2.2.2 Principle of Compensation for Expropriation
Payment of compensation is the second, but equally important, limitation on the government’s power of expropriation. This is a fact generally found in all legal systems of the world, whether or not private property is respected. This means, even in countries where the private ownership of land is not yet allowed, like China and Ethiopia, payment of compensation for the holder of rights on the property is recognized by law (Daniel, 2007).
The process, however, brings tension for people who are threatened with dispossession. The compulsory acquisition of land for development purpose may ultimately bring benefits to society but it is disruptive to people whose property is acquired. In countries
…show more content…
Compensation is to repay the affected people for the losses they suffered, and should be based on principles of equity and equivalence. The principle of equivalence is crucial to determining compensation: affected owners and occupants shall be neither enriched nor impoverished as a result of the compulsory acquisition. Financial compensation on the basis of equivalence of only the loss of land rarely achieves the aim of putting those affected in the same position as they were before the acquisition; the money paid cannot fully replace what is lost i.e. in some circumstances monetary compensation is either inadequate or inappropriate(Crawford, …show more content…
For example, in Romanian law33/ 94 provides for compensation to be payable for the value of the property taken and any other losses caused to the owner or any other party with an interest in the property. According to Article 14(3) of the German Basic law, the compensation is intended to offer a full balance for the loss that was imposed upon them by the expropriation interference. Other property losses due to the expropriation (consequential damages) are also compensated, too (Crawford, 2007).
According to Keith (2007), in developing countries where there is the financial resource limitation, less emphasis should be put on monetary compensation where resettlement or reinstatement are often the best means of putting the claimant back in the same position as if his/her land had not been taken from him /her. In practice, given that the aim of the acquisition is to support development, there are strong arguments for compensation to improve the position of those affected wherever possible (Keith,
Compensation must be provided to the person whose property is being bought. Each country should work to set a standard for what is a fair market price, to prevent any people from inadequate compensation. The value of the property must be taken into account, and the effect this will have on their way of life. If a person is, for example, losing their home, the government must provide enough money to ensure that individual is able to relocate comfortably.
Damages are a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked a debate on the issue, the most famous one being the “hot coffee lawsuit”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant, spilt it, and was severely burnt. She sued the McDonald’s company, received $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.9 million in punitive damages. A judge then reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The final out-of-court settlement was of approximately $500,000. For many, this case is frivolous (meaning that the plaintiff’s prospects of being successful were low or inexistent), but it really highlights the question of excessive punitive damages compared to the damage suffered and its causes.
Reparations is defined as the act of making amends, giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury, or helping those who have been wronged. Coates argues that no one really has a solid idea on how to go about reparations for African-Americans. This is due to the fact
Reparations For 246 consecutive years, blacks have been kidnapped, whipped to death, mutilated, and raped. From 1619 to 1865, these generations of slave families were living as property rather than human beings. History would agree that the crimes done against these set of selected people do not compare to those of other races. Many people don’t know that there were sex slave farms that practiced a process known as “buck breaking”.
Redistribution reduces economic inequalities by giving the poor the freedom to grow their own crops or sell their land entirely without having to worry about rents or crop payments that must be sacrificed to a landowner. Land redistribution can give compensation to the rich who have lost land, but in most countries the rich simply have their land confiscated from them without any payment (Beehner). Governments also may carry out land reform for ideological reasons such as during a revolution when a government that comes to power that wants to destroy the previously feudalist economic system similar to the French Revolutionary government and its land reforms directed at the First Estate
Imagine you’re young, and alone. If your family was taken from you and suffered horribly for your freedom, would you want to be repaid in some form? In the article “The Case for Reparations” Ta-Nehisi Coates discusses a great deal of information about reparations, and if they should be given. Reparations are when a person or people make amends for the wrong they have done. Ta-Nehisi believes that from two hundred years of slavery, ninety years of Jim Crow laws, sixty years of separate but equal, and thirty five years of racist housing policy, that America is shackled. Only if we face the compounding moral debt can America be free. Until we face the reality of what happened together, we will always be bound by the lies that have been told.
Although the talk of reparations of slavery has been in discussion for over a hundred years, it is beginning to heat up again. Within these discussions, the issue of the form of reparations has been evaluated and money has been an option several times. However, reparations in the form of money should not be obtained for several reasons. Firstly, it is not a solution to the problem, secondly monetary reparations have the ability to worsen discrimination, thirdly, who gets paid, and how is it regulated, and lastly, the money can be misused. Many have tried to use money on several occasions to help or solve a situation, however this has been noted to be not very effective.
Another example to demonstrate why some of the land was taken unlawfully was signing of the Tierra Maria Grant. This grant sold a large amount of land that belonged to many heirs, however, the grant
Civil Liability has more than one source. There are two sources of liabilities, civil wrong and unjust enrichment. But most importantly civil liability is to be responsible for debts or wrongdoing against another private party (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/defenses-to-civil-liability.html). A Civil Wrong could arise from three different acts. It could arise from personal acts, acts of another, and from things. But, my main focus is personal acts. All these acts are considered as a civil wrong which is an action with a tort, an act against another person or their property, and, a breach of the terms of a contract (http://thelawdictionary.org/civil-wrong/). In order to prove that a person is liable for that certain act we should analyze the civil wrong elements which are , wrong, damage, and causation. A The second source of liability is unjust enrichment which is benefiting from the action or property of another without legal justification (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/U/UnjustEnrichment.aspx).Unjust Enrichment could arise from a payment not due and a voluntary agency. Unjust Enrichment includes three elements which are loss, benefit, and no legal justification. Both liabilities have different understandings and have different aspects in viewing a case.
Perhaps the biggest failure in the reservation system affecting current times is in the status of laws and jurisdiction. Communal land ownership and federal trust restrictions on land ownership and use inhibit economic development and many land allotments are owned collectively by groups of individuals. Multiple ownership makes it difficult to manage the lands and it reduces benefits to individuals. It is also nearly impossible to use the land as collateral for obtaining loans because of federal protection from encumbrances on trust
In this paper I will argue that America should pay reparations to black communities that have suffered most from institutionalized racism. My view is not that reparations should be paid via checks mailed by the federal government, of an undeterminable sum, to families that are most eligible, but rather, through changes in policy. These policies would tackle racial inequality at it most obvious sources, the wage gap, the mistreatment of black Americans by our criminal justice system, quality of education, and the disparity in housing between black and white Americans.
In law there are two types of land, registered and unregistered. It is necessary to register land so the register precisely reflects the state of the registered property, so it is clear to see who the current owner is and whether there are any third party proprietary interests affecting it; this is important as it would make many lal enquiries easier and will show the property’s reality to any future purchasers. The purpose of land registration according to Gray and Gray (2008) is that “any prospective purchaser of registered land should always be able to verify, by simple examination of the register, the exact nature of all the interests existing in or over the land which he proposes to buy”. There are three main principles of land registration: the insurance principle, curtain principle and the mirror principle. The mirror principle which essentially means that the register reflects reality hence all facts significant to the land title are to be found on the register. The significant facts that should be included in the register are “the owner, the nature of his ownership, and any limitations on his ownership and any rights enjoyed by other persons over the land that are adverse to the owner”. However this is not always the case as some third party proprietary interests override registered dispositions, these are called overriding interests. Overriding interests are binding on a purchaser of any registered land even though they are not on the register.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) characterises indirect expropriations by the following cumulative elements: “a) an act attributable to the state; b) interference with property rights or other protected legal interests; c) of such degree that the relevant rights or interests lose all or most of their value or the owner is deprived of control over the investment; d) Even though the owner retains the legal title or remains in physical possession.”
The purpose of enacting The Land Registration Act 2002, was to combat the uncertainties evolved around the previous Act, Land Registration Act 1925 . The need for reforms was highlighted in a report by Law Commission known as Land Registration for the 21st Century: a Conveyancing Revolution . LRA 2002 repealed LRA 1925, not only simplify the law by maintaining an accurate record of all the rights and alongside interests held by others that affect the land, but also to give certainty the basic concepts engrossed by the 1925 Act as it can be very clearly evident that 2002 Act revolves around the original and principle ideas with amendments.
Extractive institutions are used throughout this book to explain that the upper class extracts resources and goods from the lower class. They don’t allow growth or competition, but rather they just exploit the rest of society into doing their labour. It’s used to please a few, rather than the majority, and can still be seen in most places in the world. Whereas, inclusive institutions are the ideal way nations should be run, allowing for fair economical systems, property ownership, educational facilities and allowing all citizens to participate in the growth of the economy. Acemoglu and Robinson argue that this is the main factor in distinguishing the rich countries from the poor and, moreover, how they treat their citizens. This system is relatively used in North America and Western Europe.