Lic.-avh. Uppsala : Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, 2007.

Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-10T17:55:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Jessica_de_Lima_da_Silva.pdf: 2796337 bytes, checksum: 39cb5b8c4ab92799692e588a7e8c829a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-02-27 / This research intends, through the use of oral sources, to analyse the identities in construction of the Manoel Ciríaco dos Santos' family, in the period between the family arrival in the 1960's until today, especially since they were recognized as quilombolas in 2006. The object is to comprehend in what way these identities have been constructed and what are the meanings attributed to the family trajectory. The family actually claims the status of a quilombola community, with a black past to be repaired by public politics. It's also an objective of this work to perceive how this identity construction has influenced in the relation with the other land owners of the region, once that the land collective ownership has been claimed by quilombolas. Thus, besides the oral sources, we used newspapers and legal documents, such as denounces from the Federal Public Ministry / Essa pesquisa pretende, através do uso de fontes orais, analisar as identidades em construção da família Manoel Ciríaco dos Santos, no período compreendido entre a chegada da família à Guaíra, nos anos 60, até os dias atuais, especialmente desde seu reconhecimento como quilombola em 2006. O objetivo é compreender de que forma essas identidades tem sido construídas, quais os sentidos atribuídos à trajetória familiar. A família reivindica atualmente o status de comunidade quilombola, com um passado negro a ser reparado pelas políticas públicas. Também é objetivo desse trabalho perceber como essa construção de identidades tem influenciado na relação que se estabelece com os demais proprietários de terra da região, uma vez que a posse coletiva de terra tem sido reivindicada pelos quilombolas. Para tanto, além das fontes orais, utilizamos jornais e documentos jurídicos, como denúncias do Ministério Público Federal

In this paper the viability of housing commons as an alternative to commercial and public housing provision is examined. With rising financial burdens for renters in German cities over the past ten years, and state and market failing to provide affordable and accessible housing, claims to (re)communalize and decommodify housing are on the rise. The study is contextualized through tracing changing housing policies post-1945, and historic accounts of housing commons in the German context. Arguing for the advantages of conceptualizing housing as a common good, the applicability, limitations, and contradictions of this approach are explored. Founded in the “new commons” literature, the paper highlights the specific characteristics and challenges of urban housing commons and considers them regarding the complex in(ter)dependencies with market and state. Seven semi-structured interviews with residents of alternative housing projects (based on the principles of decommodification and self-management) and people from supporting organizations were conducted to gain insights into the community. It shows that internal group dynamics, interaction with outside actors on different levels, and the high prerequisites for creating and maintaining housing commons create multiple stress factors, currently preventing the housing commons to unfold their full potential. Mainly the high real estate prices and the consequent need to contribute equity capital prevent the housing commons from becoming a large-scale alternative to other housing providers. The paper stipulates that despite the threat of more rigid regulation, cooperation with the state is a promising way forward for the housing commons to overcome market pressures and provide a much-needed relief to overburdened renters in the German housing market, while simultaneously opening the possibility to “commonalise” the state.

從改革開放以來，三十年間中國土地系統歷經許多重大的變革，制度和法律在不同階段，對土地及其擁有者之間的關係有不同的定義和規範。自1980年中葉，尤其到了1990年末農村工業化和城市開發的加速，各種形式的建設用地 需求量迅速增加，農業用地遽然趨減。 目前中國城鄉建設用地總量為3.6億多畝，居世界第一，面對席捲而來的城市化和工業化，卻同時要堅決守住18億畝耕地紅線，嚴格控管城鄉建設用地規模總量，此用地供需間矛盾的關鍵在於，從計畫經濟時期迄今的土地制度，所引發的更大矛盾，致使農地轉非農地弊端叢生。 本論文以路徑依賴途徑，中國農地制度面和產權面，結合縱向歷史觀和橫向結構觀來進行研究，藉此達到以下目的：（一）根據歷年來農地產權變革和徵地制度變遷，觀察農地轉非農地的合法與非法交易。（二）探析農地轉非農地灰色市場形成原因，不僅釐清農村土地產權，也對行政體制進行分析，觀察土地流轉相關利益主體的博奕關係。 研究發現依照路徑依賴分析中國農地轉非農地的制度，中國土地初始制度選擇決定著其後制度發展與變遷的方向與動力，因此當中國舊有的制度面對與日遽增的土地需求，在徵地博奕過程中，作為當前農地產權制度的既得利益者，皆傾向於維持現有的農地制度，它們試圖維持現存的制度和秩序，竭力阻礙隨著市場經濟的腳步重新界定轉讓權，將土地市場納入符合公平、公開、競爭的商業機制。

The IPCC's report in 2018 projects global warming will increase by 1.5oC in 2030, which makes contribution of each country to control their emissions becomes significant. This study seeks to investigate what entitlement human beings have over the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere as well as the harm it caused by elaborating the Entitlement Theory of Justice, thereto, finding out how the burden of climate change should be distributed according to the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) and the Equal per Capita Shares Principle (ECSP). Furthermore, this study seeks to investigate Indonesia's part in increasing the burden of climate change and whether Indonesia should be held responsible for its part by comparing data of Indonesia's emissions to some developed countries' emissions. Humanity has a collective ownership over the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere, which implies that every individual has equal share of this absorptive capacity. A violation of this equal share should be compensated. The PPP suggests countries, who has the most cumulative amount of emissions from the past to present, to compensate and bear the climate change burden. While, the ECSP suggests countries, who emit more than their equal share per capita, to bear the climate change burden and reduce their emissions. Indonesia, despites massive amounts of CO2 released by its deforestation and annual haze, contributes insignificant to climate change due to both its cumulative and per capita emissions are considerably low compared to developed countries and even lower than acountry with large population size such as China.

