Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-13T14:03:40.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Complexities of Land Reparations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Gregory S. Alexander
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The question whether unjust dispossessions of land perpetrated on whole peoples in the past should be corrected by restitution in kind, that is, granting reparations in the form of returning land to the dispossessed former owners or their present‐day successors, is substantially more complex than the questions posed by other forms of reparations. I argue that the complexities involved in all the situations where claims for land reparations are made to correct historic injustices give us good reasons to be hesitant about granting such claims. At the same time, we should not dismiss such claims out of hand. Reparations that take a form other than restitution of dispossessed land may be both necessary and sufficient to establish a public marker of acknowledgment.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , Fall 2014 , pp. 874 - 901
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Anaya, S. James. 2004a. Indigenous Peoples in International Law, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anaya, S. James. 2004b. International Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples: The Move Toward the Multicultural State. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 21:13–62.Google Scholar
Bolanos, Omaira. 2011. Redefining Identities, Redefining Landscapes: Indigenous Identity and Land Rights Struggles in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Cultural Geography 28:45–72.Google Scholar
Brown, Ray A 1975. The Law of Personal Property, 3rd ed. Chicago: Callahan.Google Scholar
Brownlie, Ian. 1988. The Rights of Peoples in Modern International Law. In The Rights of Peoples, ed. Crawford, James, 1–16. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cassady, Julie. 1998. Sovereignty of Aboriginal Peoples. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 9:65–119.Google Scholar
Cohen, Morris R. 1927. Property and Sovereignty. Cornell Law Quarterly 13:8–30.Google Scholar
Coleman, Jules. 1992. Risks and Wrongs. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dagan, Hanoch. 2011. Property: Values and Institutions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Lawrence. 1976. Comments on Nozick's Entitlement Theory. Journal of Philosophy 73:836–844.Google Scholar
Davis, Shelton. 1988. Land Rights and Indigenous Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival.Google Scholar
Dickens, Charles. 2009. A Christmas Carol. New York: Everyman's Library.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Kelvin H. 1985. Mistaken Improvers of Real Estate. North Carolina Law Review 64:37–75.Google Scholar
Dukeminier, Jesse, Krier, James E., Alexander, Gregory S., and Schill, Michael H. 2010. Property, 7th ed. New York: Aspen.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ederington, Benjamin. 1997. Property as a Natural Institution: The Separation of Property from Sovereignty in International Law. American University International Law Review 13:263–331.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard A. 1979. Possession as the Root of Title. Georgia Law Review 13:1221–1243.Google Scholar
Estes, Roberta. 2009. Where Have All the Indians Gone? Native American Eastern Seaboard Dispersal, Genealogy and DNA in Relation to Sir Walter Raleigh's Lost Colony of Roanoke. http://www.dnaexplain.com/Publications/PDFs/WhereHaveAlltheIndiansGone8‐30‐09JoggV3.2.pdf (accessed November 2, 2012).Google Scholar
Gallie, W. B. 1956. Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society 56:167–198.Google Scholar
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162:1243–1248.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1952. The Philosophy of Right. Trans. T. M. Knox. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell. 1897. The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review 10:457–478.Google Scholar
Inter‐American Commission on Human Rights. 1997. Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador. http://www.cidh.oas.org/women/Ecuadorchaper%2011.htm (accessed September 13, 2013).Google Scholar
Ivison, Duncan. 2002. Postcolonial Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ivison, Duncan, Patton, Paul, and Sanders, Will 2000. Introduction. In Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ed. Ivison, Duncan and Patton, Paul, 1–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kingsbury, Benedict. 1992. Competing Conceptual Approaches to Indigenous Group Issues in New Zealand Law. University of Toronto Law Journal 52:101–134.Google Scholar
Kumar, Rahul. 2004. Responsibility and Rectification for Past Injustice: The Case of American Chattel Slavery (manuscript, February 2004; on file with the author).Google Scholar
Kutz, Christopher. 2004. Justice in Reparations: The Cost of Memory and the Value of Talk. Philosophy & Public Affairs 32:277–312.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1988. Two Treatises of Government, ed. Laslett, Peter Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1973. Individualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Makinson, David. 1988. Rights of Peoples: Point of View of a Logician. In The Rights of Peoples, ed. Crawford, James, 69–92. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Margalit, Avishai. 2001. Settling Scores. New York Review of Books, September 20, 14.Google Scholar
