Skip to main content
Login
  1. Home
  2. Uncovering European Private Law
  3. 7. Concepts of Ownership in European Property Law: Centralising the Social Function of Ownership
Open Book Publishers

7. Concepts of Ownership in European Property Law: Centralising the Social Function of Ownership

  • Eva Vermeulen (author)
Chapter of: Uncovering European Private Law: A Student Handbook(pp. 127–154)
  • Export Metadata
  • Metadata
  • Locations
  • Contributors
  • References

Export Metadata

Metadata
Title7. Concepts of Ownership in European Property Law
SubtitleCentralising the Social Function of Ownership
ContributorEva Vermeulen (author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0448.07
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0448/chapters/10.11647/obp.0448.07
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
CopyrightEva Vermeulen;
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2025-06-05
Long abstract

This chapter delves into European property law, explaining its meaning and fundamentals. It demonstrates how three key legal concepts of ownership coexist in European property law: ‘dominium ownership’ rooted in classical liberalism, ‘economic ownership’ that stems from the law and economics movement, and ‘social ownership’, which embodies the social function of property and aligns with communitarian thought. The chapter identifies that dominium and economic ownership concepts are currently prevalent in European property law, even though they contribute to societal challenges like rising inequality and ecological disaster. In contrast, it posits the ownership concept of social ownership as a less harmful starting point, which could even help in mitigating some of the societal harms at play in Europe. A more central role for social ownership in European property law would align private interests better with societal needs and environmental well-being. The chapter therefore advocates for European property lawyers to integrate the social ownership concept, as well as the broader principles of social property, into their practice, to create a more just European property law.

Page rangepp. 127–154
Print length28 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Locations
Landing PageFull text URLPlatform
PDFhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0448/chapters/10.11647/obp.0448.07Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0448.07.pdfFull text URL
HTMLhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0448/chapters/10.11647/obp.0448.07Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0448/ch7.xhtmlFull text URLPublisher Website
Contributors

Eva Vermeulen

(author)
Ph.D. Researcher at University of Amsterdam

Eva Vermeulen is a Ph.D. researcher in property law with an interest in policy

and political philosophy at the Amsterdam Law School and ACT. In her thesis, she

studies if and how theories of distributive justice should be considered in the legal

institution of property, using distributive injustices in Dutch housing as a case study.

Her other research interests include the role of private law in addressing sustainability

challenges, such as corporate accountability, green finance, and climate action, as

well as the interaction between public policy and private law. She now works as a

policy strategy advisor at De Nederlandsche Bank, the supervisory institution of the

Netherlands, where she focuses on the climate transition strategy and sustainabilityrelated

