Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter July 26, 2017

The Human Right to Private Property

  • Hanoch Dagan and Avihay Dorfman

Abstract

For private property to be legitimately recognized as a universal human right, its meaning should pass the test of self-imposability by an end. In this Essay, we argue, negatively, that the prevailing (libertarian) understanding of private property cannot plausibly meet this demanding standard; and develop, affirmatively, a liberal conception which has a much better prospect of meeting property’s justificatory challenge. Private property, on our account, is an empowering device, which is crucial both to people’s personal autonomy (understood in terms of self-determination) and to their relational equality (understood in terms of reciprocal respect and recognition among persons). The liberal conception of the human right to property has both vertical and horizontal significance — it implies respect from both the public authority and other individuals — which means that it is thoroughly political but not necessarily statist.

Our account generates important implications, both domestic and transnational. Domestically, it implies that whereas some property rights should be subject to strong constitutional protection, state law should facilitate other types of private and non-private property institutions, and these property institutions may well be subject to non-owners’ claims to access and, more broadly, to being treated respectfully. Furthermore, our conception of the human right to property requires that everyone have the unusual authority typical of full-blown private ownership. Transnationally, our analysis highlights a freestanding dimension of relational justice, which is relevant across borders even given that our distributive obligations are statist. This injunction of relational justice in transnational interactions brings into question the adequacy of the current state of the law, according to which these interactions are mainly governed by choice-of-law rules that conceptualize them as wholly subsumed under the capacities of the parties as citizens of their respective polities.


* Stewart and Judy Colton Professor of Legal Theory and Innovation and Associate Professor of Law, respectively, Tel Aviv University Buchmann Faculty of Law. Thanks to Greg Alexander, Daniel Attas, Itzik Benbaji, Yochai Benkler, Eyal Benvenisti, Nestor Davidson, Sergio Dellavalle, Lee Fennell, Chaim Gans, Christine Godt, Oliver Hart, Bob Hockett, Michael Karayanni, Larissa Katz, Shelly Kreiczer-Levy, Roy Kreitner, David Lametti, Doreen Lustig, Maria Marella, Tom Merrill, Hanri Mostert, Katharina Pistor, Arthur Ripstein, Florian Rödl, Charles Sabel, Saskia Sassen, Tomer Shadmy, Joe Singer, Jeremy Waldron, Dan Weilsch, Katrina Wyman, Mikhail Xifaras, and participants in the Columbia Law School Conference on Sovereignty and Property, the Königswinter Workshop on the Core of Property, the Trento-Verona Progressive Property Workshop, and the TAU private law theory workshop for helpful comments.


Published Online: 2017-7-26

© 2017 by Theoretical Inquiries in Law

Downloaded on 13.5.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/til-2017-0018/html
Scroll to top button