La domanialité des biens de l'administration publique à l'épreuve des régimes fonciers traditionnels pose le problème de la situation juridique du domaine au Mali. Il s'agit de donner la photographie des biens de l'administration publique ainsi que leur évolution par rapport aux régimes fonciers coutumiers. Cette étude passe naturellement par un aperçu historique des biens de l'Etat et des collectivités territoriales. Nous aborderons en même temps la situation juridique des biens au sens traditionnel de l'expression. Il sera notamment question de l'étude des biens pendant la période précoloniale, coloniale et postcoloniale. Avant la colonisation,le domaine tel que connu aujourd'hui n'existait pas et le mode de détention des biens était collectif. On ne parlait pas de domaine mais bien plutôt de propriété collective. Aussi, ce ne sont pas les lois qui ont établi les modes de tenure traditionnelle mais plutôt les principes quazi religieux. Les biens qui constituent aujourd'hui le domaine de l'Etat et des collectivités locales appartenaient, non pas aux hommes mais aux divinités. Ils étaient la propriété de la collectivité et étaient gérés le chef de terre ou le Dji tigui (propriétaire de l'eau). Ces derniers étaient les dépositaires d'une partie de la souveraineté divine et en même temps les délégués des puissances supérieures. Plus qu'ils ne les possédaient, la terre et l'eau étaient les propriétaires du chef de terre net du Dji tigui. Leurs obligations étaient dictées par les croyances ancestrales amoindries certes par le temps et les interprétations partisanes. Ces biens n'étaient pas dans le commerce juridique, ils étaient inaliénables. La propriété individuelle existait certes, mais elle n'était pas très repandue. Elle ne concernait ni la terre ni les cours d'eau. Cette propriété individuelle au sens du code civil ne pouvait concerner que certains biens biens mobiliers à l'exception de ceux qui constituaient la fortune mobilière indispensable des collectivités indigènes. A l'entame de la colonisation, l'Etat colonial décidait, non sans opposition, de mettre en place le système expérimenté en Australie du Sud par les anglais à savoir l'Act Torrens. Les indigènes avaient leur propre régime juridique et ne voulaient aucune bouleversements de leurs habitudes millénaires. Mais, dans la perspective de développer l'agriculture et l'industrie dans la nouvelle possession française, il importait d'introduire dans l'arsenal juridique de la colonie le principe de domanialité des biens. Pour ce faire, l'administrationdevait jouer toute sa partition. En conséquence, elle devait avoir les moyens de sa politique par la constitution, en premier lieu, d'un domaine public et privé. Cette constitution de domaine passait forcément par des spoliations de biens appartenant aux collectivités autochtones. A l'accession du pays à l'indépendance, la problématique est restée entière. Les textes coloniaux ont continué à régir le domaine jusqu'à l'adoption d'un code domanial et foncier en 1986. Les droits coutumiers désormais reconnus et magnifiés à la faveur de la valorisation des traditions séculaires contestent la primauté du droit écrit. Ce dernier reconnaît, qu'avant son avènement, les rapports juridiques et économiques entre individus et groupements d'individus étaient bien organisés. C'est d'ailleurs pourquoi le colonisateur n'a pas entendu faire table rase des coutumes précoloniales encore moins les nouvelles autorités. Pour autant, des problèmes de constitution et de gestion ont persisté. De nos jours encore, de nombreuses difficultés demeurent par rapport à la gestion du domaine qu'il soit public ou privé, qu'il appartienne à l'Etat ou aux collectivités territoriales. / The state ownership of assets of public administration to the test traditional land tenure raises the question of the legal situation of the area in Mali. This is to give the photograph the property of the government and their evolution in relation to customary land tenure. This study course with a historical overview of state assets and local authorities. We will discuss together the legal status of goods in the traditional sense of the term. The tropics adressed include the study of the property during the precolonial, colonial and postcolonial. Before colonization, the area as known today did not exist and the mode of holding property was collective. They spoke not domain but rather of collective awnership. Also, these are not laws that established the traditional tenure bur rather quasi-religious principles. The goods, which are now the domain of state and local government, belonged not to men but to the gods. They were owned by the community and were managed either by the land chief or dji tigui (owner of the water). Thes were the custodians of a part of God's sovereignty and at the same time delegates from higher powers. More than they possessed them, earth and water were the owners of the land chief and dji tigui. Their bonds were dictated by the ancestral beliefs certainly diminished bye time and biased interpretations. Thes goods were not in the lega trade, they were inalienable. Individualownership was true, but it was not widespresd. It did not concern either the land or waterways. This individual property within the meaning of the french Civil Code could only relate to certain personal property except those who were truly essential property of indigenous community. At the start of colonization, the colonial state decided, not without opposition, to implement the experimenced en South Australia by the English to know the Torrens Act. Indeed, the natives had their own legal system and did not want any disruption in their habits millennia. But, in view of developing agriculture and industry in the french possession, it was important to introduce into the legal arsenal of the colony the principle of state ownership of property. To do this, government should play itd full score. Consequently, it must be adequate means of its policy by establisheing, first, a public and private domain.This domain constitution necessarily spent by the spoliations of property belonging to indigenous communities. At the country attained independence, the problem remained large. The colonial tested continued to govern the field until the adoption of a code Land Law in 1986. Customary rignts recognized and magnified now thanks to the recovery of ancient traditions challenge the rule of written law. The latter recognizes that before his accession, economic and legal relationships between individuals and groups of individuals were well organized. This is why the colonizers did not intend to make a clean sweep of pre-colonial customs let alone the new authorithies. However, problems of formation and management persisted. Even today, many challenges remain in relation to the management domain whether public or private, whether owned by the state or local authorithies.

