Right to property

The right to property or right to own property (cf. ownership) is often classified as a human right for natural persons regarding their possessions. A general recognition of a right to private property is found more rarely and is typically heavily constrained insofar as property is owned by legal persons (i.e. corporations) and where it is used for production rather than consumption.[1]

A right to property is recognised in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it is not recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[2] The European Convention on Human Rights, in Protocol 1, article 1 acknowledges a right for natural and legal persons to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to secure the payment of taxes".


The right to property is one of the most controversial human rights, both in terms of its existence and interpretation. The controversy about the definition of the right meant that it was not included in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[3] Controversy centres upon who is deemed to have property rights protected (e.g. human beings or also corporations), the type of property which is protected (property used for the purpose of consumption or production) and the reasons for which property can be restricted (for instance, for regulations, taxation or nationalisation in the public interest). In all human rights instruments, either implicit or express restrictions exist on the extent to which property is protected. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) enshrines the right to property as follows:

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.[4]

The object of the right to property as it is usually understood nowadays consists of property already owned or possessed, or of property acquired or to be acquired by a person through lawful means. Not in opposition but in contrast to this, some proposals also defend a universal right to private property, in the sense of a right of every person to effectively receive a certain amount of property, grounded in a claim to Earth's natural resources or other theories of justice.[5]


The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) protects the right to property most explicitly in Article 14,[6] stating:

The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws.[7]

Property rights are furthermore recognised in Article 13 of the ACHPR, which states that every citizen has the right to participate freely in the government of his country, the right to equal access to public services and "the right of access to public property and services in strict equality of all persons before the law". Article 21 of the ACHPR recognises the right of all peoples to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources and that this right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people, who may not be deprived of this right. Article 21 also provides that "in case of spoliation the dispossessed people shall have the right to the lawful recovery of its property as well as to adequate compensation".[8]


When the text of the UDHR was negotiated, other states in the Americas argued that the right to property should be limited to the protection of private property necessary for subsistence. Their suggestion was opposed, but was enshrined in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, which was negotiated at the same time and adopted one year before the UDHR in 1948.[9] Article 23 of the declaration states:

Every Person has the right to own such private property as meets the essential needs of decent living and helps to maintain the dignity of the individual and of the home.[10]

The definition of the right to property is heavily influenced by Western concepts of property rights, but because property rights vary considerably in different legal systems it has not been possible to establish international standards on property rights.[11] The regional human rights instruments of Europe, Africa and the Americas recognise the right to protection of property to varying degrees.[12]

The American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) recognises the right to protection of property, including the right to "just compensation". The ACHR also prohibits usury and other exploitation, which is unique amongst human rights instruments.[9] Article 21 of the ACHR states:

(1) Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society.

(2) No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the forms established by law. (3) Usury and any other form of exploitation of man by man shall be prohibited by law.[13]


After failed attempts to include the right to protection of property in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), European states enshrined the right to protection of property in Article 1 of Protocol I to the ECHR as the "right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions",[14] where the right to protection of property is defined as such:

(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.[15]

Therefore European human rights law recognises the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, makes deprivation of possessions subject to certain conditions and recognises that states can balance the right to peaceful possession of property against the public interest. The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted "possessions" to include not only tangible property, but also economic interests, contractual agreements with economic value, compensation claims against the state and public law related claims such as pensions.[16] The European Court of Human Rights has held that the right to property is not absolute and states have a wide degree of discretion to limit the rights. As such, the right to property is regarded as a more flexible right than other human rights. States' degree of discretion is defined in Handyside v. United Kingdom, heard by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976. Notable cases where the European Court of Human Rights has found the right to property having been violated include Sporrong and Lonnroth v. Sweden, heard in 1982, where Swedish law kept property under the threat of expropriation for an extended period of time.[3] The highest economic compensation following a judgment of the Strasbourg Court on this matter was given (1,3 million euro) in case Beyeler v. Italy.[17]

International conventions

Property rights are also recognised in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which states in Article 5 that everyone has the right to equality before the law without distinction as to race, colour and national or ethnic origin, including the "right to own property alone as well as in association with others" and "the right to inherit". The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women recognises the property rights in Article 16, which establishes the same right for both spouses to ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of property and Article 15, which establishes women’s' right to conclude contracts.[6]

