Property theory has long explored the meaning and content of private property. Similarly, one finds no shortage of analysis of common or communitarian property. In the theoretical literature, however, one finds very little writing about public property, a third, very significant, type of property. This lack of attention is not due to a lack of examples; on the contrary, examples abound. This thesis offers a theoretical analysis of one such example: Crown land in Australia. Crown land is a largely forgotten and therefore under-analysed aspect of Australian real property law. This lack of analysis has produced significant confusion in recent judicial developments concerning Australian common law native title. In order to alleviate the potential for confusion, this thesis fills a long-standing gap in the literature of Australian real property law. In order to fill this gap and to provide a much-needed analytical account, it is necessary to make use of working definitions of private, public and communitarian property. This thesis provides each. First, using JW Hams' Property and Justice, it constructs a working definition of private property. From that, by way of contrast, a working definition of public property is offered. Finally, by way of contrast to both private and public property, a working definition of communitarian property is also developed. Armed with working definitions of private, public and communitarian property, the thesis provides an analytical account of Crown land in Australia. It describes Crown land as the quasi-ownership use-privileges and control-powers which the Crown, by virtue of its prerogative power over land, enjoys in Australian land. The Crown enjoys differently packaged bundles of such privileges and powers over many different sorts of land, such as those which have never been allocated for any use, specific natural resources such as minerals or petroleum, those over which Australia's Aboriginal peoples enjoy native title, and even those over which private persons hold freehold estates or statutory leases. All such lands, due to the Crown's quasi-ownership privileges and powers therein, can be called Crown land, which embraces a continuum of locations, each defined by a unique package of such privileges and powers over the relevant type of land. The thesis calls this the Crown land continuum, which, in its totality, is a working example of public property.

For milennia, agricultural genetics were common-pool, open access (or res nullius) resources, unencumbered by the assignment of property rights. Beginning in 1930, a series of legislative and judicial actions incrementally altered the legal definition of agricultural genetics and, ultimately, permitted the application of utility patents to a resource that was once free to all. In the factitious process of creating ownable property from that which was previously shared, the potential consequences of privatizing these res nullius resources were often unanticipated, underappreciated or entirely dismissed. Ramifications include not only the widely publicized concerns of environmental contretemps and the potentially insalubrious effects of consuming transgenic foods, but also more obscure implications, many of which are economically counterproductive and socially undesirable (e.g., promoting farmers onto a technology treadmill that requires them to implement successive iterations of evolving technologies or risk becoming noncompetitive; creating hostilities between technology adopters and non-adopting farmers which, in turn, complexifies social relationships and diminishes the quality of rural life; encouraging questionable corporate behaviors; promoting strategic hold-ups whereby broadly applied patents constrain the widespread use of licenses and consequently inhibit further evolution of technologies, and; creating patent thickets that produce bottlenecks, slow innovation, and increase transaction costs). Proponents of biotechnology seek to strengthen the inchoate property to the point of adoption by minimizing or negating controversial aspects while emphasizing potentially positive outcomes. Opposing interests attempt to exploit potentially negative implications or outcomes in an attempt to weaken the propertization to the point of abandonment. (According to Radin (2000b), the term, propertization, refers to the creation of property, often intangible, or at least less tangible than traditional chattel assets, through a socially sanctioned, uncertain and malleable process.) The success of any attempt to privatize agricultural genetics is not assured, and opportunistic stakeholders opposing or promoting the creation of the property will attempt to exploit this incertitude to influence the outcome of the inchoate propertization. Thus, unlike ownership of conventional, tangible properties (e.g., land or chattel), the successful (or, equally, unsuccessful) privatization of agricultural genetic sequences is dependent upon the process of creating the property, itself. Employing grounded theory methodologies, this dissertation analyzes five case studies to develop a unique model describing the uncertain process of creating property from agricultural genetics and facilitate explaining why certain propertization attempts are successful while others are not.

