[DRAFT] Convention on Expropriation

[Ostrovskiy]

A week prior

The Pocol was idly sitting by a warm fire at WAHQ, sipping a cup of coffee and browsing the Ostrovskian Broadcasting Corporation website from back home, when a story halfway through the page caught her eye. "Farmers property seized to build new railroad, protests outside Alkira (OOC: my capital)". She thought it looked interesting, and so clicked on it. As she was reading, however, another ambassador entered the room.

"Hello!" she said. "What brings you here, Mr. (for he was evidently a male)?"

"Luca Lazarescu, from Aivintis. I just wanted to relax and read the news for a bit. And you are?"

"Alga Veshnikova, Ostrovskiy. I was here for much the same reason, funnily enough. Anything caught your mind recently?"

"Yes, actually. Back in Aivintis, the government expropriated some property from a few people to build infrastructure, and it isn't popular. Aren't we ambassadors around to fix these kinds of universal issues, anyway?"

Veshnikova smiled at the ambassador. "That we are, Mr. Lazarescu. Sounds like you have an idea."

And thus a partnership was born.

Character count: 2547

Category: Civil Rights, Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that states throughout the multiverse engage in the seizure of property for the benefit of the public or the provision of social services, often as a necessity for the greater good of the people,

Affirming the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of property as a human right which nations should protect through reasonable legal measures,

Understanding that certain states have taken to the practice of eminent domain, whereby adequate compensation is provided for the seizure of private property,

Seeking to ensure that no unfair or unjust seizure of property violate the rights of the citizens while empowering states to participate in fair and just practices of eminent domain,

Hereby, subject to past WA legislation still in force,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. ”expropriation” as the act of a government of legally transferring property from an individual or corporation to the state regardless of the permission of its owner,
      
   2. ”indirect expropriation” as the act of a government restricting an individual or corporation’s property rights to such an extent that it has de facto expropriated the property,
2. Exempts from this resolution cases where the expropriated property is owned by a convicted criminal, expropriation is performed on property demonstrably being used for a crime, such expropriation is necessary for public safety, the assets are being merely frozen temporarily, and the expropriation was ordered, as part of a criminal sentence, by a court,
   
3. Prohibits:
   
   1. indirect expropriation in all member states,
      
   2. expropriation which unfairly targets individuals based on their immutable characteristics, religion, social class, or income,
4. Requires that expropriation be done for public use, and for any property gained through expropriation to be the property of the state, not a private individual,
   
5. Directs member states to, before expropriating the property of individual persons, attempt in good faith to:
   
   1. Make use of property already owned by the state,
      
   2. Expropriate the property of corporations,
6. Mandates adequate compensation so that:
   
   1. in the case of property which serves as the sole housing of one or more occupants, the owner(s) of expropriated property may promptly replace their lost property to a similar or higher quality and general nature, and ensure the continued stable living condition of the occupants,
      
   2. in all other cases, compensation is matched to, or greater than, market prices according to prevailing economic trends and adjusted for inflation, as a fair measure of the property’s value.

Coauthor: Aivintis

[Ostrovskiy]

Past drafts have been expropriated from the snakepit.

[Hulldom]

[Scratch that, missed clause 6.]

I question the existence of clause 6(a), if only because it reads to me something like allowing for eminent domain, which, imo, strictly not a WA concern.

[Simone Republic]

[Scratch that, missed clause 6.]

I question the existence of clause 6(a), if only because it reads to me something like allowing for eminent domain, which, imo, strictly not a WA concern.

I am also not keen on eminent domain as a WA matter, too many differences in property laws between countries etc.

Also I think the protection for criminals etc is very weak. If you are trying to guns away from convicted criminals, say so. If not it's going to trample on property rights.

Also I hate the idea of civil forfeiture in the US but I haven't got around to writing a ban yet.

[The Ice States]

Based on the above comments I think it would be wise to make Section 2 apply to asset freezing, as well as decisions ordered by a court as part of a criminal sentence, only.

[Ostrovskiy]

Based on the above comments I think it would be wise to make Section 2 apply to asset freezing, as well as decisions ordered by a court as part of a criminal sentence, only.

Done

[Aivintis]

[Scratch that, missed clause 6.]

I question the existence of clause 6(a), if only because it reads to me something like allowing for eminent domain, which, imo, strictly not a WA concern.

I am also not keen on eminent domain as a WA matter, too many differences in property laws between countries etc.

Mr Lazarescu of the Aivintian World Assembly Council steps forward to respond. "Indeed, Section 6 - and not just with Clause a - represents an attempt at some degree of eminent domain, but I believe it is vague enough and limited enough to account for the differences between countries. Whether or not it's a WA concern, however, I disagree. As Ms Veshnikova and I noted in the preamble of this Convention, freedom from arbitrary deprivation of property is a matter of human rights or, if you will, sapient rights. If the government is taking property from someone, fair compensation - whatever fair means for the specific environment one finds themselves in - is only, well, fair. In Section 6, we touch on matters of expropriation which might deprive citizens of this right. Furthermore, 6(a) seeks to prevent any citizen from being rendered homeless by the unchecked power of the state to seize property without compensation. If this is not a matter of universal rights, then I'm not sure what it is."