Property rights are also enshrined in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. These international human rights instruments for minorities do not establish a separate right to property, but prohibit discrimination in relation to property rights where such rights are guaranteed.[18]

Relationship to other rights

The right to private property was a crucial demand in early quests for political freedom and equality and against feudal control of property. Property can serve as the basis for the entitlements that ensure the realisation of the right to an adequate standard of living and it was only property owners which were initially granted civil and political rights, such as the right to vote. Because not everybody is a property owner, the right to work was enshrined to allow everybody to attain an adequate standard of living.[19] Today, discrimination on the basis of property ownership is commonly seen as a serious threat to the equal enjoyment of human rights by all and non-discrimination clauses in international human rights instruments frequently include property as a ground on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited (see the right to equality before the law).[6] The protection of private property may come into conflict with economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights, such as the right to freedom of expression. To mitigate this the right to property is commonly limited to protect the public interest. Many states also maintain systems of communal and collective ownership. Property rights have frequently been regarded as preventing the realisation of human rights for all, through for example slavery and the exploitation of others. Unequal distribution of wealth often follows line of sex, race and minorities, therefore property rights may appear to be part of the problem, rather than as an interest that merits protection. Property rights have been at the centre of recent human rights debates on land reform, the return of cultural artifacts by collectors and museums to indigenous peoples and the popular sovereignty of peoples over natural resources.[20]


In Europe, the notion of private property and property rights emerged in the Renaissance as international trade by merchants gave rise to mercantilist ideas. In 16th-century Europe, Lutheranism and the Protestant Reformation advanced property rights using biblical terminology. The Protestant work ethic and views on man's destiny came to underline social views in emerging capitalist economies in early modern Europe. The right to private property emerged as a radical demand for human rights vis-a-vis the state in 17th-century revolutionary Europe, but in the 18th and 19th centuries the right to property as a human right became subject of intense controversy.[21]

English Civil War

The arguments advanced by the Levellers during the English Civil War on property and civil and political rights, such as the right to vote, informed subsequent debates in other countries. The Levellers emerged as a political movement in mid-17th century England in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation. They believed that property which had been earned as the fruit of one's labour was sacred under the Bible's commandment "thou shall not steal". As such, they believed that the right to acquire property from one's work was sacred. Levellers' views on the right to property and the right not to be deprived of property as a civil and political right were developed by the pamphleteer Richard Overton.[22] In "An Arrow against all Tyrants" (1646), Overton argued:

To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature not to be invaded or usurped by any. For everyone, as he is himself, so he has a self propertiety, else he could not be himself; and of this no second may presume to deprive of without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature of the rules of equity and justice between man and man. Mine and thine cannot be, except this. No man has power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man.[23]

The views of the Levellers, who enjoyed support amongst small-scale property-owners and craftsmen, were not shared by all revolutionary parties of the English Civil War. At the 1647 General Council, Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton argued against equating the right to life with the right to property. They argued that doing so would establish the right to take anything that one may want, irrespective of the rights of others. The Leveller Thomas Rainborough responded, relying on Overton's arguments, that the Levellers required respect for others' natural rights. The definition of property and whether it was acquired as the fruit of one's labour and as such a natural right was subject to intense debate because the right to vote depended on property ownership. Political freedom was at the time associated with property ownership and individual independence. Cromwell and Ireton maintained that only property in freehold land or chartered trading rights gave a man the right to vote. They argued that this type of property ownership constituted a "take in society", which entitles men to political power. In contrast, Levellers argued that all men who are not servants, alms-recipients or beggars should be considered as property owners and be given voting rights. They believed that political freedom could only be secured by individuals, such as craftsmen, engaging in independent economic activity.[22][24]

