Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:08:59.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Property Rights and Transitional Justice: A Forward-Looking Argument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2013

Nahshon Perez
Nahshon Perez*
Affiliation:
Bar Ilan University
*
Nahshon Perez, Department of Political Studies, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 5290002, Israel. Email: nahshonp@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This article aims to describe a forward-looking approach to the problem of property rights in transitional justice contexts. Undemocratic regimes violate property rights in various ways, from simple theft to violations of opportunities to appropriate. Therefore, post-transition situations entail an obligation to correct such injustices. However, returning to the status quo ante is complex, costly and requires information that is often not available. An alternative is the suggested FCR: forward looking, commensurable and redistributive. Such an approach emphasizes the creation of a baseline of ownership and welfare rather than an attempt to return to the status quo ante.

Résumé. Cet article tente de décrire un argument tourné vers l'avenir au sujet du problème des droits de propriété en contexte de justice transitionnelle. Les régimes non démocratiques violent les droits de propriété de multiple façons, de la simple usurpation à la violation des opportunités d'appropriation. Par conséquent, les situations post transitionnelles impliquent une obligation de corriger de telles injustices. Cependant, le retour au status quo ante s'avère complexe, coûteux et requiert de l'information qui, souvent, n'est plus disponible. Une alternative est l'argument suggéré FCR : prospectif, commensurable et redistributif. Une telle approche met l'emphase sur la création des conditions de base du droit à la propriété et du bien-être, plutôt que sur la tentative de restituer le status quo antérieur.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 135 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addison, Tony, LeBillon, Philippe and Murshed, S. Mansoob. 2001. “Finance in Conflict and Reconstruction.” Journal of International Development 13: 951–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexeev, Michael. 1999. “The Effect of Privatization on Wealth Distribution in Russia.” Economics of Transition 7 (2): 449–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Thom. 2008. “A Two-Tiered Reparations Theory: A Reply to Wenar.” Journal of Social Philosophy 39(4): 666–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cane, Peter. 2002. Responsibility in Law and Morality. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Cane, Peter. 2006. Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2000. Sovereign Virtue. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 2004. Closing the Books. Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Richard. 1995. Simple Rules for a Complex World. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Ruth. 2004. “A Political Economy of Land Reform in South Africa.” Review of African Political Economy 31: 213–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, R. 1999. Liberalism, Constitutionalism, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, O. W. 1881. The Common Law. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Honore, A. M. 1961. “Ownership.” In Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, ed. Guest, A.G.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 107–47.Google Scholar
Kutz, C. 2004. “Justice in Reparations: The Cost of Memory and the Value of Talk.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 (3): 277–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. 1970. Two Treatise of Government, ed. Laslett, P.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lopez, C.S. 2003–2004. “Reformulating Native Title in Mabo's Wake: Aboriginal Sovereignty and Reconciliation in Post Centenary Australia.” Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law 11: 21–111.Google Scholar
Lyons, D. 1977. “The New Indian Claims and Original Rights to Land.” Social Theory and Practice 4: 249–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marais, Hein. 2011. South Africa Pushed to the Limits: The Political Economy of Change. London: Double Storey PublishersGoogle Scholar
Michelman, F. 1967. “Property, Utility and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of ‘Just Compensation’ Law.” Harvard Law Review 80 (6): 1165–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelman, F. 1997. “The Common Law Baseline and Restitution for the Lost Commons.” University of Chicago Law Review 64: 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minow, Martha. 1998. Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Muvingi, I. 2009. “Sitting on Powder Kegs: Socioeconomic Rights in Transitional Societies.” The International Journal of Transitional Justice 3: 163–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narveson, J. 2009. “Present Payments, Past Wrongs: Correcting Loose Talk about Nozick and Rectification.” Libertarian Papers 1 (1).Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus. 1993. “Disqualification, Retribution, Restitution: Dilemmas of Justice in Post-Communist Transitions.” Journal of Political Philosophy 1 (1): 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offe, Claus. 1997. Varieties of Transition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perez, Nahshon. 2011. “On Compensation and Return: Can the ‘Continuing Injustice Argument’ for Compensating for Historical Injustices Justify Compensating for Historical Injustices, or the Return of Property?” Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (2): 151–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, M. J. 1991. “Diagnosing the Takings Problem.” In Compensatory Justice, ed. XXXIII, J. Chapman. Nomos. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. rev. ed. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, Gerard. 2002. “The Political Economy of Transition.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (1): 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothbard, Murray. 1998. The Ethics of Liberty. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. and Thaler, R.. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Teitel, R. 2000. Transitional Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Walt, A.J. 2004–2005. “Transformative constitutionalism and the development of South African property law.” Part 1. TSAR (Journal of South African Law) 4: 655–89.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. 1988. The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, J. 1992. “Superceding Historic Injustice.” Ethics 103 (1): 4–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenar, L. 2008. “Property Rights and the Resource Curse.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 36 (1): 2–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar