The legitimate justification of expropriation
Property is a constitutionally protected right around the world. That is why expropriations are only lawful if they have a legitimate justification, which strikes a societally accepted balance between the public need for land and the protection of property. In the past few decades, there has been an increasing number of expropriations in favour of private businesses. Governments hope that their projects will create jobs and economic growth. The justification of such third-party transfers for economic development is particularly controversial. The public benefits of such expropriations are disputed, they directly benefit private parties, and they frequently do not lead to the desired outcome.
Hoops' dissertation comparatively investigates the institutional, procedural, and substantive conditions under which different jurisdictions permit third-party transfers for economic development. The examined jurisdictions are Dutch, German, New York State, and South African law. Against the backdrop of international good governance standards,the dissertation assesses whether these jurisdictions should take action to improve their laws.
Hoops' dissertation shows that employment or economic growth created by private business projects is a legitimate end in all examined jurisdictions. Despite this strikingsimilarity, this dissertation identifies remarkable differences between the jurisdictions with respect to various questions, such as: Which state body decides on whether economic development is a legitimate end? Can a judge prevent unnecessary or excessive expropriations? Is the project developer actually obliged to implement the project? Hoops' dissertation also demonstrates that the examined jurisdictions often fail to live up tointernational standards and recommends legal reforms to ensure compliance.