Search results

This study aims to investigate key aspects of public ownership of land, expropriation and compensation laws and practices in Ethiopia with special reference to Burayu Town.

A mixed research technique of descriptive and analytic approach is applied in the research. This study used a purposive sampling technique to select case study counties and a systematic method for sampling households. Questionnaire surveys, focus group discussions, interviews and observations were used to collect empirical data. Average, percentage and paired-sample t-test analyses are used for quantitative data analysis.

Significant discrepancies exist between the expropriation laws and how property valuation and compensation are practiced in Ethiopia. The findings include the arbitrariness in designating public interest status to projects; unfair property valuation practice that neglects location factor to determine market value due to a skewed understanding of public ownership of land; and the assignment of property valuators who have no valuation expertise and proper knowledge of expropriation related laws. Findings revealed the socio-economic status of expropriated households has deteriorated due to the expropriation of their landholding.

It was difficult to locate the relocated persons as they were resettled in different localities. Furthermore, the town officers were not forthcoming to provide complete information on the expropriation and compensation procedures they followed. However, this study overcame the limitations through persistent requests and availing time for the data gathering.

The findings indicated the need to redefine relationships between public ownership of land, public interest and expropriation of landholding. A proper understanding of the triad will pave the way for better expropriation practice in Ethiopia and in countries where land is under public ownership.

The social implication of the study revealed that the socio-economic situation of relocated persons was adversely affected due to the poor implementation of laws.

The disparity between public ownership of land and the rights of citizens on landholding is misunderstood by policymakers. Research has shown for the first time the root cause for the discontent of expropriated persons in Ethiopia.

The paper seeks to describe the historical development, current status, and operation of real estate law and policy in Nigeria in the context of global requirements for sustainable development.

The paper takes the form of a literature and legislative review. It examines the existing real estate law and policy (Land Use Act No. 6 of 1978) in Nigeria. The relevance of sustainable development to real estate laws and policy is highlighted. A brief comparative study of land issues in Nigeria and some developing nations is also included.

The existing real estate law and policy in Nigeria is inadequate to meet the aspirations for sustainable development.

The paper makes recommendations geared towards appropriate real estate laws and policies for sustainable development in Nigeria.

The paper contributes to the critique on the existing real estate laws and policies in Nigeria. Based on tenets of sustainable development, it offers useful guidance on future formulation of real estate law and policy, in particular community participation, setting of different time periods, and the targets that each period must realize.

The position of these Irish agitators is illogical and untenable; the remedy they propose is no remedy at all – nevertheless they are talking about the tenure of land and the right to land; and thus a question of worldwide importance is coming to the front.³

This article aims to examine the sustainability of European and SADC states' practice of agreeing bilateral investment agreements (BITs) for the promotion and protection of foreign investments in light of the latter's recent inauguration of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) as a basic norm of regional customary international law and strategy for countering the social and economic legacy of apartheid rule on their territories for over half a century.

The approach taken is textual analysis and deconstruction of emergent SADC BEE legislation, substantive BIT legislation provisions, dispute settlement mechanisms and emergent jurisprudence on the tensions between BEE policy and BIT obligations.

The strong elements of exclusivity between European/SADC BIT dispute settlement mechanisms on the one hand, and the “ouster clauses” of SADC BEE legislation and regulations on the other, are mutually incompatible. This incompatibility threatens the sustainability of the EU/SADC states' BIT dynamic for the promotion and protection of foreign direct investments (FDIs).

Demonstration of BEE as SADC's emergent basic norm of social reconstruction for countering the social and economic legacy of apartheid rule in affected states and implications of that for EU/SADC policy on the promotion and protection of FDIs.

This paper aims to present a comparative analysis of noncompliance with planning laws in advanced-economy countries. Most research to date has focused on the widespread phenomenon of “informal” construction in developing countries. However, advanced-economy countries also encounter illegal development, though at different scales and attributes. Because planning law is at the foundation of land-use and urban policies, it is time that the “orphan” issue of noncompliance be adopted by more researchers to enable cross-national learning. The two OECD countries selected for in-depth analysis – Portugal and Israel – probably fall mid-way in the extent of noncompliance compared with the range among advanced-economy countries. Like most OECD countries, the selected countries have generally viable planning-law systems. Their experiences can thus offer lessons for many more countries. Recognizing the limitations of enforcement mechanisms as prevention, the paper focuses on how each of these countries responds to illegal development.

The method relies on two main sources: analysis of official documents – laws, policies and court decisions in both countries – and field interviews about practice. In both Portugal and Israel, the authors held face-to-face open interviews with lawyers and other professional staff at various government levels. The interviews focused on four issues: the effectiveness of the existing enforcement instruments, the urban consequences of illegal development, the law and policy regarding legalization and the existence of additional deterrent measures.

In both countries, there is a significant phenomenon of illegal development though it is somewhat less in Israel than in Portugal. In both countries, efforts to reduce the phenomenon have been partially effective even though in both, extensive demolition is not exercised. Neither country has adopted a general amnesty policy for existing noncompliance, so both resort to reliance on ex-post revision of statutory plans of granting of variances as a way of legalization. The shared tension between local authorities and national bodies indicates that not enough thought has gone into designing the compliance and enforcement systems. In Israel, a recent legislative amendment enables planning authorities, for the first time, to set their own priorities for enforcement and to distinguish between minor and major infringements. This approach is preferable to the Portuguese law, where there is still no distinction between minor and major infringements. By contrast, Portuguese law and policy are more effective in adopting financial or real-estate based deterrence measures which restrict sale or mortgaging of illegal properties.

