Search results

Expropriation as a legal institute is both narrower and broader than expropriation in a formal sense (formal expropriation). Expropriation in a formal sense implies a due legal process of revoking or restricting the ownership right in a particular legal case by the operation of the law. Formal expropriation generates the establishment of various legal institutes, one of which is expropriation in a material sense. On the other hand, expropriation as a legal institute emerges outside the scope of formal expropriation), which occurs within the framework of restricting one's private ownership, as a result of direct statutory regulation (legislation) in particular areas of the legal order, and a result of the legal regulation in particular cases in judicial and other legal proceedings. Expropriation in a material sense exists only in cases where the transformation of private ownership into public ownership occurs through expropriation in a formal sense, for the purpose of achieving a specifically designated general interest, including the possibility of return to the previous state of affairs (de-expropriation). De-expropriation takes place at the request of the former owner if it is established that the intended purpose of expropriation has not been achieved. In effect, the possibility of de-expropriation is the differentia specifica that separates expropriation in a material sense from other legal institutes related to expropriation in a formal sense, as well as from quasi-expropriation and other forms of revoking and restricting the private ownership right under the legal authority of the state.

Sovereign immunity — Foreign States — Expropriation of property-Claim for compensation — Whether Polish State entitled to jurisdictional immunity — Whether legislative activity a sovereign activity — Whether entitlement to immunity depends on ability of foreign State to act sovereignly in its territory — Whether the fixing of a date for a hearing constitutes an exercise of jurisdiction — Whether a plaintiffs lack of legal rights in a foreign State relevant — The law of the Federal Republic of Germany

Strange as it may seem, a coherent theory of expropriation as a separate institution has not been developed in the literature of international law. For the most part only partial aspects of the subject have been treated, and under widely differing categories, e.g., under the general title of " rights of foreigners," or " denial of justice," or " international responsibility of states." But international practice, as embodied in diplomatic and judicial cases, yields sufficient material from which to develop a theory of expropriation as a coherent body of rules of positive international law.

To understand the present ecological crisis, it is necessary to dig much deeper into capitalism's logic of expropriation, as first delineated by Marx during the Industrial Revolution. At the root of the problem is a spoliation of the natural environment—the expropriation of the earth itself.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

This study examines and analyses the expropriation laws and practices in Ethiopia. The objective of the thesis is to analyze and describe the land rights and expropriation laws in Ethiopia and to compare them with the practice in order to determine the fairness of compensation. The study is made against the Ethiopian Constitution and other subsidiary legislations which provide the basic land rights and the nature and details of expropriation. The basic argument made in this thesis is that even if the Ethiopian Constitution provides and guarantees common ownership of land (together with the state) to the people, this right has not been fully realized whether in terms of land accessibility, enjoyablity, and payment of fair compensation in the event of expropriation. The reasons have to do either with the faulty nature of the laws or with their implementation by public authorities. From the outset, the constitution excludes land as a subject of compensation. For this reason, land is being excluded from the compensation package and hence it has no value for the holder. Urban land holders are denied location value of their property, which they can collect it otherwise during sale, and hence the compensation becomes unfair. Similarly, rural farmers are denied compensation for the complete loss of their farm land. The denial of compensation for the value of the land is categorically in contradiction with the very principle of joint ownership of land by the people and the state. There are also other reasons which are related to the law or its practical applicability, such as valuation process which reduces the amount of compensation. There are also property interests which are not included as compensable interests. Payment of compensation is one factor for secure property right and hence sustainable development. To ensure fair compensation in the event of compensation, a legal and policy level reform is necessary to address and amend the existing problems. Further, to harmonize the laws and practices is imperative to ...

States as international persons — In general — Recognition of acts of foreign states and governments — Confiscation measures — Refusal to recognize extraterritorial effects as regards property in forum state — Recognition of effect as regards property in expropriating State — The law of Austria