Reverse Charge System Research

Property right is one of the most important civil rights which provide the basisfor our everyday activities. Hence, modern states put much emphasis on theprotection of property right and devise all kinds of protective mechanisms rangingfrom constitutional law to civil law. However, the limits imposed on property rightbecome more and more prominent in modem times. Condemnation is one of thelimits which have been undergone constant changes. Inverse condemnation is oneexample of such changes. Based on the different respects of the limits imposed onproperty right, we can divide the condemnation into two categories: regulatorytaking and possessory taking.This thesis will focus on the inverse condemnation. Besides introductory partand summary, it has three parts as its main contents:Part One analyses the theoretical basis of inverse condemnation. It mainlydiscusses the common issues among different kinds of condemnation. Suchdiscussion is also applicable to inverse condemnation. The evolution ofcondemnation is closely related to the rise and fall of ownership; public interest isthe justification of condemnation. It is believed that condemnation came into shapesince ancient Roman times and has experienced the traditional condemnationphase and extended condemnation phase. The modern extended condemnation isdifferent from the traditional one in the constituent of public interest, compensationstandard, scope of property being condemned and categories of condemnation.Part Two elaborates on the details of inverse condemnation. Since the inversecondemnation originated in United States and was established by a series ofprecedents, we have to introduce the classic and typical cases in the United Statedin order to get the general idea of inverse condemnation. In terms of regulatorytaking, three cases, i.e. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, Penn Central Transp. Co.v. New York City, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, are briefly introduced;In terms of possessory taking, another three cases, that is, Loretto v. TeleprompterManhattan CATV Corp., Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Causby v.United States are discussed in a nutshell. In the author's opinion, inversecondemnation is one kind of limits imposed on the property; it is initiated by the property right holder who seeks compensation from the government; thegovemment cannot take the property without compensation even when it is out ofpublic interest; inverse condemnation is different from the exercise of police powerand has exceeded the reasonable limits. In addition, this thesis gives a sketch ofinverse condemnation in Taiwan Region, Canada and Korea.Part Three puts forward some suggestions on how to construct our inversecondemnation mechanism. This part doesn't provide a framework of our inversecondemnation mechanism in macroscopic sense. It examines relevant laws andregulations based on the theory of inverse condemnation to see whether such kindof laws and regulations fit the test and should compensate the property owner.In modern China, inverse condemnation is both of theoretical and practicalsignificance. We should pay more attention on the research of inversecondemnation, especially the conditions and feasibility of transplanting it intoChina. Only by establishing inverse condemnation in China, can we fully protectthe property rights of our citizens.