil legislation before 1980 didn’t achieved outstanding results, especially in the property. Currently, after the Napoleonic Code of 1804 in France or the Civil Code of 1995 in Vietnam, the properties and ownership right play an important role in both two legal systems. The French Civil Code states that accession is an original mode of acquisition, together with derived modes of acquisition, of the ownership right of properties. By various provisions related to the property in the Civil Code of 2005, the Vietnamese law tacitly recognizes that accession is a way to acquire the ownership right. The provisions in the civil law of Vietnam on accession of properties, however, are not sufficient and systematic.

This thesis deals with the relationship between property rights and the protection of environmental compartments. The thesis is divided into chapters corresponding to individual compartments, namely soil, minerals, energy, water, air, organisms and ecosystems. Each chapter defines given compartment and then describes its current Czech regulation. This thesis doesn't deal with all legislation in the area of environmental protection, but only with provisions related to ownership, namely whether given compartment can be an object of property rights and if possible whether its owner's treatment of this compartment can be restricted in the interest of its protection. Some chapters are further divided into sub-chapters due to quantity of laws concerning corresponding environmental compartment, e.g. the chapter about ownership of organisms differentiates animals from other organisms and further divides them into animals in captivity and free-living ones. Chapters about soil, minerals, water and organisms are ended with partial conclusions summarising my knowledge and thoughts about their respective topics, while the conclusion of the thesis as whole represents combination of synthesis of those partial conclusions and my opinions on overall legal regulation of property rights to environmetal compartments.

The justification of property ownership based on individual subjective rights is tightly bound to humanist moral perspectives. God is left out as irrelevant to the just grounds of ownership, which is established primarily on the basis of human self-referential, moral capacity. This thesis aims at developing an alternative justification, both for property as an institution and as a private holding, with a view to bringing God back into the centre stage and thereby placing property ownership on the objective concept of right. A tradition hitherto generally left unnoticed, yet uncovered here as the source of inspiration, vests the whole project with a moral-teleological tone. The tradition, enunciated by St. Augustine and developed by St. Bonaventure and John Wyclif, invites us to see property from the perspective of a moral end: it ought to be used for the love of God and neighbours, and as such it can be owned only by the just. In spite of important insights into the moral nature of property, the Augustinian thesis not only fails to spell out what ‘use for love’ means but also suffers from elitism. Nor does it offer an adequate justification of private property. Such weaknesses call for revision. When we reinterpret the Augustinian thesis through the concept of the divine imperative of service coupled with a proper understanding of human work, property acquires a distinctive justification. Property, as an institution, is justified as a requisite for carrying out God’s redemptive work towards the world. From this general justification ensues the particular justification. We hold property as specifically ‘mine,’ since each person’s ordained mission to participate in God’s work requires a uniquely personal material means, although the recognition and fulfilment of individual mission still demands communal efforts. The duty to carry out the God-commanded mission at first allows us to possess private property only in a non-proprietorial and non-exclusive manner. Yet in the prevailing condition of economic scarcity and human greed, civil jurisdiction must provide a structure of rights to enforce property institution. As God’s invitation for the transformation of the world is a universal command, everybody should have a minimum of property, and yet in differentiation of the scope and kinds commensurate with the particularities of individual mission.