Search Results

In the geographical areas forming the focus of this contribution, the traditional communal areas in former Bantustan and homeland areas in South Africa, communal ownership flows from the application of customary law, linked to the constitutional right to culture. Living customary law, embedded in communities, entails a dynamic system of land rights which are negotiated in line with particular needs. Recent policy and legislative developments, however, seem to bolster rights of traditional authorities, thereby impacting on land rights and effectively negating spontaneous negotiation. Conceptual clarification in this contribution embodies the complexity linked to communal property, specifically land, in light of the aftermath of apartheid, the commencement of an all-encompassing land reform programme and the operation of a dual legal system comprising customary law and Western-style legal paradigms. The challenges and opportunities for law reform are explored in this context of inter-connectedness of customary law and communal property.

The ownership and utilisation of communal property are very much tied to the modern land tenure systems of most sub-Saharan African countries, which nevertheless still rely on the customary land tenure system to operate. But how exactly do the customary land tenure systems which remain operational in many parts of Africa fit into contemporary land ownership and use structures? Drawing on a broad interpretation of (African) customary land tenure and its elements, including its communal interest element, this chapter assesses the extent to which law and practice in Cameroon are developing and protecting communal property. Using developments in the protection of collective forest rights as an example, it demonstrates the continuous difficulty in reconciling Western land law principles on the ownership and use of communal property with customary land tenure systems in post-colonial sub-Saharan African societies, and the implications this may have for the wider rule of law in contemporary sub-Saharan Africa.

This chapter deals with the conceptualisation of collective property in the Chinese context. It is argued that this concept can be understood and defined through the lens of community via undertaking three methodological steps. The first step lays out the theoretical framework concerning the interplay between community and property. The second step examines the formation and transformation of the collective from a historical perspective. The final step analyses key cases concerning the relationship between membership of the collective and land rights. It is concluded that collective property in the Chinese context is a hybrid property system with permeable boundaries, and the closing commentary therefore questions the nature of the role that the law plays in sustaining collective property.

This chapter examines publicly accessible urban green spaces, from both anthropological and socio-legal perspectives. It explores the concept of communal property through a case study of Heeley People’s Park and two other urban parks in Sheffield, UK. It draws on a range of sources, including evidence of individual and collective practices which have changed the land over time. Tensions between the social understandings of ownership and belonging, and the legal definition of property, are highlighted through a bundle of rights analysis. The chapter considers different ownership structures and governance frameworks for urban green spaces, concluding that there is a mismatch between these legal arrangements and experiences of belonging and ownership, in the non-legal sense. The consequent difficulty in articulating a discourse of communal property undermines efforts to secure the funding needed to protect and maintain these important community resources.

In this chapter we argue that, because of its unique physical qualities and its importance to life and the environment, water is what Gerard Winstanley in 1649 would have characterised as a common treasury – a resource to be used in common by all. We examine the notion of water as a common treasury, and the implications that this characterisation of water has for property rights in water. We argue that a property rights system centred on neoliberal conceptions of absolute private ownership, allowing private dominion over water and its commodification, is inappropriate for water and subverts its role as a common treasury. To enable water to function effectively as a common treasury, we argue, a more appropriate property model is one that emphasises and facilitates collaboration and cooperation rather than competition – in other words, a property rights system which acknowledges and promotes communal property in its many forms.

In this chapter, we discuss the unique property norms that emerged within the Israeli kibbutz and the challenges to which they gave rise. Originally, the prevailing property regime in kibbutzim reflected a deep commitment to socialist ideology. All property was owned by the collective and individual members only held licences or permits to use kibbutz property. With time, as Israeli society has moved towards a free market economy and following a series of financial crises, most kibbutzim have abandoned the strict ban on private property and have gradually gravitated towards a system of private property rights. This transition has given rise to intricate legal challenges. It forced kibbutzim to adopt a system of allocating private property rights to their members in assets and has required Israeli courts to grapple with unique property arrangements that existed solely within kibbutzim and effectuate them within the formal legal system.