This literature review examines the evolution of ownership as a central concept in moral, political, and economic thought, tracing debates from classical antiquity to the digital age. It situates the discussion within the broader questions of justice and social order, focusing on the precarious balance between collective responsibility and individual autonomy. As we draw upon comparative historical-philosophical approach, the review analyses primary texts by various philosophers of the times, alongside socio-economic and technological developments. It spans from classical philosophers to medieval theologians, to early modern liberals to industrial and socialist theorists, and finally, to contemporary scholars. The analysis stresses the recurring patterns in which ownership is reinterpreted in response to economic/industrial development economic transformations, and the ever evolving moral reflection of the times. Classical and medieval frameworks emphasised moral stewardship and civic virtue. Early modern thought introduced property as a natural and political right. Industrial and socialist theories shifted focus toward ownership as a social relation structuring the new concept of class and the perpetuating inequality between them. Contemporary debates over digital property and knowledge commons illustrate the ongoing negotiation between ethical responsibility and once again, right to property. This review concludes that ownership is not a fixed economic institution but a dynamic lens through which societies evolve its various ethical principles, contemporary governance structures and other related societal priorities. Recognising ownership as a spectrum rather than a binary concept offers critical insights for understanding the interplay of liberty, justice, and collective well-being across historical and contemporary contexts.

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology in the field of medical diagnosis and treatment, the legal protection of patients' right to know is facing new opportunities and challenges. However, under the traditional medical model, patients' understanding of the right to know is limited to the clinician's obligation to inform, and it is difficult to adapt to the new diagnosis and treatment model with highly opaque algorithm decision-making and diversified responsible subjects. In artificial intelligence diagnosis and treatment, patients' right to know should be extended to knowledge of data sources, algorithm logic, differences in man-machine judgment and other dimensions. However, in practice, they face dilemmas such as algorithm black boxes, ownership of rights and responsibilities, and professional barriers. In this regard, it is necessary to establish a hierarchical disclosure system for diagnosis and treatment algorithm information, clarify the rules for dividing the notification obligations of developers, institutions and doctors, and improve the right relief mechanism of patients' right to know.

With the acceleration of China's population aging and shifts in family structures, the traditional guardianship system based on family blood ties increasingly reveals its limitations in addressing diverse elderly care needs. The system of designated guardianship, gradually established since the enactment of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly, represents a significant innovation in guardianship arrangements. It fully respects the personal wishes of the ward, reflecting new legislative trends and shifts in social ethics, and propels China's adult guardianship system from family representation toward individual self-determination. This paper traces the legislative evolution of the designated guardianship system in China, examines the development of guardianship for “incapacitated persons” from the late Qing Dynasty to the Republican era, and integrates John Eekelaar's analysis of the core principles of modern family law. By exploring the continuity and transformation within the guardianship system, it aims to elucidate the underlying ethical progress and legal innovation reflected in these changes.

The era of generative artificial intelligence has brought numerous challenges to the criminal regulation of copyright infringement crimes. To address these core controversies, a "forward-looking yet limited" criminal regulation system should be constructed. At the prepositive law level, it is necessary to limitedly recognize the work attribute of the generated content, the fact of artificial intelligence creation, and clearly deny the legal subject qualification of artificial intelligence, laying the foundation for criminal liability imputation. A "staged and typed imputation model" should be established: in the research and development stage, the principle of technological neutrality should be applied in principle, and only acts of intentionally manufacturing infringing tools should be held accountable as exceptions; in the use stage, the focus should be on regulating users with subjective malicious intent who meet the crime quantity standards. It is emphasized that for criminalization, the act must not only comply with the constitutive elements of criminal law but also cause substantial infringement of legal interests, and strictly adhere to the standards of amount and circumstances, thereby achieving a prudent balance between protecting legal interests and encouraging innovation.