Defending the Polygon: The Emerging Human Right to Communal Property

T. Ankersen, T. Ruppert
{"title":"Defending the Polygon: The Emerging Human Right to Communal Property","authors":"T. Ankersen, T. Ruppert","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2675733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For many peoples in the developing world, \"homeland security\" has a meaning very different from its post-September 11 meaning in the United States. In many cases, peoples who have a shared cultural conception of \"territory\" within nation-states have begun to adopt the dominant Western property paradigm of land titling to formalize their rights to that territory. Many view this paradigm and the individualization of property rights it facilitates as an inevitable outcome of the inexorable march of social evolution, evidenced by the end of the twentieth century collapse of communism. The Enlightenment era conception of fungible individual property emerged triumphant. Moreover, it has been enshrined in the fundamental human rights charters and domestic constitutions of the twentieth century.' Yet a closer inspection yields a much more nuanced analysis of the nature and forms of property ownership around the world and its treatment within the rights-based framework of humanitarian law. The literature suggests that communally held lands, often referred to as \"common property,\" have remained robust and adaptable in the face of the forces of globalization, and continue to persist in even the most developed nations.'This Article begins with a brief review of the literature of common property - an area of intense and interdisciplinary scholarly interest sparked by Garrett Hardin's famous essay, The Tragedy of the Commons. In Part II we briefly review the modem view of common property and its relationship with international development theory. Part III describes the historical development of the three-generational conceptual framework for international human rights law and the right to property within that framework. Part IV discusses key national jurisprudence that has attempted to reverse the colonial legacy of indigenous homeland alienation and the inter-American human rights system.","PeriodicalId":82221,"journal":{"name":"Oklahoma law review","volume":"178 1","pages":"681"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oklahoma law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2675733","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

For many peoples in the developing world, "homeland security" has a meaning very different from its post-September 11 meaning in the United States. In many cases, peoples who have a shared cultural conception of "territory" within nation-states have begun to adopt the dominant Western property paradigm of land titling to formalize their rights to that territory. Many view this paradigm and the individualization of property rights it facilitates as an inevitable outcome of the inexorable march of social evolution, evidenced by the end of the twentieth century collapse of communism. The Enlightenment era conception of fungible individual property emerged triumphant. Moreover, it has been enshrined in the fundamental human rights charters and domestic constitutions of the twentieth century.' Yet a closer inspection yields a much more nuanced analysis of the nature and forms of property ownership around the world and its treatment within the rights-based framework of humanitarian law. The literature suggests that communally held lands, often referred to as "common property," have remained robust and adaptable in the face of the forces of globalization, and continue to persist in even the most developed nations.'This Article begins with a brief review of the literature of common property - an area of intense and interdisciplinary scholarly interest sparked by Garrett Hardin's famous essay, The Tragedy of the Commons. In Part II we briefly review the modem view of common property and its relationship with international development theory. Part III describes the historical development of the three-generational conceptual framework for international human rights law and the right to property within that framework. Part IV discusses key national jurisprudence that has attempted to reverse the colonial legacy of indigenous homeland alienation and the inter-American human rights system.
捍卫多边形:新兴的公共财产人权
对发展中国家的许多人来说,“国土安全”的含义与“9·11”之后在美国的含义大不相同。在许多情况下,在民族国家中拥有共同“领土”文化概念的民族已经开始采用占主导地位的西方土地所有权范式,以正式确定他们对该领土的权利。许多人认为,这种范式及其促成的财产权个体化是社会进化不可阻挡的必然结果,20世纪末共产主义的崩溃就是明证。启蒙时代的个人财产可替代性概念取得了胜利。此外,它已载入20世纪的基本人权宪章和各国国内宪法。然而,如果仔细观察,就会对世界各地财产所有权的性质和形式及其在基于权利的人道主义法框架内的待遇进行细致得多的分析。文献表明,公共拥有的土地,通常被称为“公共财产”,在全球化的力量面前保持了强大和适应性,甚至在最发达的国家也继续存在。本文首先简要回顾了公共财产的文献——这是一个由加勒特·哈丁的著名论文《公共财产的悲剧》引发的跨学科学术兴趣的领域。第二部分简要回顾了现代共有财产观及其与国际发展理论的关系。第三部分描述了国际人权法三代概念框架的历史发展以及该框架内的财产权。第四部分讨论了试图扭转土著家园异化和美洲间人权制度的殖民遗产的关键国家法理学。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信