Expropriations of Private Property for Economic ‘Development’ in the United States: Re-Thinking the Titling and Rule of Law Solutions to Land Grabs in the Global South

Frances Thomson
{"title":"Expropriations of Private Property for Economic ‘Development’ in the United States: Re-Thinking the Titling and Rule of Law Solutions to Land Grabs in the Global South","authors":"Frances Thomson","doi":"10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/sociojuridicos/a.7872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mainstream discourses tend to treat land dispossession as a ‘developing’ country problem that arises due to weak/corrupt legal systems and inadequate property institutions. This article unsettles such discourses by examining expropriations for economic ‘development’ in the United States —a country typically deemed to have strong property institutions and a strong rule of law. Drawing on various examples, I propose that expropriation in the us is neither rigorously conditional nor particularly exceptional. While most ‘takings’ laws are supposed to restrict the State’s power, this restriction hinges on the definition of public use, purpose, necessity, or interest. And in many countries, including the us, these concepts are now defined broadly and vaguely so as to include private for-profit projects. Ultimately, the contents, interpretation, and application of the law are subject to social and political struggles; this point is habitually overlooked in the rule of law ‘solutions’ to land grabbing—. For these reasons, titling/registration programs and policies aimed at strengthening the rule of law, even if successful, are likely to transform rather than ‘solve’ dispossession in the global South.","PeriodicalId":271268,"journal":{"name":"Estudios Socio-Jurídicos","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Estudios Socio-Jurídicos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/sociojuridicos/a.7872","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mainstream discourses tend to treat land dispossession as a ‘developing’ country problem that arises due to weak/corrupt legal systems and inadequate property institutions. This article unsettles such discourses by examining expropriations for economic ‘development’ in the United States —a country typically deemed to have strong property institutions and a strong rule of law. Drawing on various examples, I propose that expropriation in the us is neither rigorously conditional nor particularly exceptional. While most ‘takings’ laws are supposed to restrict the State’s power, this restriction hinges on the definition of public use, purpose, necessity, or interest. And in many countries, including the us, these concepts are now defined broadly and vaguely so as to include private for-profit projects. Ultimately, the contents, interpretation, and application of the law are subject to social and political struggles; this point is habitually overlooked in the rule of law ‘solutions’ to land grabbing—. For these reasons, titling/registration programs and policies aimed at strengthening the rule of law, even if successful, are likely to transform rather than ‘solve’ dispossession in the global South.
美国为经济“发展”而征收私有财产:重新思考全球南方国家土地掠夺的所有权和法治解决方案
主流话语倾向于将土地剥夺视为“发展中”国家的问题,这是由于薄弱/腐败的法律体系和不充分的财产制度而产生的。本文通过考察美国为经济“发展”而征收土地的情况,颠覆了这种说法。美国通常被认为拥有强大的财产制度和强大的法治。根据各种例子,我提出,在美国,征用既没有严格的条件,也没有特别的例外。虽然大多数“征用”法律都应该限制国家的权力,但这种限制取决于对公共用途、目的、必要性或利益的定义。在包括美国在内的许多国家,这些概念现在被广泛而模糊地定义,以便包括私人营利性项目。最终,法律的内容、解释和适用受制于社会和政治斗争;这一点在土地掠夺的法治“解决方案”中经常被忽视。由于这些原因,旨在加强法治的产权/登记计划和政策,即使成功,也可能改变而不是“解决”全球南方的剥夺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信