Chinese land reform has managed to maintain and disintegrate state and collective land ownership simultaneously by discarding the unitary conception of ownership. It is consistent with the idea that “property comprises a complex aggregate of social and legal relationships” (Heller 1999:1191) rather than being “the simple and nonsocial relation between a person and a thing” (Alexander 1997:321). Scholars disagree about whether property rights are in personam rights or in rem rights. Traditionally, the in rem nature of property was widely recognized.
Members-only access
To access the full resource, you must be a
member.
Already a member?
Login to unlock.
Login
Not an ACC member?
Gain access to a comprehensive collection of global
resources for in-house counsel
Sign
up for a 30-day trial
Region:
China, Hong Kong
The information in any resource collected in this virtual library should
not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on specific facts and should not be considered representative of the views of its authors, its sponsors, and/or ACC. These resources are not intended as a definitive statement on the subject addressed. Rather, they are intended to serve as a tool providing practical advice and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers.