Land-Use Regulation. Compensation Statutes. Florida Creates Cause of Action for Compensation of Property Owners When Regulation Imposes "Inordinate Burden". Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, ch. 181, 1995 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. 1311 (West)

1995 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 542
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-425
Author(s):  
Tamar Megiddo ◽  
Eyal Benvenisti

AbstractThis Article examines the authority of states to settle individual private property claims in post–conflict negotiations towards settlement. We analyze this question by exploring the limits of states’ authority to take or limit private property rights for the public good. We argue that this authority rests on two cumulative justifications: the inclusion of the property owners among the public that stands to benefit from the public good, and their representation by the government that decides on the taking of the property. In post–conflict settlement, the negotiating states may redistribute both private property and the public good between and within their respective communities. Their authority to redistribute continues to rests on the same justifications of inclusion and representation. Hence, their authority extends only to the redistribution of property of owners who are members of the respective communities that negotiate the agreement, and who are represented by a negotiating government.


Ekonomia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-25
Author(s):  
Walter E. Block

Dominiak (2019) agrees with the Blockian proviso: homesteading in a bagel or donut format is illicit, since it allows the owner to control land (the hole, the territory in the middle) with which he has not mixed his labor. Thus, a person who does so must open up an easement allowing outside home-steaders through his property, and into this so-far virgin land. But, this author claims this proviso of Block’s does not go far enough. It should also be extended further, not only to incorporate the bagel format, but also in justification of easements through private property in emergencies, and so as to avoid entrapment. I strongly support Dominiak in his defense of the Blockian proviso against critics (Kinsella, 2007, 2009C) in the first part of his excellent paper, but find I cannot agree with this second contention of his. In short, Dominiak agrees with Block regarding easements in the bagel case, but wants to extend this concept to when property owners are encircled, and thus trapped. In my view, extending easements to cases other than the bagel is incompatible with libertarianism’s emphasis on the sanctity of private property rights. Certain positive rights (to, in this case, movement) are essential to Dominiak’s argument. And these rights do not exist. Therefore, Dominiak’s argument is unsound.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-354
Author(s):  
Min Tang ◽  
Jia Chen

AbstractAn important field of the political economy literature examines the mechanism of property rights commitments in authoritarian regimes where formal political constraints are absent. While many of the existing studies focus on how domestic autocratic institutions shape the formation of property rights regimes, this paper takes an open-economy approach and examines the compound effect of global economic integration and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) on property rights protection in authoritarian regimes. We propose that the domestic presence of foreign factors of production is positively associated with more credible property rights commitments in authoritarian economies. Moreover, this association is moderated by authoritarian regimes' participation in institutionalized IGOs, which enhance the organizational capacity of these foreign owners of production factors. Through the transnational networks of production integration, international institutions indirectly alter the domestic distribution of bargaining power between the authoritarian government and private economic actors, rendering the commitment to property rights protection more credible. An analysis of a panel dataset consisting of 105 authoritarian regimes yields preliminary evidence supporting our proposition.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-343
Author(s):  
Jan Demela ◽  
Štěpán Mikula

Abstract This article analyses the development of legislation regarding private property in Czechoslovakia between 1948 and 1989 and summarizes available empirical data relating to property rights protection in the given period. Although the legislation took gradual steps towards diminishing the status of private property, no laws were passed that officially or entirely terminated its existence. The legislation of the 1960s set a status quo which codified property rights until the fall of the Communist regime in 1989. Most of the empirical data, which are available only for the 1980s, do not show any significant trend, corresponding with the unaltered situation in the legislation of that decade.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document