Nature of new order rights to minerals : a rubikian exercise since passing the mayday rubicon with a cubic zirconium?

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 has created new categories of rights to "minerals" that may be granted to applicants by the Minister of Minerals and Energy. In this article the nature of these rights will be examined. The legislature has labelled prospecting rights and mining rights to minerals as limited real rights in the MPRD Act. The remaining rights to minerals are not labelled. Provision is made for registration or recording rights in the revived Mining Titles Registration Act 16 of 1967 (as amended). Registered rights are claimed to constitute a limited real right binding against third parties. Discrepancies and contradictions regarding the nature of rights to minerals are created by the two statutes. It is concluded that only upon clarification of the provisions of the two sister statutes, would the nature of rights to minerals be more evident. The proposed amendment of section 5(1) of the MPRD Act would be in line with property doctrine based upon the common law and is to be welcomed.

Carbon rights as new property: the benefits of statutory verification

This paper examines the different ways in which carbon rights have been verified as property interests. A carbon right is a new and unique form of land interest that confers upon the holder a right to the incorporeal benefit of carbon sequestration on a piece of forested land. Carbon sequestration refers to the absorption from the atmosphere of carbon dioxide by vegetation and soils and the storage of carbon in vegetation and soils. Innovative legislation has been introduced in each state seeking to separate the incorporeal benefit of carbon sequestration from the natural rights flowing from land ownership. The fragmentation of land ownership in this way is a constituent of broader climate change strategies and is particularly important for an Australian emissions trading scheme where carbon rights will acquire value as tradable offsets. This paper will explore the different legislative responses of each state to the proprietary characterisation of the carbon right as a land interest. It will argue that verifying the carbon right as a new statutory property interest, in line with the approach set out in the Carbon Rights Act 2003 (WA), is preferable to aligning it with preconceived categories of common law servitude. By articulating the  carbon right as a new form of statutory interest, unique in status and form, its sui generis character is more accurately reflected. Further, statutory validation of the carbon right as a new land interest is more efficient as legislative rules are more visible and therefore come to the attention of other market participants more quickly and at a lower cost without the burden and complexity associated with expressing the right through the prism of pre-conceived and non-responsive common law forms.

Statutory verification of water rights: the 'insuperable' difficulties of propertising water entitlements

The abolition of riparian entitlements in the early stages of colonial Australia and the vesting of these rights in the Crown represented a turning point for the evolution of private water rights. The extinguishment of common law rights connected to vested land interests and the introduction of new, unaligned statutory entitlements provided a new and fundamentally different system for the creation and regulation of private water entitlements. Unlike riparian entitlements, in the absence of express definition, statutory water entitlements may only be verified as property where such a construction is consistent with the nature and scope of the entitlement. In this respect, the statutory framework has disaggregated the propertisation of water rights from land ownership and linked the process to broader statutory interpretation principles. The shift away from institutional property has generated concerns about the interpretive approaches appropriate for the verification of legislative water entitlements. This article examines the existing interpretive approaches and argues that the blurring of the propertisation process with the separate issue of whether any change or modification of such water rights attracts s 51(xxxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution has produced a situation where core property indicia is increasingly overshadowed by legislative defeasibility. In the recent High Court decision of ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v Commonwealth, the focus of the majority judgements upon the inherent susceptibility of legislative entitlements to variation or extinguishment acted as a catalyst for the non-propertisation of statutory bore water licences in New South Wales. The emphasis the majority judgements gave to legislative defeasibility precluded a full and balanced assessment of other highly relevant property indicia, in particular the expectation interests of the holders. Conflating property and constitutional evaluation in this way is inappropriate in an era where entitlements to natural resource interests are increasingly statute based and the verification process has significant social and economic repercussions. Determining whether a statutory entitlement constitutes property requires a careful balancing of legislative intent, social and environmental context and individual expectation and the vicissitudes of a regulatory context should not eclipse this process.