Levellers were primarily concerned with the civil and political rights of small-scale property owners and workers, whereas the Diggers, a smaller revolutionary group led by Gerard Winstanley, focused on the rights of the rural poor who worked on landed property. The Diggers argued that private property was not consistent with justice and that the land that had been confiscated from the Crown and Church should be turned into communal land to be cultivated by the poor. According to the Diggers, the right to vote should be extended to all and everybody had the right to an adequate standard of living. With the Restoration of the English monarchy in 1660, all confiscated land returned to the Crown and Church. Some property rights were recognised and limited voting rights were established. The ideas of the Levellers on property and civil and political rights remained influential and were advanced in the subsequent 1688 Glorious Revolution,[22][24] but restrictions on the right to vote based on property meant that only a fraction of the British population had the suffrage. In 1780 only 214,000 property-owning men were entitled to vote in England and Wales, less than 3 percent of the population of 8 million. The Reform Act 1832 restricted the right to vote to men who owned property with an annual value of £10, giving approximately 4 percent of the adult male population the right to vote. The reforms of 1867 extended the right to vote to approximately 8 percent. The working class (which increased dramatically with the Industrial Revolution) and industrialists remained effectively excluded from the political system.[25][26]

John Locke and the American and French Revolutions

Locke treatises of government page
John Locke's 1689 Two Treatises of Government in which Locke calls "lives, liberties and estates" the "property" of individuals

The English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) developed the ideas of property, civil and political rights further. In his Second Treatise on Civil Government (1689), Locke proclaimed that "everyman has a property in his person; this nobody has a right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hand, we may say, are properly his".[27] He argued that property ownership derives from one's labor, though those who do not own property and only have their labor to sell should not be given the same political power as those who owned property. Labourers, small-scale property owners and large-scale property owners should have civil and political rights in proportion to the property they owned. According to Locke, the right to property and the right to life were inalienable rights and that it was the duty of the state to secure these rights for individuals. Locke argued that the safeguarding of natural rights, such as the right to property, along with the separation of powers and other checks and balances, would help to curtail political abuses by the state.[22][28]

Locke's labor theory of property and the separation of powers greatly influenced the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The entitlement to civil and political rights, such as the right to vote, was tied to the question of property in both revolutions. American revolutionaries, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, opposed universal suffrage, advocating votes only for those who owned a "stake" in society. James Madison argued that extending the right to vote to all could lead in the right to property and justice being "overruled by a majority without property". While it was initially suggested to establish the right to vote for all men, eventually the right to vote in the nascent United States was extended to white men who owned a specified amount of real estate and personal property. French revolutionaries recognised property rights in Article 17 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1791), which stated that no one "may be deprived of property rights unless a legally established public necessity required it and upon condition of a just and previous indemnity". Articles 3 and 6 declared that "all citizens have the right to contribute personally or through their representatives" in the political system and that "all citizens being equal before [the law], are equally admissible to all public offices, positions and employment according to their capacity, and without other distinction than that of virtues and talents". However, in practice the French revolutionaries did not extend civil and political rights to all, although the property qualification required for such rights was lower than that established by the American revolutionaries.[29]

According to the French revolutionary Abbé Sieyès, "all the inhabitants of a country should enjoy the right of a passive citizen... but those alone who contribute to the public establishment are like the true shareholders in the great social enterprise. They alone are the true active citizens, the true members of the association". Three months after the Declaration had been adopted, domestic servants, women and those who did not pay taxes equal to three days of labor were declared "passive citizens". Sieyes wanted to see the rapid expansion of commercial activities and favoured the unrestricted accumulation of property. In contrast, Maximilien Robespierre warned that the free accumulation of wealth ought to be limited and that the right to property should not be permitted to violate the rights of others, particularly poorer citizens, including the working poor and peasants. Robespierre's views were eventually excluded from the French Constitution of 1793 and a property qualification for civil and political rights was maintained.[30]

