Conrad Summenhart's theory of individual rights and its medieval background

This study focuses on the theory of individual rights that the German theologian Conrad Summenhart (1455-1502) explicated in his massive work Opus septipartitum de contractibus pro foro conscientiae et theologico. The central question to be studied is: How does Summenhart understand the concept of an individual right and its immediate implications? The basic premiss of this study is that in Opus septipartitum Summenhart composed a comprehensive theory of individual rights as a contribution to the on-going medieval discourse on rights. With this rationale, the first part of the study concentrates on earlier discussions on rights as the background for Summenhart s theory. Special attention is paid to language in which right was defined in terms of power . In the fourteenth century writers like Hervaeus Natalis and William Ockham maintained that right signifies power by which the right-holder can to use material things licitly. It will also be shown how the attempts to describe what is meant by the term right became more specified and cultivated. Gerson followed the implications that the term power had in natural philosophy and attributed rights to animals and other creatures. To secure right as a normative concept, Gerson utilized the ancient ius suum cuique-principle of justice and introduced a definition in which right was seen as derived from justice. The latter part of this study makes effort to reconstructing Summenhart s theory of individual rights in three sections. The first section clarifies Summenhart s discussion of the right of the individual or the concept of an individual right. Summenhart specified Gerson s description of right as power, taking further use of the language of natural philosophy. In this respect, Summenhart s theory managed to bring an end to a particular continuity of thought that was centered upon a view in which right was understood to signify power to licit action. Perhaps the most significant feature of Summenhart s discussion was the way he explicated the implication of liberty that was present in Gerson s language of rights. Summenhart assimilated libertas with the self-mastery or dominion that in the economic context of discussion took the form of (a moderate) self-ownership. Summenhart discussion also introduced two apparent extensions to Gerson s terminology. First, Summenhart classified right as relation, and second, he equated right with dominion. It is distinctive of Summenhart s view that he took action as the primary determinant of right: Everyone has as much rights or dominion in regard to a thing, as much actions it is licit for him to exercise in regard to the thing. The second section elaborates Summenhart s discussion of the species dominion, which delivered an answer to the question of what kind of rights exist, and clarified thereby the implications of the concept of an individual right. The central feature in Summenhart s discussion was his conscious effort to systematize Gerson s language by combining classifications of dominion into a coherent whole. In this respect, his treatement of the natural dominion is emblematic. Summenhart constructed the concept of natural dominion by making use of the concepts of foundation (founded on a natural gift) and law (according to the natural law). In defining natural dominion as dominion founded on a natural gift, Summenhart attributed natural dominion to animals and even to heavenly bodies. In discussing man s natural dominion, Summenhart pointed out that the natural dominion is not sufficiently identified by its foundation, but requires further specification, which Summenhart finds in the idea that natural dominion is appropriate to the subject according to the natural law. This characterization lead him to treat God s dominion as natural dominion. Partly, this was due to Summenhart s specific understanding of the natural law, which made reasonableness as the primary criterion for the natural dominion at the expense of any metaphysical considerations. The third section clarifies Summenhart s discussion of the property rights defined by the positive human law. By delivering an account on juridical property rights Summenhart connected his philosophical and theological theory on rights to the juridical language of his times, and demonstrated that his own language of rights was compatible with current juridical terminology. Summenhart prepared his discussion of property rights with an account of the justification for private property, which gave private property a direct and strong natural law-based justification. Summenhart s discussion of the four property rights usus, usufructus, proprietas, and possession aimed at delivering a detailed report of the usage of these concepts in juridical discourse. His discussion was characterized by extensive use of the juridical source texts, which was more direct and verbal the more his discussion became entangled with the details of juridical doctrine. At the same time he promoted his own language on rights, especially by applying the idea of right as relation. He also showed recognizable effort towards systematizing juridical language related to property rights.

Rough Justice or Zero Tolerance? - Reassessing the Nature of Copyright in Light of Collective Licensing (Part I)

Starting point in the European individualistic copyright ideology is that an individual author creates a work and controls the use of it. However, this paper argues that it is (and has always been) impossible to control the use of works after their publication. This has also been acknowledged by the legislator, who has introduced collective licensing agreements because of this impossibility. Since it is impossible to rigorously control the use of works this writing "Rough Justice or Zero Tolerance - Reassessing the Nature of Copyright in Light of Collective Licensing" examines what reality of copyright is actually about. Finding alternative (and hopefully more "true") ways to understand copyright helps us to create alternative solutions in order to solve possible problems we have as it comes e.g. to use of content in online environment. The paper makes a claim that copyright is actually about defining negotiation points for different stakeholders and that nothing in the copyright reality prevents us from defining e.g. a new negotiation point where representatives of consumers would meet representatives of right holders in order to agree on the terms of use for certain content types in online environment.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.