LEGAL ISSUES OF PROTECTION OF PROPERTY LAW AS A HUMAN RIGHT IN INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LAW
Abstract
This article examines the legal issues surrounding the protection of property rights as a fundamental human right under international public law. It traces the historical development of property rights, analyzes key international legal instruments and court cases that have defined and interpreted this right, and explores challenges in balancing private property rights with public interests and state sovereignty. The article concludes that while property rights are well-established as a human right, their scope and implementation continue to evolve through international legal mechanisms.
Keywords
Development of property rights, public interests and state sovereignty, scope and implementationHow to Cite
References
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1689), ch V.
U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776); U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment.
A.J. van der Walt, Constitutional Property Clauses: A Comparative Analysis (1999), 17.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 17.
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), Book I Ch 1.
U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776).
U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment.
Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1758), Book II Ch VII §81.
A.J. van der Walt, Constitutional Property Clauses: A Comparative Analysis (1999), 17.
M. Lippman, 'Law, Lawyers, and Legality in the Third Reich: The Perversion of Principle and Professionalism', Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 11 (1997): 199-308.
UN General Assembly Res 1803 (XVII) on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (1962).
A. Newcombe & L. Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties (2009), 1-2.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 17.
J. Sprankling, The International Law of Property (2014), 9.
European Convention on Human Rights (1950), Protocol 1 Article 1.
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993), Article 10.
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), Article 25.
UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2019 (2019), 103.
Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden, (1983) 5 EHRR 35.
James v UK (1986) 8 EHRR 123; Jacobsson v Sweden (1989) 12 EHRR 56.
Ivcher Bronstein v Peru [2001] IACHR 6, [122]; Paeffgen GmbH v Germany (2009) 48 EHRR 693.
Fredin v Sweden (1991) 13 EHRR 784.
Pine Valley Developments Ltd v Ireland (1991) 14 EHRR 319.
James v UK (1986) 8 EHRR 123.
American Convention on Human Rights (1969), Article 21.
Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay [2006] IACHR 12.
Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (Aug. 30, 2000).
Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2 (May 29, 2003).
K. Miles, The Origins of International Investment Law (2013), 386.
R. Dolzer, 'Indirect Expropriation of Property', in A. Reinisch (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (2008), 13-40.
M. Sornarajah, Resistance and Change in the International Law on Foreign Investment (2015).
J.W. Salacuse, The Law of Investment Treaties (3rd ed., 2021), 1-5.
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Akmalkhonov Bosithon Azizkhon ugli
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.