See also


  1. ^ See generally AA Berle, 'Property, Production and Revolution' (1965) 65 Columbia Law Review 1
  2. ^ Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. pp. 141–142. ISBN 978-0-9743570-2-7.
  3. ^ a b Doebbler, Curtis (2006). Introduction to International Human Rights Law. CD Publishing. pp. 141–142. ISBN 978-0-9743570-2-7.
  4. ^ "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". United Nations. pp. Article 17.
  5. ^ Stilman, Gabriel. "La Biblia, Laudato Si y el derecho universal a la propiedad privada". El Dial – Biblioteca Jurídica online. Retrieved 2 February 2016.
  6. ^ a b c Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 372. ISBN 978-90-411-1168-5.
  7. ^ "African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights". Organisation of African Unity. pp. Article 14.
  8. ^ "African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights". Organisation of African Unity. pp. Article 13 and 21.
  9. ^ a b Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 370. ISBN 978-90-411-1168-5.
  10. ^ "American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man". Ninth International Conference of American States. pp. Article 23.
  11. ^ Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 359–360. ISBN 978-90-411-1168-5.
  12. ^ Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 364. ISBN 978-90-411-1168-5.
  13. ^ "American Convention on Human Rights". Organization of American States. pp. Article 21.
  14. ^ Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 366. ISBN 978-90-411-1168-5.
  15. ^ "Protocol I to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms". Council of Europe. pp. Protocol 1 Article 1.
  16. ^ Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 367. ISBN 978-90-411-1168-5.
  17. ^ The handling of the affair by the Italian authorities has never been the most mirrored, although it is clear that, in the case Beyeler, the right and wrong was not all on one side: Buonomo, Giampiero (2002). "Il contribuente paga il conto dell'adeguamento ai principi di legalità e buona amministrazione". Diritto&Giustizia edizione online.  – via Questia (subscription required)
  18. ^ Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 373. ISBN 978-90-411-1168-5.
  19. ^ Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 533. ISBN 978-90-411-1168-5.
  20. ^ Alfredsson, Gudmundur; Eide, Asbjorn (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: a common standard of achievement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 360. ISBN 978-90-411-1168-5.
  21. ^ Compare: Ishay, Micheline (2008). The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalized Era. University of California Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-520-25641-5. New forms of mercantilist activities that emerged during the Renaissance rekindled efforts to define the individual's right to private property. [...] With the advance of Lutheranism and the Reformation, the fight for property rights was initially couched in the terminology of revelation. [...] The work ethic of the emerging capitalist age was consistent with the Protestant vision of man's providential destiny on earth, Max Weber later explained in his Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism. [...] Regarded as a radical human rights affirmation in the seventeenth century, the right to property would become a major source of contention in nineteenth- and twentieth-century human rights discourse.
  22. ^ a b c d Ishay, Micheline (2008). The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalized Era. University of California Press. pp. 91–94. ISBN 978-0-520-25641-5.
  23. ^ Ishay, Micheline (2008). The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalized Era. University of California Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-520-25641-5.
  24. ^ a b Rossides, Daniel W. (1998). Social Theory: Its Origins, History, and Contemporary Relevance. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 54. ISBN 978-1-882289-50-9.
  25. ^ Robinson, Eric W. (2004). Ancient Greek democracy: readings and sources. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 302. ISBN 978-0-631-23394-7.
  26. ^ "The Struggle for democracy – Getting the vote". National archives. Retrieved 15 January 2011.
  27. ^ Second Treatise of Civil Government, § 27
  28. ^ Rossides, Daniel W. (1998). Social Theory: Its Origins, History, and Contemporary Relevance. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 52–54. ISBN 978-1-882289-50-9.
  29. ^ Ishay, Micheline (2008). The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalized Era. University of California Press. pp. 94–97. ISBN 978-0-520-25641-5.
  30. ^ Ishay, Micheline (2008). The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalized Era. University of California Press. pp. 97–98. ISBN 978-0-520-25641-5.


External links


Asteya is the Sanskrit term for "non-stealing". It is a virtue in Jainism . The practice of asteya demands that one must not steal, nor have the intent to steal another's property through action, speech and thoughts.Asteya is considered as one of five major vows of Jainism. It is also considered one of ten forms of temperance (virtuous self-restraint) in Indian philosophy.

Bitòn Coulibaly

Bitòn Coulibaly (also Mamary Coulibaly, 1689?–1755) founded the Bambara Empire in what is now Mali's Ségou Region and Mopti Region.

Great-grandson of former Ségou king Kaladian Coulibaly, Mamary Coulibaly settled in Ségou in his youth and soon became head of the Tòn, a voluntary organization for young men, taking the title of "Bitòn." Under Coulibaly's leadership, the Tòn transformed from an egalitarian society into an army of "Tondions." Prompted by popular up rise against the king of Ségou, the populace suggested he take over the leadership of the Bambara kingdom. Coulibaly quickly subdued rival chiefs of Ségou through a vote a cloture of the Chiefs and used the city as a capital for his new Bambara Empire.