La sépulture est souvent appréhendée à titre d’exception ou par une superposition de notions : copropriété familiale, bien familial, chose hors commerce, indivision perpétuelle, droit réel spécial... Cette approche disparate dissimule l’existence d’un droit des sépultures qui peine, en conséquence, à constituer un droit unifié. Le droit des sépultures se trouve fractionné en plusieurs branches : droit civil, droit pénal et droit public. A travers elles, apparaissent de nombreuses problématiques, liées à la nature et au régime proposés. Pour ces raisons, il est nécessaire d’aborder le droit des sépultures par la recherche de ses fondements, inchangés depuis le droit romain et le droit médiéval. Le premier fondement est le sacré ; le second la communauté. Tous deux prennent leur source dans l’histoire du droit et continuent d’exister dans le droit positif. Ils font apparaître une unité du droit des sépultures, autour d’une double fonction : assurer la séparation du mort et du vivant et perpétuer le culte des morts. Du point de vue anthropologique, le sacré, premier fondement, se distingue du religieux, et se manifeste selon deux opérations : la délimitation d’une frontière entre sacré et profane par la séparation, puis la protection de ce nouvel espace délimité par la répression de toute atteinte. Pour les sépultures, ces deux opérations sont effectuées respectivement par l’extracommercialité et par la protection pénale. Le premier mécanisme est issu du droit romain et montre une protection originale de la sépulture ; toute activité juridique qui n’est pas incompatible avec le respect des morts est autorisée. L’autre mécanisme concerne l’incrimination de violation de sépulture, qui perpétue sa dimension sacrée. Le second fondement est communautaire : il est apparu pour les sépultures de famille avec les communautés médiévales, à une époque où les biens et les personnes étaient soudés en un groupe familial unique. Désormais adapté par l’affectation familiale, un tel fondement se maintient dans notre droit avec un régime de propriété collective, à travers la transmission successorale restreinte au groupe familial et un principe égalitaire, ce qui fait de la sépulture une véritable propriété communautaire. Bien sacré, propriété communautaire, les fondements des sépultures mettent en exergue des dimensions originales de la propriété. / Burials are often considered in terms of acceptions or superimpositions of notions: family co-ownership, family property, off-trade affairs, joint possession, specific real right… This multi-entry approach conceals the existence of a right of burial which, as a consequence, is difficult to define as a unified right. The right of burial is divided up into various branches— civil law, criminal law, public law—which rise various questions linked to the very nature if the different systems. For this reason, it is necessary to tackle the right of burial from the point of view of its foundations, which have not changed since the establishment of Roman law and Medieval law.The first founding principle concerns the sacred; the second is about the community. Both originate in legal history and are still valid in the field of positive law. They show a unity in the right of burial as regards two main functions: ensure the separation between the living and the dead and keep up the traditional practice of ancestor worship. From the anthropological viewpoint, the sacred—the first principle—distinguishes from the religious, and is expressed in two main missions: the definition of a frontier between the sacred and the profane by the separation, then the protection of this new space delineated by the suppression of any violation. For the burials, these two missions are respectively accomplished by a position out of commerce and by the criminal procedure. The first mechanism comes from Roman law and shows an original protection of the burial process; every legal activity which is not incompatible with the respect of the dead is allowed. The other mechanism concerns the incrimination of the violation of the burial process and its sacred nature. The second founding principle is about the community: it was created for family burials by medieval communities, at a time when properties and people were seen as a unique family unit. Nowadays adapted by the family affectation, such a principle is maintained in our legal system because of a collective ownership regime, through the transmission of the succession restricted to the family and an egalitarian principle, which turn burials into a property of the community. Sacred property, property of the community, the founding principles of burials bring to light specific dimensions of the concept of property.