Your search

The thesis examines protections afforded by the emerging right in international law of refugees or internally displaced persons to retum to their homes of origin following conflict. The establishment of discrete, quasi-judicial housing and property restitution mechanisms (for example in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina) promising "restitution in kind" has become the preferred approach of the international community. Their attractiveness is that they promise both legal redress and a practical outcome - the retum of refugees and IDPs to their homes. However, as the thesis discusses, the desires of refugees and IDPs often shift over a long displacement, to the point that return often no longer equates with going "home". Meanwhile ties begin to form with the host community. The thesis assesses the effectiveness of restitution mechanisms as concerns the decision-making of refugees and displaced persons, and concludes that they will be useful if undertaken quickly and in coordination with a larger project to encourage return. In protracted refugee situations, by contrast, restitution is unlikely to lead to widespread retum. A wider array of remedies (including increased use of compensation in place of restitution in kind) and approaches to the protection of housing and property rights for displaced persons should be available. Further, rather than detracting from the rights-based approach, such solutions are solidly rooted in the larger property rights discourse and may in fact strengthen protections of the rights to housing and property for returnees. Based in qualitative and quantitative empirical research, the last chapter presents a case study of protracted displacement and the possibilities for housing and property rights approaches which support a range of durable solutions in the Republic of Georgia and South Ossetia.

Article Book Review of J.A.M. A. Sluysmans, S. Verbist, and E. Waring, eds., Expropriation Law in Europe (Deventer: Wolters Kluwer, 2015) was published on August 28, 2017 in the journal European Property Law Journal (volume 6, issue 2).

Expropriation – the non-consensual taking of privately-owned property by the state in exchange for the payment of compensation – is a widely-used tool of land use planning in Canada as it is in many other states. While in principle all privately-held properties are equally susceptible to expropriation in Canada, legal frameworks on expropriation fail to guard against the possibility that less-wealthy neighbourhoods become more susceptible to expropriation than more wealthy ones (the 99% versus the 1% to put it in the terms used by the Occupy movement of the early part of this decade). The paper examines existing legal frameworks as well as a number of historical expropriation projects in Canada to depict how and why this may come to pass. It does so with a comparative eye turned towards the United States. The paper concludes with several recommendations for strengthening expropriation law frameworks in Canada to ensure that the property of the less-wealthy is as well protected as those properties in higher-income neighbourhoods. La expropiación –la adopción no consentida de una propiedad privada a manos del estado, a cambio de una compensación económica– es una herramienta ampliamente utilizada en la planificación urbanística, tanto en Canadá como en muchos otros estados. Aunque en principio, todas las propiedades en manos privadas tienen la misma posibilidad de ser expropiadas en Canadá, los marcos jurídicos en materia de expropiación fallan a la hora de proteger a los barrios con menos recursos para que no sean más susceptibles a la expropiación que los más ricos (el 99% frente al 1%, según los datos utilizados por el movimiento Occupy durante la primera parte de esta década). Este artículo analiza los marcos legales y una serie de proyectos de expropiación históricos en Canadá para describir cómo y por qué puede llegar a ocurrir esto. Se realiza una comparación con la situación en Estados Unidos. El artículo concluye con una serie de recomendaciones para fortalecer los marcos de la ley de expropiación en Canadá, y asegurar que las propiedades de los menos ricos están protegidas de la misma manera que las propiedades en los barrios más acomodados. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2572207

The development of the right to return to one's home of origin -- Modern experiences with post-conflict restitution and return -- Restitution and return "home" -- Local integration and the regularization of collective centre space -- Compensation and regularizing secondary occupation

English Abstract: Expropriation – the non-consensual taking of privately-owned property by the state in exchange for the payment of compensation – is a widely-used tool of land use planning in Canada as it is in many other states. While in principle all privately-held properties are equally susceptible to expropriation in Canada, legal frameworks on expropriation fail to guard against the possibility that less-wealthy neighbourhoods become more susceptible to expropriation than more wealthy ones (the 99% versus the 1% to put it in the terms used by the Occupy movement of the early part of this decade). The paper examines existing legal frameworks as well as a number of historical expropriation projects in Canada to depict how and why this may come to pass. It does so with a comparative eye turned towards the United States. The paper concludes with several recommendations for strengthening expropriation law frameworks in Canada to ensure that the property of the less-wealthy is as well protected as those properties in higher-income neighbourhoods.

The establishment of the Housing and Property Directorate (HPD) and Claims Commission (HPCC) in Kosovo has reflected an increasing focus internationally on the post-conflict restitution of housing and property rights. In approximately three years of full-scale operation, the institutions have managed to make a property rights determination on almost all of the approximate 30,000 contested residential properties. As such, HPD and HPCC are being looked to by many in other post-conflict areas as an example of how to proceed. While the efficiency of the organizations is commendable, one of the key original goals – the return of displaced persons to their homes of origin – has to a large degree been left aside. The paper focuses on two distinct failures of the international community with respect to the functioning of HPD/HPCC and its possible effect on returns: a failure of coordination between HPD/HPCC and other organizations working on returns, and the isolation of residential property rights determinations from other aspects of building a property rights-respecting culture in Kosovo.