Constitutionalism, good faith and the doctrine of specific performance: rights, duties and equitable discretion

This article will explore the European roots of the doctrine of specific performance and the influence of transformative constitutionalism on these in recent times. The question whether specific performance is available as of right (as in the civil law), or only subject to judicial discretion (as in the common law), will be investigated. The demonstrated impact of constitutional rights on contract law in the mixed system of South Africa will be contrasted with developments in English and Australian contract law, where the common-law rules are more deeply entrenched and the potential scope for human rights-based development of these is arguably smaller, though still important. The article will argue, using comparative rules on specific performance as an example, that the concept of a duty of good faith or contractual fairness is likely to play a greater role in future in all three of the countries under consideration, reducing the common/civil/mixed legal systems divide.

The special rights other than shares in cross-border mergers of limited liability companies within the European Union. A perspective from the Spanish Law

The present research aims to study the special rights other than shares in Spanish Law and the protection of their holders in cross-border mergers of limited liability companies within the European Union frame. Special rights other than shares are recognised as an independent legal category within legal systems of some EU Member States, such as Germany or Spain, through the implementation of the Third Directive 78/855/CEE concerning mergers of public limited liability companies. The above-cited Directive contains a special regime of protection for the holders of securities, other than shares, to which special rights are attached, consisting of being given rights in the acquiring company, at least equivalent to those they possessed in the company being acquired. This safeguard is to highlight the intimate connection between this type of rights and the company whose extinction determines the existence of those. Pursuant to the Directive 2005/56/CE on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, each company taking part in these operations shall comply with the safeguards of members and third parties provided in their respective national law to which is subject. In this regard, the protection for holders of special rights other than shares shall be ruled by the domestic M&A regime. As far as Spanish Law are concerned, holders of these special rights are recognized a right of merger information, in the same terms as shareholders, as well as equal rights in the company resulting from the cross-border merger. However, these measures are not enough guarantee for a suitable protection, thus considering those holders of special rights as special creditors, sometimes it will be necessary to go to the general protection regime for creditors. In Spanish Law, it would involve the recognition of right to the merger opposition, whose exercise would prevent the operation was completed until ensuring equal rights.

The Position of Russian Provinical Officialdom in the Middle of the 19th Century: Law and Life

The study considered the discrepancy between the official status and real position of Russian provincial officialdom in the middle of the 19th century. The law was not entirely coherent in all aspects of the officials' life and activity, with ordinary deviations from the law being adopted in practice and accepted, albeit not openly, by the public and sometimes even by the authorities. The main law determining the rights and duties of governors was never followed to the letter and in reality governors' activities were determined by the common (unwritten) law existing in the governmental sphere. The volume and nature of the governors' rights depended on a range of factors, with specific regional features and the governor's personal qualities having a particular significance. The standard of living of government clerks was much higher than their official salary would permit and Matkhanova studied the most widespread cases of abuse, identifying those positions in the administration which offered the most opportunities for such abuses. At the start of the period and on the eve of the reforms public opinion towards the bribery of officials underwent a change. From the late 1850s onwards, there appeared among provincial officials a group of young well-educated clerks with liberal ideas and a new system of moral values which did not allow them to accept bribes or infringe the law in any way. There was also a non-official hierarchy side by side with the legally existing one. A significant role in governing the region, and one which has been underestimated by historians, was played by the head of the governor's office, but the reforms of the 1860s contributed to changing this state of affairs.