Fortifying himself with defensive techniques from the Songhai tradition, Coulibaly created a thousand-man army and a navy of war canoes to patrol the Niger River, staffing both with men already captured in his conquests. Coulibaly then proceeded to launch successful assaults against his neighbors, the Fulani, the Soninke, and the Mossi; he also attacked Tomboctou, though he held the city only briefly. During this time he also founded the city of Bla as an outpost and armory.

Coulibaly's new empire thrived on trade with the Berber to the north due to the Islamic influence, including that of local slaves captured in its many wars. The slaves were drafted in the army, used for labor and or resold to African local traders to the south and west (not European Slave trade); the demand for slaves then fueled the empire on to further wars. Note: Slaves had the right to property and could win their way to nobility as Ngolo Diarra did.

Bitòn Coulibaly was succeeded by Dinkoro Coulibaly following his death in 1755 and Ali Coulibaly. However, the Coulibalys failed to keep control of the empire, and it fell into anarchy until Ngolo Diarra a slave or servant of Biton Coulibaly seized the throne in 1766.

Constitution of Transnistria

The current Constitution of Transnistria was approved by national referendum on 24 December 1995, and signed into law by the President of Transnistria on 17 January 1996. As part of the territory's move towards market based reforms, it was modified on 30 June 2000.

The constitution provides for a separation of powers between judicial, legislative, and executive branches. It names Russian, Ukrainian and Moldavian as the three official languages of the republic, grants religious freedom, and grants every citizen freedom of speech and the right to property. It further establishes Transnistria as an independent sovereign country with a multiparty democracy and a market economy.

In 2009, president Igor Smirnov appointed a constitutional commission, which has proposed some controversial constitutional changes. The stated purpose of the new constitution is to harmonize Transnistrian legislation with that of its main guarantor state, Russia. Among the proposed changes is the introduction of a bicameral legislature (of which the lower house is to be elected and the upper house to be appointed) and the abolition of elections for rural administrations. An official draft was published on 11 September 2009. Smirnov sent the draft to parliament on 23 October. A referendum was planned for 24 January 2010, but the proposal failed in parliament on 18 November. The draft is now to be amended once more.In June, 2011, the parliament has adopted, and in July, president has signed new amendments, abolishing the post of Vice President of the PMR, introducing the post of Prime Minister and such body as the Government of the PMR.

Constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

A constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) was first promulgated in 1976, but it has been revised several times since then. The last major redrafting came in 1991, but this version was further changed by the Sahrawi National Council — the SADR's parliament in exile — in 1995 and 1999.

The constitution provides for a separation of powers between judicial, legislative, and executive branches. It names Arabic as the national language and Islam as the state religion, and grants every citizen freedom of speech and the right to property. It further determines that an independent Western Sahara will be a multiparty democracy with a market economy. Presently, however, the constitution ties the SADR to the Polisario Front, which is working to establish an independent Western Sahara. For example, the Secretary General of the Polisario Front (now Mohamed Abdelaziz) is constitutionally identical to the President of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, until the achievement of independence.

This is because the constitution differentiates between before and after the Western Sahara is independent. Thus, several clauses will not come into effect until the proclamation of independence, and various changes in the political order will then occur (see e.g. articles 9, 10, 30, 31, 45). Among other things, the constitution details a transitional phase after independence has been declared (see articles 130-133, Chapter Three [1]) in which the POLISARIO is detached from the republic and transformed into a political party among others. As such, the SADR remains a dominant-party system.

For information on the institutions and elections that are regulated in the constitution of the SADR, see here and here. For information on the political institutions of the Polisario Front, see here.

Eminent domain

Eminent domain (United States, Philippines), land acquisition (India, Malaysia, Singapore), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption (Hong Kong, Uganda), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia), or expropriation (France, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Portugal, Spain, Chile, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Panama) is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use. However, this power can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized by the legislature to exercise the functions of public character.In the Anglo-American historical context, property taken could be used only by the government taking the property in question. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain have been for roads, government buildings and public utilities. However, in the mid-20th century, a new application of eminent domain was pioneered, in which the government could take the property and transfer it to a private third party. This was initially done only to "blighted" property, on the principle that such properties had a negative impact upon surrounding property owners, but was later expanded to allow the taking of any private property when the new 3rd party owner could develop the property in such a way as to bring in increased tax revenues to the government.