The establishment of the Housing and Property Directorate (HPD) and Claims Commission (HPCC) in Kosovo has reflected an increasing focus internationally on the post-conflict restitution of housing and property rights. In approximately three years of full-scale operation, the institutions have managed to make a property rights determination on almost all of the approximate 30,000 contested residential properties. As such, HPD and HPCC are being looked to by many in other post-conflict areas as an example of how to proceed. While the efficiency of the organizations is commendable, one of the key original goals – the return of displaced persons to their homes of origin – has to a large degree been left aside. The paper focuses on two distinct failures of the international community with respect to the functioning of HPD/HPCC and its possible effect on returns: a failure of coordination between HPD/HPCC and other organizations working on returns, and the isolation of residential property rights determinations from other aspects of building a property rights-respecting culture in Kosovo.

This chapter begins with overview of international law protections of a displaced person’s right to return to his or her home of origin. It focuses on the case studies of Kosovo and Georgia and considers the international community’s approach ‘on the ground’. The chapter addresses some of the weaknesses of an approach which relies to too great an extent on property restitution mechanisms as vehicles by which to encourage refugee and internally displaced persons (IDP) returns and protect such individuals’ rights to housing and the enjoyment of their property. IDPs’ lack of willingness to return may be related not only to political uncertainty in their area of origin, but also to ways in which they have adapted over time to circumstances in the place where they have taken refuge. The right to return to one’s home of origin, and the corresponding right to housing and property restitution for displaced persons, has been increasingly articulated in peace agreements and UN documents.

N/A

The experience of many university students studying public international law is, ""This is fascinating, but what can I do with it?"" While this book in no way detracts from the more intangible reasons to study international law, it is practically focused and explores the options available to law graduates beyond traditional or domestic law career paths. The range of possible careers is vast - from human rights to investment law and from the courtroom or boardroom to the refugee camp - and the book offers a step-by-step approach to considering whether and how to pursue a career in one of these

This chapter will focus on the protection of housing and property rights of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Georgia.1 Georgia suffered two ethnic conflicts shortly following its declaration of independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 — one in Abkhazia in western Georgia and one in South Ossetia on the Russian border. Both conflicts produced large numbers of displaced persons and left the regions administered by secessionist governments; however this chapter will focus mainly on the South Ossetian context.

This volume of the Oñati Socio-legal Series consists of revised versions of 15 of the 20 papers presented at a workshop hosted by the Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law (IISL) in May 2013. The workshop took its theme from Stéphane Hessel’s cri de coeur, Indignez-vous! and the protest movements it inspired, which we saw as protests against the social inequality that necessarily follows from economic inequality and other power imbalances. This message continues to resonate. In 2015, for example, Oxfam International’s research paper entitled “Wealth: Having it all and wanting more” concludes that by 2016, the world’s richest 1% will have more of the world’s wealth than all of the remaining 99% of people. And a Canadian observer decries the effect of this – which he labels “trickle-down meanness” – on the socio-political fabric of a country.Because of the breadth of the workshop theme and the diversity of its participants – which included a critical mass of doctrinal legal scholars in the mix – participants were asked to choose topics which 1) raised their indignation, 2) reflected economic inequality, 3) led to a violation of socio-economic rights, and 4) involved a possible role for the law (or public policy) either in causing the violation or in providing a solution to it (or both). The papers in this volume show that the participants responded enthusiastically to this request. Este número de la revista Oñati Socio-legal Series recoge las versiones revisadas de 15 de las 20 ponencias que se presentaron en el workshop celebrado en el Instituto Internacional de Sociología Jurídica de Oñati (IISJ), en mayo de 2013. El tema del workshop giró alrededor del lema de Stéphane Hessel, Indignez-vous! y los movimientos de protesta que inspiró, que percibimos como protestas contra la desigualdad social que resulta inevitablemente de la desigualdad económica y otros desequilibrios de poder. Este mensaje sigue resonando. En 2015, por ejemplo, una investigación de Oxfam Internacional titulada “Wealth: Having it all and wanting more” (Riqueza: Tenerlo todo y querer más), concluye que en 2016, el 1% de la población mundial poseerá más riqueza que el 99% restante. Y un observador canadiense condena sus consecuencias -que él denomina “goteo de mezquindad”- en el tejido socio-político de un país. Debido a la amplitud del tema del workshop y la diversidad de sus participantes -que incluía una masa crítica de expertos en doctrinas legales- se pidió a los participantes que eligieran temas que 1) les indignaran, 2) reflejasen desigualdad económica, 3), diesen lugar a una violación de los derechos socioeconómicos, y 4) que implicasen un posible papel del derecho (o políticas públicas) tanto por causar el daño u ofrecer una solución al problema (o ambos). Los artículos de este volumen demuestran que los participantes respondieron con entusiasmo a esta solicitud. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2572253

As the world rapidly urbanizes, cities are expanding to provide space for growing populations. The predominant growth pattern for the last several decades - continued outward expansion, or “urban sprawl” - is helping to lock in carbon expenditure for generations. By contrast, and perhaps counterintuitively, densification of cities can contribute both to CO2 emissions reductions and biodiversity protection. This chapter argues that environmental law should go beyond addressing negative externalities of activities within the city, to engage with the built form of the city. Legal and land use planning tools such as greenbelts and planning/zoning reform, and practices such as city building, placemaking, and nature-based urban solutions provide avenues for building cities in a way that promises climate mitigation and biodiversity protection in their very structure.