The Future Direction of Delaware Law (Including a Brief Exegesis on Fee Shifting Bylaws)

Delaware sets the governance standards for most public companies. The ability to attract corporations could not be explained solely by the existence of a favorable statutory regime. Delaware was not invariably the first or the only state to implement management friendly provisions. Given the interpretive gaps in the statute and the critical importance of the common law in the governance process, courts played an outsized role in setting legal standards. The management friendly nature of the Delaware courts contributed significantly to the state’s attraction to public corporations. A current example of a management friendly trend in the case law had seen the recent decisions setting out the board’s authority to adopt bylaws under Section 109 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), particularly those involving the shifting of fees in litigation against the corporation or its directors. The DGCL allows bylaws that address “the business of the corporation, the conduct of its affairs, and its rights or powers or the rights or powers of its stockholders, directors, officers or employees.” The broad parameters are, however, subject to limits. Bylaws cannot be inconsistent with the certificate of incorporation or “the law.” Law includes the common law. The Delaware courts have used the limitations imposed by “the law” to severely restrict the reach of shareholder inspired bylaws. The courts have not used the same principles to impose similar restraints on bylaws adopted by the board of directors. This can be seen with respect to bylaws that restrict or even eliminate the right of shareholders to bring actions against management and the corporation. In ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund the court approved a fee shifting bylaw that had littl relationship to the internal affairs of the corporation. The decision upheld the bylaw as facially valid.The decision ignored a number of obvious legal infirmities. Among other things, the decision did not adequately address the requirement in Section 109(b) that bylaws be consistent with “the law.” The decision obliquely acknowledged that the provisions would “by their nature, deter litigation” but otherwise made no effort to assess the impact of this deterrence on shareholders causes of action. The provision in fact had the practical effect of restricting, if not eliminating, litigation rights granted by the DGCL and the common law. Perhaps most significantly, however, the bylaws significantly limited common law rights of shareholders to bring actions against the corporation and the board. Given the high dismissal rates for these actions, fee shifting bylaws imposed a meaningful risk of liability on plaintiffs. Moreover, because judgments in derivative suits were paid to the corporation, shareholders serving as plaintiffs confronted the risk of liability without any offsetting direct benefit. By preventing suits in this area, the bylaw effectively insulated the behavior of boards from legal challenge. The ATP decision was poorly reasoned and overstepped acceptable boundaries. The management friendly decision threatened the preeminent role of Delaware in the development of corporate law. The decision raised the specter of federal intervention and the potential for meaningful competition from the states. Because the opinion examined the bylaw in the context of non-stock companies, the reasoning may remain applicable only to those entities and never make the leap to for-profit stock corporations. Nonetheless, the analysis reflects a management friendly approach that does not adequately take into account the impact of the provision on the rights of shareholders.

The autonomy of the EU legal order and the law-making activities of international organizations. Some examples regarding the Council most recent practice. Research Papers in Law 03/2012

[Introduction.] It is generally believed that while the principle of the autonomy of the EU legal order, in the sense of constitutional and institutional autonomy that is to say what concerns the autonomous decision-making of the EU, has been clearly strengthened by the most recent jurisprudence of the Court of Justice (eg. Moxplant3, Intertanko or the Kadi/Al Baraakat judgements or the Opinion 1/2009 of the CJEU etc.) as well as, in my opinion, in many aspects by the Treaty of Lisbon, it is still valid to add that the principle of a favourable approach, stemming from the Court jurisprudence, for the enhanced openness of the EU legal order to international law has remained equally important for the EU4. On the other hand, it should be also seen that in a globalized world, and following the increased role of the EU as an international actor, its indispensable and crucial role concerning the creation of world (legal) order in many policy fields ( for example let's think about the G20 issues, the global economic and financial crisis, the role of the EU in promoting and protecting human rights worldwide, the implementation of the multilateral or regional conventional law, developed in the framework the UN (e.g. in the field of agriculture or environment etc) or what concerns the Kyoto process on climate change or the conservation of marine biological resources at international level etc), it seems reasonable and justified to submit that the influence, for example, of the law-making activities of the main stakeholder international organizations in the mentioned policy-areas on the EU (especially on the development of its constantly evolving legal order) or vice-versa the influence of the EU law-making practice on these international organizations is significant, in many aspects mutually interdependent and more and more remarkable. This tendency of the 21st century doesn't mean, however, in my view, that the notion of the autonomy of the EU legal order would have been weakened by this increasing interaction between international law and EU law over the passed years. This contribution is going to demonstrate and prove these departuring points by giving some concrete examples from the most recent practice of the Council (all occuring either in the second half of 2009 or after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty), and which relate to two very important policy areas in the EU, namely the protection of human rights and the Common Fishery Policy.