Some jurisdictions require that the taker make an offer to purchase the subject property, before resorting to the use of eminent domain. However, once the property is taken and the judgment is final, the condemnor owns it in fee simple, and may put it to uses other than those specified in the eminent domain action.

Takings may be of the subject property in its entirety (total take) or in part (part take), either quantitatively or qualitatively (either partially in fee simple or, commonly, an easement, or any other interest less than the full fee simple title).

European Party for Individual Liberty

The European Party for Individual Liberty (EPIL) is a libertarian European political party established in Utrecht in September 2013 by The Utrecht Declaration and Covenant of European Classical Liberal and Libertarian Parties.

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

The Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties are sections of the Constitution of India that prescribe the fundamental obligations of the states to its citizens and the duties and the rights of the citizens to the State. These sections comprise a constitutional bill of rights for government policy-making and the behaviour and conduct of citizens. These sections are considered vital elements of the constitution, which was developed between 1947 and 1949 by the Constituent Assembly of India.

The Fundamental Rights are defined as the basic human rights of all citizens. These rights, defined in Part III of the Constitution, applied irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed, or gender. They are enforceable by the courts, subject to specific restrictions. The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines for the framing of laws by the government. These provisions, set out in Part IV of the Constitution, are not enforceable by the courts, but the principles on which they are based are fundamental guidelines for governance that the State is expected to apply in framing policies and passing laws.

The Fundamental Duties are defined as the moral obligations of all citizens to help promote a spirit of patriotism and to uphold the unity of India. These duties set out in Part IV–A of the Constitution, concern individuals and the nation. Like the Directive Principles, they are not enforceable by courts unless otherwise made enforceable by parliamentary law.

Fundamental rights in India

Fundamental rights, the basic and civil liberties of the people, are protected under the charter of rights contained in Part III (Article 12 to 35) of the Constitution of India. These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, such as equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, religious and cultural freedom and peaceful assembly, freedom to practice religion, and the right to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil rights by means of writs such as habeas corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto.

Fundamental rights apply universally to all citizens, irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste or gender. The Indian Penal Code and other laws prescribe punishments for the violation of these rights, subject to discretion of the judiciary. Though the rights conferred by the constitution other than fundamental rights are also valid rights protected by the judiciary, in case of fundamental rights violations, the Supreme Court of India can be approached directly for ultimate justice per Article 32. The Rights have their origins in many sources, including England's Bill of Rights, the United States Bill of Rights and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man.

The six fundamental rights recognised by the Indian constitution are the:

Right to equality

Cultural and Educational Right

Right to freedom

Right against exploitation

Right to freedom of religion, and

Right to constitutional remedies1. The right to equality includes equality before law, prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, gender or place of birth, and equality of opportunity in matters of employment, abolition of untouchability and abolition of titles.

2. Cultural and Educational Rights are given to the Citizens of India to conserve their cultural practices and that they must have access to education.

3. The right to freedom includes freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association or union or cooperatives, movement, residence, and right to practice any profession or occupation.

4. The right against exploitation prohibits all forms of forced labour, child labour and trafficking of human beings.

5. The right to freedom of religion includes freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, freedom to manage religious affairs, freedom from certain taxes and freedom from

religious instructions in certain educational institutes. Cultural and educational rights preserve the right of any section of citizens to conserve their culture, language or script, and right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

6. The right to constitutional remedies is present for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21 (the Right to Freedom) that protects life and liberty of the citizens.

Fundamental rights for Indians have also been aimed at overturning the inequalities of pre-independence social practices. Specifically, they have also been used to abolish untouchability and thus prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. They also forbid trafficking of human beings and forced labour (a crime). They also protect cultural and educational rights of religious and linguistic minorities by allowing them to preserve their languages and also establish and administer their own education institutions. They are covered in Part III (Articles 12 to 35) of Indian constitution.

Some features of Indian Constitution :

1. It provides safeguard if any political leader misuses his power.

2. It also provides safeguard against discrimination.

3. It says "all persons are equal before law."

4. It provides fundamental rights.

Future interest

In property law and real estate, a future interest is a legal right to property ownership that does not include the right to present possession or enjoyment of the property. Future interests are created on the formation of a defeasible estate; that is, an estate with a condition or event triggering transfer of possessory ownership. A common example is the landlord-tenant relationship. The landlord may own a house, but has no general right to enter it while it is being rented. The conditions triggering the transfer of possession, first to the tenant then back to the landlord, are usually detailed in a lease.