financial risks. See https://nl.linkedin.com/in/evaelizavermeulen

References
  1. Akkermans, B., ‘The Use of the Functional Method in European Union Property Law’, European Property Law Journal 2.1, 95–118, https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2013-0007
  2. Akkermans, B., The Principle of Numerus Clausus in European Property Law (doctoral thesis, Maastricht University, 2008), https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/5f05ac50-733d-45c8-b230-6ff1d83aa8fd
  3. Akkermans, B., ‘Sustainable Property Law: Towards a Revaluation of Our System of Property Law’, SSRN Scholarly Paper (2020), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3645983
  4. Akkermans, B., ‘Sustainable Ownership–New Obligations towards Achieving a Sustainable Society’, European Property Law Journal 10.2–3 (2021), 277–303, https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2021-0014
  5. Alexander, G. S., ‘The Human Flourishing Theory’, Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper Series 20.2 (2020), n.p., https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3536381
  6. Alexander, G. S., Property and Human Flourishing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190860745.001.0001
  7. Alexander, G. S., ‘The Social-Obligation Norm in American Property Law’, Cornell Law Review 94 (2008), 760–761
  8. Alexander, G. S., et al., ‘A Statement of Progressive Property’, Cornell Law Review 94 (2008), 743
  9. Alexander, G. S., and E. M. Peñalver, An Introduction to Property Theory (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978548
  10. Alexander, G. S., and E. M. Peñalver, ‘Properties of Community’, Theoretical Inquiries in Law 10.1 (2009), 127–160
  11. Allen, T., ‘Liberalism, Social Democracy and the Value of Property under de European Convention of Human Rights’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59.4 (2010), 1055–1078, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589310000448
  12. Babie, P., and J. Viven-Wilksch, ‘Léon Duguit and the Propriété Function Sociale’, in P. Babie and J. Viven-Wilksch (eds), Léon Duguit and the Social Obligation Norm of Property: A Translation and Global Exploration (Singapore: Springer, 2019), pp. 1–32, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7189-9_1
  13. Ballardini, R. M., J. Kaisto, and J. Similä, ‘Developing Novel Property Concepts in Private Law to Foster the Circular Economy’, Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021), 123747, p. 4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123747
  14. Beaglehole, E., Property: A Study in Social Psychology (London: Psychology Press, 2015), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730349
  15. Becker, L. C., ‘The Moral Basis of Property Rights’, Nomos 22 (1980), 187–220,
  16. Berry, T. (ed.), The Great Work: Our Way into the Future (New York: Harmony, 1999)
  17. Blackstone, Sir W., Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book II: Of the Rights of Things (Altenmünster: Jazzybee Verlag, 2017)
  18. Blicharska, M., and A. Van Herzele, ‘What a Forest? Whose Forest? Struggles over Concepts and Meanings in the Debate about the Conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland’, Forest Policy and Economics 57 (2015), 24–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.04.003
  19. Bosselmann, K., ‘Property Rights and Sustainability: Can They Be Reconciled?’, in D. Grinlinton and P. Taylor (eds), Property Rights and Sustainability (The Hague: Brill, 2011), pp. 21–42, https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004182646.i-415
  20. Burgers, L., ‘Private Rights of Nature’, Transnational Environmental Law 11.3 (2022), 463–474, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102522000401
  21. Butler, L. L., ‘The Pathology of Property Norms: Living Within Nature’s Boundaries’, Southern California Law Review 73 (1999), 927–1015
  22. Capra, F., and U. Mattei, The Ecology of Law: Toward a Legal System in Tune with Nature and Community (Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, 2015)
  23. Casla, K., ‘The Right to Property Taking Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Seriously’, Human Rights Quarterly 45.2 (2023), 178–180, https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2023.0010
  24. Christman, J., ‘Reinterpreting Property by Margaret Jane Radin’, Ethics 106.3 (1996), 648, https://doi.org/10.1086/233657
  25. Coase, R. H., ‘The Problem of Social Cost’, The Journal of Law and Economics 56.4 (2013), 837–877, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/674872 
  26. Cooter, R., and T. Ulen, Law and Economics, 6th edn (Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Law Books, 2016)
  27. Cordeiro Santos, A., and R. Ribeiro, ‘Bringing the Concept of Property as a Social Function into the Housing Debate: The Case of Portugal’, Housing, Theory and Society 39.4 (2022), 464–483, https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2021.1998218
