Please let me know if these references/sites are useful to you:

1.  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROPERTY LAW

www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/399.pdfCached

by S Shavell - ‎Cited by 24 - ‎Related articles

Definition, Justification, and Emergence of Property Rights. 1. Property ... Chapter 29. Commonly-Raised Questions about Economic Analysis of Law ..... (b) In modern industrialized countries, the majority of individuals are motivated ..... particular, for a regime of private property, wherein things generally are owned ( and can.

2.  A theory of property - Cornell Law Review

cornelllawreview.org/files/2013/03/BellParchomovskyfinal.pdfCached

stance, descriptively, this Article shows that the modern trend to reduce the .... ciple of private property); Michael A. Heller, The Tragedy of the Anti-Commons: Property in .... Some conceptualists advance instrumental reasons for certain ancient.

3.  Private takings - Yale Law School

https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/.../LEO_Bell_Private_Takings.pdfCached

by A Bell - ‎Cited by 74 - ‎Related articles

property from one private property owner, and transfer it to another private owner. 2 ... 02005%20floor%20statement.pdf. ..... B. Modern Justifications for Takings.

4.  The Ultimate Justification of the Private Property Ethic - HansHoppe.com

www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdfCached

by HH Hoppe - ‎Cited by 9 - ‎Related articles

that its propositions can be definitely the libertarian private property ethic ... laws of logical reasoning (such as the actually prefer higher over lower stan- laws of ... the greats of the modern Western tradi- who do not share this goal, these con-.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

What is the 'modern' law of private property?

How does it differ from other concepts of private property?

You made me smile.

Private property seems to be assumed as the default ownership status, is it justified? . If so, it can only exist if it is enforced. For it to be enforced, it needs to be enforceable. Then enforcement requires strength, force, willingness. Wars have always been territorial in one way or another, they are the extreme case of contradictory enforcement.

Another line of thoughts looks at commons, not allocated property rights. The world stock of fish, the air we struggle to breath, etc... Water used to be free when available, hospitality was generously granted, now the world is rbnb'ed.

Interesting to note that not everybody knows that they live on earth (the planet) when they do. There is a new (or renewed) primacy of " here and there mine" amounting to negation ist views on the universe and evolutions in it.

Also, the data on/of people seem not to have a proper property framework and enforcement yet... A bit like the labour force of individuals not owned fully by themselves until freedom was defined and protected ( the dual couple (ownership right, enforcement of right)). 

The next question could be "property vs appropriation" 

As far as can be ascertained the concept of property both private and common is a consequence of us living in civilisation.  There is no example in written history and no archealogical evidence of human society not recognising property.  The most ancient of civilizations are clearly structured around the concept of appropriation so modern seems to be an incongrous idea in a debate on property.

Cicero suggests that the appropraition of private property is fundamental to human association and even justice. In contradiction to the concept of natural law.

“by nature there is no private property”*

Ownership of land comes about by appropriation in a number of ways, by settlement, war, contract or lottery.  Cicero states that each man should hold on to what he has obtained because to do otherwise violates “the law of human association”

Justice is defined as respecting what is common as common and respecting what is private as private.  Justice is a right to the ownership of property.  Cicero castigated Julius Caesar for advocating the populares, a form of land reform beneficial to the plebian class.  This he considered little less than undermining the social and political structure of civilization itself.

“Although nature has lead men to congregate together, nevertheless they ought to live in cities in the hope of protecting their material things"*

* De Officiis

Yes. It's the pro-property line throughout history.

Proudhon said otherwise "la propriété c'est le vol" in a zero sum game that you can only own by depriving others from owning, sometimes causing famine and death (Irish potato famine, years of wheat speculation preceding French revolution).

There was food in Ireland, it was owned by some, and needed by others.

What is allowed to be owned?

Humans, no, or rather not any more, George Washington owned slaves... The cities of Bristol, Liverpool, Nantes made fortunes from this inhumane trade. 

Where do you put the limit?

In some countries public transport is privately owned potentially overpriced, and what could seem to be private transport by car depends heavily on public subsidy (roads and bridges). In others public transport is owned by state companies and underpriced, and roads may have tolls. 

Of course this drives towards more collective means of transport and less Carbon oxides release (electrical trains, trams, etc) or more (fossil fuel vehicles). 

Nobody commented on my line of data ownership. 

Ok I'll add habeas corpus, which is mistakenly believed as everyone owns their body, whereas the meaning was in old England that a suspect could be seized by a court depending on the king to be tried, instead of the local court where he or she had been taken to initially. This resulted statistically in fairer judgment. Law applied with more independence, corruption and arbitrary judgement was counterbalanced. The consequence was that you tended to own your body, because the king could seize it... 

One could also ask the question of education and property. Can you buy education, should you be able to, and if your parents - not you- have no money, should you be made to "pay", be punished for your parents to lack money? 

There is a worldwide divide on this: education dominantly state-run vs education dominantly private. 200km apart, the rule can be almost free universities vs 22 000 GBP or 9000 GBP/year, in Europe. 

Can you buy and own education? 

Or is it acquired by study, hard intellectual work, and the cost of the teaching is covered by government? 

Some countries with dominance of private university education import well-trained people in the medical professions, from countries where such studies are funded by the tax payer. Maybe Proudhon would say again that "la propriété c'est le vol". Hijacking rare resource from those who have funded its development. OPM, other people's money. 

Well the seemingly simple definition of ownership has made us travel through human right, microeconomics, macroeconomics.