As a slightly more complicated example, suppose O is the owner of Blackacre. Consider what happens when O transfers the property, "to A for life, then to B". Person A acquires possession of Blackacre. Person B does not receive any right to possess Blackacre immediately; however, once person A dies, possession will fall to person B (or his estate, if he died before person A). Person B has a future interest in the property. In this example, the event triggering the transfer is person A's death.

Because they convey ownership rights, future interests can usually be sold, gifted, willed, or otherwise disposed of by the beneficiary (but see Vesting below). Because the rights vest in the future, any such disposition will occur before the beneficiary actually takes possession of the property.

There are five kinds of future interests recognized at common law: three in the transferor and two in the transferee.

History of Lancashire

Lancashire is a county of England, in the northwest of the country. The county did not exist in 1086, for the Domesday Book, and was apparently first created in 1182, making it one of the youngest of the traditional counties.

The historic county consisted of two separate parts. The main part runs along the northwestern coast of England. When it included Manchester and Liverpool it had a greatest length of 76 miles, and breadth of 45 miles, and an area of 1,208,154 acres. The northern detached part of the old county palatine, consisting of Furness and Cartmell was 25 miles in length, 23 miles in breadth and was separated from the main portion of Lancashire by Morecambe Bay and the Kendal district of Westmorland. The highest point in the historic county is 803 metres (2,633 ft) at Old Man of Coniston.As a county palatine, the Duke of Lancaster had sovereignty rights in the areas of justice and administration within the county. However the third man to hold the title, Henry Bolingbroke seized the English throne in 1399 to become Henry IV and both the duchy and palatinate have since been possessions of the crown, administered separately but consistently with the rest of the country. The later part of the 19th century brought large reforms with the much of county's independent legal system merged into the national courts and a new administrative county and network of county boroughs being formed. Since then Lancashire County Council has been seated at County Hall in Preston.

In 1974 administrative county was abolished and new ceremonial counties created with the areas around the cities of Manchester and Liverpool forming the larger portions of Greater Manchester and Merseyside and the section north of Morecambe Bay has now joined Westmorland as part of modern Cumbria. However the new Lancashire gained control of the Forest of Bowland and West Craven areas formerly under the administration of the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Throughout these changes, historic Lancashire still continues to be recognised as a geographical and cultural area by the British Government. The historic county palatine boundaries are also still recognised and unmoved with Lancaster still being recognised as the county town. Traditional borders are still followed by organisations such as the Lancashire FA.The High Sheriffs of Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside are still appointed by the Queen in right of the duchy. The duchy also benefits from the legal concept of bona vacantia within county palatine, whereby it has the right to property for which the legal owner cannot be found. The proceeds are divided between two registered charities, the Duchy of Lancaster Benevolent Fund and the Duchy of Lancaster Jubilee Trust.The emblem of the historic county of Lancashire is the Red Rose of the English royal House of Lancaster, and in 2008 the Flag of Lancashire became recognised by the Flag Institute. On 27 November, Lancashire Day celebrates the culture of the historic county ranging from its history to its own dialect.

Human rights in Cyprus

Human rights in Cyprus are protected by the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. However, there have been reports of violations of the human rights of minorities, democratic freedom, rights of detainees, freedom of religion, rights of women, freedom of press and the freedom of speech.

In a number of cases, the European Court of Human Rights has found Turkey responsible for continuous violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Republic of Cyprus as a result of the Turkish Invasion in 1974 and continuous occupation of 37% of its territory. Regarding human rights in the areas under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus, according to the 2010 US Department of State human rights report, there were reports of police abuse and degrading treatment of persons in custody and asylum seekers, as well as instances of discrimination and violence against members of minority ethnic and national groups. Trafficking of women to the island, particularly for sexual exploitation was reportedly a problem. Several instances of violence against women and children were also reported.

Human rights in Northern Cyprus

Human rights in Northern Cyprus are protected by the constitution of Northern Cyprus. However, there have been reports of violations of the human rights of minorities, democratic freedom, freedom from discrimination, freedom from torture, freedom of movement, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to education, right to life, right to property, and the rights of displaced persons. The rights of Greek-Cypriots displaced by the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, notably their rights to property and right of return, is one of the focal points of ongoing negotiations for the solution of the Cyprus question.