  28. Cucca, R., and C. Ranci, Unequal Cities: The Challenge of Post-Industrial Transition in Times of Austerity (Abingdon: Taylor and Francis, 2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1381537
  29. Demsetz, H., ‘Toward a Theory of Property Rights’, The American Economic Review 57.2 (1967), 347–359
  30. Donahue, C., and G. Alexander, ‘Property Law’, Encyclopedia Britannica (27 November 2023), https://www.britannica.com/topic/property-law
  31. Doremus, H., ‘Climate Change and the Evolution of Property Rights’, UC Irvine Law Review 1.4 (2011), 1092, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/20x9r9hx
  32. Duguit, L., ‘Objective Law’, Columbia Law Review 20.8 (1920), 817–831
  33. Duguit, ‘Objective Law. II’, Columbia Law Review 21.1 (1921), 17–34
  34. Frazier, Terry W., ‘The Green Alternative to Classical Liberal Property Theory’, Vermont Law Review 20 (1996), 299–371
  35. Graham, N., Lawscape: Property, Environment, Law (London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2010), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847169
  36. Graham, N., ‘Owning the Earth’, in P. Burdon (ed.), Exploring Wild Law: The Philosophy of Earth Jurisprudence (Cambridge, MA: Wakefield Press: 2011), pp. 259–269
  37. Graziadei, M., ‘The Structure of Property Ownership and the Common Law/Civil Law Divide’, in M. Graziadei and L. Smit (eds), Comparative Property Law: Global Perspectives, Research Handbooks in Comparative Law (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017), pp. 71–99, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785369162.00012
  38. Hallowell, A. I., ‘The Nature and Function of Property as a Social Institution’, in Hallowell, Culture and Experience (Philadelphia, PN: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1955), pp. 236–249,
  39. Hansson, A. G., ‘Inclusionary Housing Policies in Gothenburg, Sweden, and Stuttgart, Germany: The Importance of Norms and Institutions’, Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research 14.1 (2019), 17–24, https://doi.org/10.30672/njsr.75140
  40. Hardin, G., ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science 162.3859 (13 December 1968), 1243–1248, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
  41. Haug, K. R., Transfer of Movables: A Comparison of the Unitary Approach and the Scandinavian Functional Approach (doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2021), https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=f24a58e9-e335-4c45-bd23-753caf6670d3
  42. Hesselink, M. W., ‘Reconstituting the Code of Capital: Could a Progressive European Code of Private Law Help Us Reduce Inequality and Regain Democratic Control?’, European Law Open 1 (2022), 316–433, https://doi.org/10.1017/elo.2022.16
  43. Hohfeld, W. N., ‘Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’, The Yale Law Journal 23.1 (1913), 16–59, https://doi.org/10.2307/785533
  44. Hoops, B., ‘What If the Black Forest Owned Itself? A Constitutional Property Law Perspective on Rights of Nature’, Transnational Environmental Law 11.3 (2022), 498–500, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102522000322
  45. Kant, Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809644
  46. Kaplow, L., and S. Shavell, ‘Why the Legal System Is Less Efficient than the Income Tax in Redistributing Income’, The Journal of Legal Studies 23.2 (1994), 667–681
  47. Keys, A., M. Van Hout, and B. Daniels, ‘Decarbonisation Options for the Dutch Steel Industry’, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2019)
  48. Kline, L. W., and C. J. France, ‘The Psychology of Ownership’, The Pedagogical Seminary 6.4 (1899), 421–470
  49. Kolb, R., ‘Politis and Sociological Jurisprudence of Inter-War International Law’, European Journal of International Law 23.1 (2012), 237–240, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chs012
  50. Lehavi, A., Property Law in a Globalizing World (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2019), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108595391
  51. Lifshitz, Y. R., M. Gilboa, and Y. Kaplan, ‘The Future of Property’, Cardozo L. Rev. 44 (2022), 1443
  52. Locke, J., Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988)
  53. Lubens, R., ‘The Social Obligation of Property Ownership: A Comparison of German and U.S. Law’, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 24.2 (2007), 389–449
  54. Maloney, M., ‘Building an Alternative Jurisprudence for the Earth: The International Rights of Nature Tribunal’, Vermont Law Review 41.1 (2017), 132–133
  55. Mattei, U., and R. Pardolesi, ‘Law and Economics in Civil Law Countries: A Comparative Approach’, International Review of Law and Economics 11.3 (1991), 265–275, https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-8188(91)90004-W
  56. Merrill, T. W., and H. E. Smith, ‘Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle’, The Yale Law Journal 110.1 (2000), 1–70, https://doi.org/10.2307/797586
