Chapter 5 analyzes acquisitive prescription, a broader concept than adverse possession, and argues that registration-based acquisitive prescription with title and good-faith requirements can be justified by efficiency under certain conditions—Possession, however, is redundant, and may even give rise to undesirable outcomes. Given that boundary disputes can be left for another doctrine, possession-based acquisitive prescription—no matter whether possessors act in good or bad faith—can hardly be justified on an economic basis in countries with well-functioning registrars if possessors do not have title. The possession-based acquisitive prescription can only be justified in jurisdictions with dysfunctional registrars.

A decision which does not respect jurisdictional limits may be annulled by a controlling authority. But if there is no issue as to jurisdiction, then any issue as to admissibility is an objection to the claim (for example its prematurity or – at the other extreme – its staleness) and not to the forum. It follows that determinations with respect to should ordinarily be final and non-renewable. Once it is established that the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a particular court or tribunal, there is a powerful policy reason – given the multiplicity of for a which might otherwise come into play internationally, with incompatible outcomes – to recognize its authority to dispose conclusively of other threshold issues.