According to a United States Department of State Country Report of 2001, human rights were generally respected, although problems existed in terms of police activities, and the restriction of movement. In January 2011, The Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the question of Human Rights in Cyprus noted that the ongoing division of Cyprus continues to affect human rights throughout the island "... including freedom of movement, human rights pertaining to the question of missing persons, discrimination, the right to life, freedom of religion, and economic, social and cultural rights."


Marumakkathayam was a system of matrilineal inheritance prevalent in what is now Kerala, India. Descent and the inheritance of property was traced through females. It was followed by all Nair castes, some of the Ambalavasis, Mappilas, and tribal groups.This was one of the few traditional systems which gave women liberty and right to property.

The word literally means inheritance by sisters' children, as opposed to sons and daughters. 'Marumakkal', in the Malayalam language, means nephews and nieces. The joint family under the matrilineal system is known as Tharavad and formed the nucleus of the society in Malabar. The customary law of inheritance was codified by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act 1932, Madras Act No. 22 of 1933, published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 1 August 1933.

Malabar was part of the Madras Presidency in British India. In the Madras Marumakkathayam Act 1932, 'Marumakkathayam' is defined as the system of inheritance in which descent is traced by females, and 'Marumakkathayee' means a person governed by the Marumakkathayam law of inheritance. 'Tarawa' means the group of people forming a joint family with the community of property governed by the Marumakkathayam law of inheritance. The system of inheritance is now abolished by The Joint Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, by the Kerala State Legislature.

Panchkot Raj

Panchkot Raj, also known as Panchkot Zamindari or Kashipur Raj, was a family of Zamindars who ruled in the western fringe areas of present-day West Bengal and some of the adjacent areas in present-day Jharkhand .

Post-independence, when the Parliament subjected the Right to property to certain restrictions and states began to initiate aggressive agrarian reforms by passing laws that abolished the Zamindari system, the family approached the Supreme Court.Subsequently, in 1951, a five-bench-judge unanimously ruled in favor of the government.

Property rights (economics)

Property rights are theoretical socially-enforced constructs in economics for determining how a resource or economic good is used and owned. Resources can be owned by (and hence be the property of) individuals, associations or governments. Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components and is often referred to as a bundle of rights:

the right to use the good

the right to earn income from the good

the right to transfer the good to others

the right to enforce property rightsIn economics, property is usually considered to be ownership (rights to the proceeds generated by the property) and control over a resource or good. Many economists effectively argue that property rights need to be fixed and need to portray the relationships among other parties in order to be more effective.

Real estate

Real estate is "property consisting of land and the buildings on it, along with its natural resources such as crops, minerals or water; immovable property of this nature; an interest vested in this (also) an item of real property, (more generally) buildings or housing in general. Also: the business of real estate; the profession of buying, selling, or renting land, buildings, or housing."

It is a legal term used in jurisdictions whose legal system is derived from English common law, such as India, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, United States, Canada, Pakistan, Australia, and New Zealand.

Religious views on capitalism

Religious views on capitalism have been philosophically diverse, with numerous religious philosophers defending the natural right to property while simultaneously expressing criticism at the negative social effects of materialism and greed.

Right to an adequate standard of living

The right to an adequate standard of living is recognized as a human right in international human rights instruments and is understood to establish a minimum entitlement to food, clothing and housing at an adequate level. The right to food and the right to housing have been further defined in human rights instruments.

The right to an adequate standard of living is enshrined in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The most significant inspiration for the inclusion of the right to an adequate standard of living in the UDHR was the Four Freedoms speech by US President Franklin Roosevelt, which declared amongst others the "freedom from want". Fulfillment of the right to an adequate standard of living depends on a number of other economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to property, the right to work, the right to education and the right to social security. There have been a number of proposed policies to guarantee people a basic standard of living through the concept of offering a basic income guarantee essentially gifting all citizens a basic level of "free money" in order to meet basic needs such as food and shelter.

Tripuri culture

The Tripuri culture of North-East India has many distinctive features.

Substantive human rights
Civil and political
Sexual and
War and conflict
By owner
By nature
(key work)

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.