There is very little research on noncompliance with planning controls in advanced-economy countries. There is even less research on the legal and institutional responses to this phenomenon. This paper pioneers in creating a framework for looking at alternative types of government responses to illegal construction. The paper is, to the authors’ best knowledge, the first to present a systematic cross-national comparative analysis and critique of such responses. The authors thus hope to expand the view of the possible legal and policy response strategies available to planning authorities in other advanced-economy countries. The comparative perspective will hopefully encourage, expansion of the research to more countries and contribute to the exchange of experiences between jurisdictions.

This paper aims to present the merits of cross‐national comparative research as a method for pushing the frontier of knowledge about planning laws. Since in every country there is usually some dissatisfaction with its present planning laws or certain aspects of them, cross‐national research can open an arena of alternatives based on real‐life experiences. To demonstrate this argument the paper focuses on a shared dilemma – how should the law handle the negative effects of some planning decisions on land values. This case is used to demonstrate both the comparative method and the usefulness of comparative findings. The conclusions point out the opportunities for cross‐learning.

The overall argument about the comparative research draws on the author's extensive experience in conducting cross‐national research on a variety of issues in planning laws. The research on compensation rights reported here draws on the author's recent book which analyses the laws and practices in 13 countries. To ensure a “common platform” for comparison, the author developed a method based on a set of factual scenarios and a shared framework of topics. A team of country‐based researchers conducted the legal analysis, and the team leader conducted the comparative analysis.

The 13‐country analysis shows that there is a great variety of approaches to compensation rights around the world and a broad range of degrees, from no compensation at all to extensive compensation rights. There is no “consensual approach”. The search for similarities based on region in the world, legal family, cultural background, density or demography, shows that the differences cannot be “explained” on the basis of these variables. The degree of political controversy on this issue also varies greatly. The breadth of laws and practices offer a range of alternative models to enrich local debates.

Any comparative research on a new topic is bound to be exploratory. There are not yet any established theories in planning law (or in comparative research) from which hypotheses can be derived and tested. However, the large sample of countries, covering 40 per cent of the OECD countries (at the time), and the careful shared method have likely produced reliable findings.

Most of the comparative research that the author has conducted over the years charted new grounds in both its topics and its comparative breadth. The paper reports in brief on cross‐national comparative research on compensation rights. The full research, on which this paper draws (published as a book in 2010), is the first to look at this specific issue globally with a large 13‐country sample of OECD countries.

Our Dublin correspondent telegraphed last night:

This study aims to investigate beneficial right as a new legal concept and term accepted by the Indonesian legal system. The new concept was ratified to endorse government decision to use ṣukūk (as an Islamic financial instrument) in the financing of state budget deficit. Some legal issues emerged after the ratification such as the necessity to synchronize the beneficial right with other property rights in Indonesia and the disharmony between laws related to sovereign ṣukūk issuance.

The study uses a qualitative method with library study and interviews with relevant legal experts in Indonesia as the data collection techniques.

The findings show that the passage of Sovereign Ṣukūk Law 2008 that ratified beneficial right deemed as a concession point by the government to solve conflicts between legal restriction and employment of state-owned assets as the underlying asset of sovereign ṣukūk. The study deemed the necessity to improve the use of beneficial right in the Indonesian legal system which by the concept is not exercised for the issuance of sovereign ṣukūk only. There is the need to harmonize the administration of this right with other property rights in Indonesia.

The scope of study will be limited to the Indonesian regulation related to the use of beneficial right concept in the issuance of sovereign ṣukūk in Indonesia. The regulation as mentioned will be in the form of statutes, presidential or ministerial regulations, and also opinions of Indonesian legal and sharīʿah scholars regarding the matter.

This study may explore significantly the use of beneficial right for the issuance of sovereign ṣukūk by the Government of Indonesia. Specifically, the study reveals and addresses the issues that are following the ratification of beneficial rights originated from the common law system into the Indonesian civil law system.

This paper aims to compare the law with regard to private property rights and restrictions and public controls in England and the USA, and the theoretical debates that surround them, to understand whether the private land use controls of nuisance and restrictive covenants could have a greater role to play or the public law system of planning is the best way to manage land.

This paper starts by summarising and comparing, firstly, the private laws of nuisance and restrictive covenants and then laws relating public planning, zoning and takings in England and the USA. It then reviews theoretical approaches taken in both jurisdictions to land use restrictions.

The paper concludes that private land use restrictions can only play a limited role in land management in England. Scarcity and cost of available housing necessitate a mechanism by which the state can intervene to remove or modify restrictions to enable alteration and development. The structure of freehold ownership in England and the low take-up of Commonhold as an alternative tenure mean that expansion in the use of private land use restrictions to control the use of land is unfeasible.

The value of this paper is that it seeks to provide insight into the contested relationship between private and public law and the relationship between property law and planning.