  57. Merrill, T. W., and H. E. Smith, ‘What Happened to Property in Law and Economics?’, The Yale Law Journal 111.2 (2001), 357–398, https://doi.org/10.2307/797592
  58. Penalver, E. M., ‘Land Virtues’, Cornell Law Review 94.4 (2009), 821–888
  59. Petersen, V., ‘Constitutional Property Law’, in Bram Akkermans (ed.), Research Agenda in Property Law (Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2023), pp. 1–3, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803924816.00008
  60. Piketty, T., Capital and Ideology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020), https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv3405w0k
  61. Piketty, T., Capital in the Twenty-First Century, trans. A. Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjnrvx9
  62. Pistor, K., The Code of Capital; How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019), https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc777c1
  63. Pound, R., ‘The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence. [Concluded.] III. Sociological Jurisprudence’, Harvard Law Review 25.6 (1912), 489–516, https://doi.org/10.2307/1324775
  64. Radin, M. J., ‘The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings’, Columbia Law Review 88.8 (1988), 1668–1671, https://doi.org/10.2307/1122597
  65. Raymond, C. M., et al., ‘The Farmer as a Landscape Steward: Comparing Local Understandings of Landscape Stewardship, Landscape Values, and Land Management Actions’, Ambio 45 (2016), 173–184, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0694-0
  66. Registry of the Council of Europe, ‘Guide on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1—Protection of Property’, European Court of Human Rights (31 August 2022)
  67. Robbie, J., ‘The Nature of Comparing’, in B. Akkermans and A. Berlee (eds), Sjef-Sache ‘Essays in Honour of Prof. Mr. Dr. JHM (Sjef) van Erp on the Occasion of His Retirement (The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, 2021), pp. 17–27
  68. Robbie, J., and E. van der Sijde, ‘Assembling a Sustainable System: Exploring the Systemic Constitutional Approach to Property in the Context of Sustainability’, Loy. L. Rev. 66 (2020), 553–616
  69. Robilant, A. di, The Making of Modern Property: Reinventing Roman Law in Nineteenth Century Europe and Its Periphery (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2022), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859844
  70. Robilant, A. di, ‘Property: A Bundle of Sticks or a Tree?’, Vanderbilt Law Review 66 (n.d.), 908–912
  71. Robilant, A. di, ‘Property and Democratic Deliberation: The “Numerus Clausus” Principle and Democratic Experimentalism in Property Law’, The American Journal of Comparative Law 62.2 (2014), 367–416
  72. Rossi, E., ‘Reconsidering the Dual Nature of Property Rights: Personal Property and Capital in the Law and Economics of Property Rights’, SSRN Scholarly Paper (2020), 19–20, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3659193
  73. Singer, J. W., Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property (London: Yale University Press, 2000)
  74. Underkuffler, L. S., et al., The Idea of Property: Its Meaning and Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199254187.001.0001
  75. van Erp, S., ‘European Property Law: A Methodology for the Future’, in Reiner Schulze and Hans Schulte-Nölke (eds), European Private Law—Current Status and Perspectives (Munich: Otto Schmidt/De Gruyter European Law Publishers, 2011), pp. 227–248, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783866539334.227
  76. van Erp, S., ‘A Numerus Quasi-Clausus of Property Rights as a Constitutive Element of a Future European Property Law?’, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 7.2 (2003)
  77. van Erp, S., A. Salomons, and B. Akkermans, The Future of European Property Law (Munich: Otto Schmidt/De Gruyter European Law Publishers, 2012), https://doi.org/10.1515/9783866539310
  78. Vermeulen, E., Doing Justice to Property: A Capability Theory for Legal Property Design (doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam, forthcoming)
  79. von Bar, C., and U. Drobnig, The Interaction of Contract Law and Tort and Property Law in Europe (New York: Otto Schmidt/De Gruyter European Law Publishers, 2009), https://doi.org/10.1515/9783866537316
  80. Żuk, Piotr, and Paweł Żuk, ‘Between Private Property, Authoritarian State and Democracy: Clearing Trees in Cities and Destroying the Białowieża Forest in Poland’, Capitalism Nature Socialism 32.2 (2021), 56–60, https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2020.1849335

Export Metadata

UK registered social enterprise and Community Interest Company (CIC).

Company registration 14549556

Metadata

  • By book
  • By publisher
  • GraphQL API
  • Export API

Resources

  • Downloads
  • Videos
  • Merch
  • Presentations
  • Service status

Contact

  • Email
  • Bluesky
  • Mastodon
  • Github

Copyright © 2026 Thoth Open Metadata. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.