Those are basic legal regulations or established charter rights. Not economic regulation as the original commenter implied and this entire thread is debating.
This distinction is artificial: there is no difference between defining the scope of property rights and enforcing rights within those boundaries, on the one hand, and generalized economic regulation, on the other: they are different words for the same thing. All economic regulation is part of defining the scope of property rights, and all definitions of the scope of property rights regulate the economy.
The well accepted meaning of economic regulation is the use of regulation to compensate for market failures or centrally-planning economies (such as controlling money supply, subsidies, tax-breaks, import/export tariffs etc).
This is very different from the enforcement and defence of basic property/contract rights in courts as I was implying.
No, that's not the "well accepted definition of economic regulation". Those are two well-known, opposing philosophies of economy regulation.
But, even so, pretty central to both styles is how property rights are defined and enforced, which tends to be radically different between the "compensate for market failures" approach and the "centrally-planning economies" approach, illustrating, again, that you cannot divide "economic regulation" from "defining and enforcing property rights", even when you limit "economic regulation" to being either "compensate for market failures" or "centrally-planning economies".