Mautner, Menachem. 1991. “The Eternal Triangles of the Law”: Toward a Theory of Priorities in Conflicts Involving Remote Parties. Michigan Law Review 90:95–154.Google Scholar
Meisels, Tamar. 2009. Territorial Rights, 2nd ed. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Merryman, John Henry. 1959. Improving the Lot of the Trespassing Improver. Stanford Law Review 11:456–496.Google Scholar
Michalska, Anna. 1991. Rights of Peoples to Self‐Determination in International Law. In Issues of Self‐Determination, ed. Twining, William, 71–90. Aberdeen, UK: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
Minow, Martha 1998. Between Vengeance and Forgiveness. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Nedelsky, Jennifer. 1996. Should Property Be Constitutionalized? A Relational and Comparative Approach. In Property Law on the Threshold of the 21st Century, ed. van Maanen, G. E. and van der Walt, A. J., 417–432. Antwerp: Maklu.Google Scholar
Nettheim, Garth. 1988. “Peoples” and “Populations”—Indigenous Peoples and Rights of Peoples. In The Rights of Peoples, ed. Crawford, James and Kruuk, Hans, 107–126. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nine, Cara 2012. Global Justice and Territory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ogletree, Charles. 2003. The Current Reparations Debate. U.C. Davis Law Review 36:1051–1072.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patton, Paul. 2005. Historic Injustice and the Possibility of Supersession. Journal of Intercultural Studies 26:255–266.Google Scholar
Peñalver, Eduardo M. 2009. Land Virtues. Cornell Law Review 94:821–888.Google Scholar
Peñalver, Eduardo M. 2011. Property's Memories. Fordham Law Review 80:1071–1088.Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A., and Vermeule, Adrian 2003. Reparations for Slavery and Other Historical Injustices. Columbia Law Review 103:689–747.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1995. Aging and Old Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Carol. 1985. Possession as the Origin of Property. University of Chicago Law Review 52:73–88.Google Scholar
Roux, Theunis. 2008. Land Restitution and Reconciliation in South Africa. In Justice and Reconciliation in Post‐Apartheid South Africa, ed. du Bois, François and du Bois‐Pedain, Antié, 144–171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, Joseph William. 1988. The Reliance Interest in Property. Stanford Law Review 40:611–751.Google Scholar
Skurbaty, Zelim. 2000. As If Peoples Mattered. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Smith, Peter M. 1997. Valediction to Market Overt. American Journal of Legal History 41:225–249.Google Scholar
Stolzenberg, Nomi. 2009. Facts on the Ground. In Property and Community, ed. Alexander, Gregory S. and Peñalver, Eduardo M., 107–139. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Summers, James 2004. The Idea of the People: The Right of Self‐Determination, Nationalism and Legitimacy in International Law (doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki). http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/oik/julki/vk/summers/theideao.pdf (accessed July 22, 2012).Google Scholar
Symposium. 1986. Time, Property Rights, and the Common Law. Washington University Law Quarterly 64:667–865.Google Scholar
Tan, Kok‐Chor. 2007. Colonialism, Reparations, and Global Justice. In Reparations: Interdisciplinary Inquiries, ed. Miller, Jon and Kumar, Rahul, 280–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Teitel, Ruti G. 2000. Transitional Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel 1986. Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. Journal of Business 59:S251–278.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1992a. Superseding Historic Injustice. Ethics 103:4–28.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1992b, Historic Injustice: Its Remembrance and Supersession. In Justice, Ethics and New Zealand Society, ed. Odde, Graham and Perrett, Roy W., 139–170. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2003. Indigeneity? First Peoples and Last Occupancy. New Zealand Journal of Public & International Law 1:55–83.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2004. Settlement, Return, and the Supersession Thesis. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 5:237–268.Google Scholar
Ward, Geoffrey C. 2001. Mongrel Nation. Smithsonian 32:18–19.Google Scholar
Wenar, Leif. 2006. Reparation for the Future. Journal of Social Philosophy 37:396–405.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolff, Jonathan. 1991. Property, Justice and the Minimal State. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Barnard v. Monongahela Natural Gas Co., 65 A. 801 (Pa. 1907).Google Scholar
Goulding v. Cook, 661 N.E.2d 1322 (Mass. 1996).Google Scholar
Hollified v. Monte Vista Biblical Gardens, 553 S.E.2d 662 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).Google Scholar
Howard v. Kunto, 477 P.2d 210 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970).Google Scholar
Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823).Google Scholar
Ominaya v. Canada, Comm. No. 267/1984, Report of the Human Rights Committee, U.N. GOAR, 45th Sess., Supp. No. 40, vol. 2, at 1, U.N. Doc. N4/40, Annex 9(A) (1990).Google Scholar
Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (N.Y. 1805).Google Scholar
Report of the Situation of Human Rights in Equador, Inter‐Am. Comm. on Hum. Rts., O.A.S. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, doc 10, rev. 1, at 24, 31 (1985).Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

German Civil Code (BGB) §932(1).Google Scholar
Hawaii Rev. Stat. §§ 6E‐1–43 (2009).Google Scholar
UCC § 2‐403(2).Google Scholar