工業區開發乃是促進國家與地方經濟發展的重要手段之一，而工業區開發政策之內容亦必須隨著國家發展政策的變更加以調整。本文之研究乃以產權理論為基礎，分析編定工業區開發合作關係中的人力要素及非人力要素的配置問題及各個生產要素投入的特性及與剩餘索取權的關連。開發者是人力的投入者，政府為非人力的投入者，開發者於公開甄選程序後，取得開發案的控制權，主導著開發案的走向，然而在產權結構上，卻採固定式報酬的代工模式，開發者人力沒有隨著開發案的開發成效愈好而得到愈高的報酬。本文試圖檢核在工業區開發產權結構中，開發者人力因沒有受到激勵，剩餘索取權配置所發生的問題與盲點，提出應以合作開發關係取代委託開發關係，開發者以勞務出資方式分享剩餘索取權，避免開發者機會主義的行為，以為健全未來工業區開發制度之參考。 / 本文第二章工業區開發制度之產權結構：概述工業區開發契約意義與利益分配，闡述團隊生產活動的本質、不完全契約及剩餘索取權，鏈結工業區開發與產權理論的關係；第三章，是我國編定工業區開發制度沿革，首先簡介工業區開發制度，其次論及開發問題與困境，再者進行開發課題的分析；第四章，以開發個案之探討為例，配合產權理論，深入探究剩餘索取權分配及歸屬。 / 第五章結論與建議，除了綜理產權理論應用於編定工業區的結果外，亦針對我國現行編定工業區提出改進的方向：第一、編定工業區開發制度設計應朝激勵制設計：現行編定工業區開發中，工業區委託生產關係無法激勵開發者去努力工作，因為生產率愈高，報酬卻沒有增加，所以未來在工業區相關制度設計上，應朝激勵制的方向修正，讓投入要素者都擁有剩餘索取權，相互監督，互享利益；第二、開發者報酬應與生產效率緊密地連繫：代辦費的大小係立基於開發規模的大小而定，代工性質濃厚，無法分享剩餘利益，實在不甚合理；第三、規劃設計單位亦須給予激勵：由於規劃設計單位知悉如何監督的Know How，這種專業知識亦難衡量，而必須賦予剩餘索取權，激化其認真監督的動機；第四、開發土地之定價改採市場定價：整個代辦費給付制度係從「懲罰」的角度來思維，開發者的報酬與生產效率不相對應，開發者實際上獲取高於其承擔風險的適當報酬，開發者才會願意投入開發，不符合公平正義，應讓市場來決定開發者的報償多寡，也可利用市場來測定開發者對開發到底投入多少人力，從而決定其應該可得多少回報，故土地的定價方式應從原先的成本法轉為比較法，以剩餘索取權的分配來促進開發。最後提出後續研究建議，首先，在沒有激勵制度下，開發者為何仍願意投入工業區開發案；而採用市場定價法後，仍有一些可供政策上應用的手段，這些都值再深入研究探討，但因非本文研究之重點，僅點到為止。而本文希望為工業區開發帶來新的機制設計，進一步更廣泛應用於其他的開發機制上。

