Global Encyclopedia of Territorial Rights

Living Edition
| Editors: Michael Kocsis

The Legal Conception of “Eminent Domain” and Territorial Rights

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68846-6_57-1
  • 5 Downloads

Synonyms

Definition

Eminent domain refers to the power of the state to convert private property to public ownership and use through a forced or nonvoluntary legal process. Typically, the state compensates private owners based upon the fair market value of the property. In some situations, the state uses eminent domain to protect its historical and environmental interests because property owners have special social obligations that govern their property rights. These obligations vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, reflecting traditional and cultural attitudes towards owners’ rights as well their duties to their communities. Eminent domain may also describe the regulatory processes which does not result in a transfer of ownership, but merely limits a private owner’s opportunities to exploit their property for personal or corporate profit.

Dominium eminens was first described by Hugo Grotius in De Jure Belli et Pacisin 1625. The power of the state to take private...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alexander GS (2006) The global debate over constitutional property. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander GS (2009) The social-obligation norm in American property law. 94 Cornell L Rev 745Google Scholar
  3. Bennett TW (1991) Sourcebook of african customary law. Juta & Co, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  4. Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403, 406 (1878)Google Scholar
  5. Caiger A (1995) The protection of property in South Africa. In: Bennun M, Malyn DDN (eds) Negotiating justice: a new constitution for South Africa, University of Exeter Press, ExeterGoogle Scholar
  6. Claeys E (2009) Response: virtue and rights in american property law. 94 Cornell L Rev 889Google Scholar
  7. Dana D, Merrill TW (2002) Property: takings. Foundation Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Epstein R (1985) Takings. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein R (2003) Forced and unforced transfers. In: Anderson T, McChesney F (eds) Property rights: cooperation, conflict, and law. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Hawaiian Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).Google Scholar
  11. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).Google Scholar
  12. Kennedy D (1994) Neither the market nor the state: housing privatization issues. In: Alexander G, Skapsa G (eds) A fourth way? Privatization, property, and the emergence of new market economics, New York, Routledge, pp 253–268Google Scholar
  13. Meltz R, Merriam DH, Frank RM (1999) The takings issue: constitutional limits on land use control and environmental regulation. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Michelman F (1967) Property, utility, and fairness: comments on the ethical foundations of ‘just compensation’ law. 80 Harv Law Rev 1165Google Scholar
  15. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887)Google Scholar
  16. Peñalver E (2009) Land virtues. 94 Cornell L Rev 821Google Scholar
  17. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)Google Scholar
  18. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon 260 U.S. 393 (1922)Google Scholar
  19. Rams E (ed) (1973) Valuation for eminent domain. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  20. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1003 (1984)Google Scholar
  21. Savage K (2001) Negotiating South Africa’s new constitution: an overview of the key players and the negotiation process. In: Andrews P, Ellmann S (eds) The post apartheid constitution: perspectives on South Africa’s basic law. Witwatersrand U. Press/Ohio U. Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  22. Spitz R, Chaskalson M (2000) The politics of transition: a hidden history of South Africa’s negotiated settlement. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. State v. Shack, 58 N.J. 297, 277 A.2d 369 (N.J. 1971)Google Scholar
  24. U.S. v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 241-42 (1946)Google Scholar
  25. Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 304, 310 (Cir.Ct.1795)Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State UniversityTurlockUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Nick C. Sagos
    • 1
  1. 1.Humanities / Liberal ArtsSeneca CollegeTorontoCanada