The Triangular Relationship between Fundamental Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law in the EU: Towards an EU Copenhagen Mechanism. CEPS Paperbacks. November 2013

This study examines the protection of fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law in the European Union, and the challenges that arise in reflecting on ways to strengthen EU competences in these contested terrains. It provides a ‘state of play’ and critical account of EU-level policy and legal mechanisms assessing the relationship between rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in the member states of the Union. The cross-cutting challenges affecting their uses, effective implementation and practical operability constitute a central point of the analysis. The study argues that the relationship between rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights is co-constitutive. Any future rule of law-related policy discussion in the EU should start from an understanding of the triangular relationship between these dimensions from the perspective of ‘democratic rule of law with fundamental rights’, i.e. the legally based rule of a democratic state that delivers fundamental rights. The three criteria are inherently and indivisibly interconnected, and interdependent on each of the others, and they cannot be separated without inflicting profound damage to the whole and changing its essential shape and configuration.

A history of English law,

Accompanied by "Tables and index, by Edward Potton." (ix p., 1 l., 228 p. 221/2 cm.) Published: London, Methuen & co., ltd, [1932]

Report of the Special Committee of the House of Representative Appointed to Investigate the Authorship of Certain Papers Sent to Banks ... [microform] : with an appendix containing proceedings in House of Representatives on said bill.

Includes index.

Modern American law; a systematic and comprehensive commentary on the fundamental principles of American law and procedure, accompanied by leading illustrative cases and legal forms, with a rev. ed. of Blackstone's Commentaries;

v. I. The modern democracy, the citizen and the law - Legal ethics - Law : its origin, nature, development - Courts : federal and state - Law of contracts -- v. 2. Law of torts -- v. 3. Criminal Law - Law of criminal procedure - Law of persons and domestic relations -- v. 4. Personal property and bailments - Law of liens and pledges - Law of agency - Law of sales of personal property -- v. 5. Law of real property -- v. 6. Law of descent and distribution, wills and administration, guardian and ward - Law of landlord and tenant - Law of irrigation and water rights - Law of mines and mining -- v. 7. Equity - Law of trusts - Law of quasi-contacts - Law of estoppel -- v. 8. Law of negotiable instruments - Law of suretyship and guaranty - Law of mortgages : real and chattel - Interpretation of statutes -- v. 9. Law of private corporations - Law of partnership - law of banks, banking and trust companies - Law of receivers -- v. 10. Pleadings in civil actions at common law and under modern statutes - Practice in civil actions - Law of equity pleading - Law of evidence - Laws of attachment and garnishments - Law of judgments and executions - Law of extraordinary remedies - Law of habeas corpus -- v. 11. Constitutional law : definitions and general principles - Organization and powers of the United States Government - Constitutional guaranties of fundamental rights - Eminent domain - Taxation - Naturalization -- v. 12. Conflict of laws - International law - Law of interstate commerce - Law of bankruptcy - Law of patents - Law of copyright - Law of trademarks - Unfair competition and good-will -- v. 13. Law of public service companies, especially common carriers - Law of municipal corporations - Law of public officers and elections - Parliamentary law -- v. 14. Law of damages - Law of insurance - Admiralty law - Medical jurisprudence - Forms -- v. 15. Blackstone's Commentaries.

New criminal procedure: or, New commentaries on the law of pleading and evidence and the practice in criminal cases,

"The general rules of practice and procedure are treated in volumes I and II, while volume III is devoted wholly to procedure and evidence in various common law crimes."--Pref, to 2d ed.

[ redacted ]

[ redacted ]