都市的發展隨著時間而不斷地演變，都市內會不斷產生不能適應今日都市生活活動需求的地區，所以需要更新之地區會不斷的產生。從都市有限的土地資源來看，都市更新是要促進土地使用的合理化與使用強度的提高，所以都市更新是土地資源的一種再生型態。都市更新為現代台灣不動產開發之主流，為改善都市早期發展的舊城市，及促進都市的永續發展，都市更新將是未來都市發展政策的必然趨勢。然而，「都市更新不是目標，而是工具」。增進都市機能，改善生活環境，促進都市健全發展，才是都市更新的主要目的，惟應經由何種方式(工具)，方能順利達成上述目標，厥為都市更新所應關注之重點。而權利變換是實施都市更新的方式之一，本研究是從產權理論之產權結構的觀點出發來探討它在權利變換制度實務操作上的影響。 本論文主要在說明，從都市更新條例(以下簡稱本條例)第3條有關權利變換的定義來看，更新單元內之土地所有權人、合法建築物所有權人、他項權利人及實施者是一種「合夥」的關係，但依本條例第30、31條的規定，實施者則又成了代工者，然而在實務操作上實施者掌握了整個權利變換的控制權，在實施者追求利潤或利益極大化的前題下，實施者只好隱藏利潤於費用之中，以獲取剩餘利益。本研究以產權結構的理論為基礎，用已完成之案例來分析，以說明上述現象的存在事實，以為後續修法的參考。 本研究的論述重點，主要是在說明權利變換的生產要素經整合後組成了一個新的產權，而這個新產權是由參與權利變換的權利人所共有，而產權結構裡的控制權與剩餘收入權，是由實施者掌握了控制權，而土地所有權人則擁有剩餘收入權，在實施者與土地所有權人不能同時控制權與剩餘收入權的情形下，所產生的利益衝突現象，以致造成實施者與土地所有權人的利益目標或利益函數不一致，制度的設計應該是將資源分配的私下協議的障礙降至最低，換言之，應該要設計成實施者與土地所有權人的利益目標或利益函數一致，才會使實施者與土地所有權人為這個事業共同去努力，這樣才有助於都市更新事業的推動。 本研究透過理論與實證只是證明目前權利變換存在的不合理現象，至於權利變換的性質或定性應該是屬何種，例如：合夥、代理(承攬)或互易，則非本研究的範圍，有待後續的先進繼續探討。 / The development of urban is proceeding with the time, there are areas that can not accommodate the needs of urban life activities nowadays in the urban, thus those areas need to renew are continually generated. We could see from the view that land resource in the urban are limited, urban renewal help forward rationalize land use and raise the use intensity, thus urban renewal is one kind of revive types of land resource. Urban renewal is the mainstream in the development of modern Taiwan real estate; in order to improve the old town in the early urban development, and promote the sustainable urban development, urban renewal will be the consequential trend in the urban development policy in the future. However, “Urban renewal is not a goal, it is a tool.” The main goals of urban renewal shall be building up urban function, improving living environment and advancing well-balanced urban development. The emphasis of urban renewal shall be in which way (tool) to achieve the above goals. Right transformation is one kind of ways to improve urban renewal, in this study we use the view from the structure of property rights in Property Theory to discuss its effects in the Right transformation system manipulation. This essay is mean to explain that form the Urban Renewal Act (The Act for short) clause 3 about right transformation definition, the land owner, legal building owner, other owner and implementer are kind of “partnership” relation in renewal unit, but according to the rules in The Act 30 and 32 clauses, implementer become OEM command the control right in the whole rights transformation in manipulation process, implementer pursuits benefit or in the premise of maximize profit, implementer has to hide the benefit behind the cost, to obtain the residual benefit. Property right structure theory is the basis of this study, analyzed by the finished case study to explain the above exist fact for the reference of amendment hereafter. The emphasis of this study is to explain there is a new property right generated after integrating the produce factors in rights transformation, and this new property right is co-owned by the oblige who participated the right transformation. As the control right and the residual income right in the right structure, the implementer command the control right and the land owner command the residual income right, when implementer and the land owner can not command the control right and the residual income right at the same time, the benefit conflict will make the different profit goal or the different profit function between the implementer and the land owner. The system should be designed to minimize the obstacle of private negotiated resource allocation. In other words, it should be designed as a same profit goal or function to make the implementer and the landowner to exert themselves for this career, thus make for the advance of the urban renewal career. Through the theory and real demonstration in this study is only to prove the existing unreasonable phenomena in rights transformation, as for the character or the qualitative of right transformation shall be, for example, partnership, agent（to take full charge of responsibility）or trade, is not in the study range, and need the fellow successor to discuss about .

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.

This dissertation examines the application and effect of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR in relation to Scots land law reform. Chapter one will reflect on why existing rights to property have come to be challenged. Chapter two sets out the human rights paradigm and scrutinises what rights and whose rights are engaged. Chapter three traces the development of A1P1. Chapter four applies the human rights paradigm to contemporary reforms. Chapter five considers the broader effect A1P1 has had on domestic property law. This dissertation submits that the problem to be overcome is that, in many instances, Scots land law reform has been reduced into a simplistic struggle. A1P1 has been held up as either a citadel protecting landowners or as an ineffective and unjustified right to be ignored. At the core of this debate are competing claims between liberal individualist rights to property and socially democratic, egalitarian goals. This dissertation argues that it is important to move beyond this binary debate. This is not about finding some mysterious "red card" or eureka moment that conclusively shows compatibility or incompatibility. Instead, compatibility will be determined by following a rule-based approach that values rational decision-making and the best available evidence, as well as the importance of democratic institutions. As such, it will be illustrated how future challenges are likely to focus not on the underlying purpose of land law reform but on the macro or micro granularity of Ministerial discretion. In coming to this conclusion, it will be argued that A1P1 has a pervasive influence on the entire workings of all public bodies and, like a dye, permeates the legislative process.