[Ostrovskiy]

/bump

[Aivintis]

Bumping this again. After a little while I may talk to Ostro about a timeline for submission

[Tinhampton]

I feel uneasy with only explicitly prohibiting expropriation on those instances where it may be discriminatory. The presumption should be not to expropriate unless there is an objective need to do so.

I'm also personally iffy with the prospect that somebody could have all their property seized as part of a two-week prison sentence, or that their property could be expropriated for the temporary period of 999 years without consequence, which are things you might want to change in your next draft.

For clarity's sake, perhaps something along the following lines could be possible instead (purely aesthetic and doesn't touch on the points raised in the second paragraph, no need for co-author credit should you choose to adopt this wording instead):

Hereby, subject to past WA legislation still in force,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "member state" as the government of any member state or any of its subdivisions,
      
   2. "expropriation" as the act of a member state legally transferring property from an individual or corporation to the state regardless of the permission of its owner,
      
   3. "indirect expropriation" as the act of a member state restricting an individual or corporation’s property rights to such an extent that it has de facto expropriated the property,
2. Forbids all indirect expropriation in all circumstances, and
   
3. Forbids all other forms of expropriation, so long as the act of expropriation in question:
   
   1. is not any of the following:
      
      1. done to property owned by a convicted criminal,
      2. done to property demonstrably being used for a crime,
      3. necessary for public safety,
      4. ordered by a court as part of a criminal sentence, or
      5. purely temporary in nature,
   2. unfairly targets individuals based on their immutable characteristics, religion, social class, or income,
   3. is not done for public use (for instance, if the expropriation results in the property acquired being transferred to a private individual),
   4. is done to property held by a corporation, and is being done before the member state in question has attempted in good faith to utilise property it already owns,
   5. is done to property held by an individual, and is being done before the member state in question has attempted in good faith both to utilise property it already owns and to expropriate corporate property, and
   6. does not result in the payment of adequate compensation so that:
      
      1. in the case of property which serves as the sole housing of one or more occupants, the occupants of the expropriated property may ensure their continued stable living condition and promptly replace their lost property to one of a similar or higher quality and general nature, and
      2. in all other cases, compensation is matched to, or greater than, market prices according to prevailing economic trends and adjusted for inflation, as a fair measure of the property’s value.

[Aivintis]

I feel uneasy with only explicitly prohibiting expropriation on those instances where it may be discriminatory. The presumption should be not to expropriate unless there is an objective need to do so.

I am under the impression that violations of the "requires" type clauses are prohibited by virtue of the requirements being requirements. In that case, I don't see much difference between your draft except the structure. If that's not the case, then I don't see the point in any clause in any GAR requiring anything.

I'm also personally iffy with the prospect that somebody could have all their property seized as part of a two-week prison sentence, or that their property could be expropriated for the temporary period of 999 years without consequence, which are things you might want to change in your next draft.

"All their property" can only be seized if all their property was demonstrably being used for a crime and all their property is a threat to public safety. Which quite frankly, I can't really see happening, and even if it did, I don't see that as an issue.

For the "temporary period of 999 years" idk how to fix that, but I'll talk it over with Ostro.

Hereby, subject to past WA legislation still in force,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "member state" as the government of any member state or any of its subdivisions,
      
   2. "expropriation" as the act of a member state legally transferring property from an individual or corporation to the state regardless of the permission of its owner,
      
   3. "indirect expropriation" as the act of a member state restricting an individual or corporation’s property rights to such an extent that it has de facto expropriated the property,
2. Forbids all indirect expropriation in all circumstances, and
   
3. Forbids all other forms of expropriation, so long as the act of expropriation in question:
   
   1. is not any of the following:
      
      1. done to property owned by a convicted criminal,
      2. done to property demonstrably being used for a crime,
      3. necessary for public safety,
      4. ordered by a court as part of a criminal sentence, or
      5. purely temporary in nature,
   2. unfairly targets individuals based on their immutable characteristics, religion, social class, or income,
   3. is not done for public use (for instance, if the expropriation results in the property acquired being transferred to a private individual),
   4. is done to property held by a corporation, and is being done before the member state in question has attempted in good faith to utilise property it already owns,
   5. is done to property held by an individual, and is being done before the member state in question has attempted in good faith both to utilise property it already owns and to expropriate corporate property, and
   6. does not result in the payment of adequate compensation so that:
      
      1. in the case of property which serves as the sole housing of one or more occupants, the occupants of the expropriated property may ensure their continued stable living condition and promptly replace their lost property to one of a similar or higher quality and general nature, and
      2. in all other cases, compensation is matched to, or greater than, market prices according to prevailing economic trends and adjusted for inflation, as a fair measure of the property’s value.

I'm also not sure I particularly like the structure in that it's saying "Expropriation is prohibited in all cases except where X has not been done" and that wording feels far more unnecessarily convoluted than just "Expropriation is only allowed were X has been done" which is kinda our current structure.

Of course this would not be a valid criticism if my earlier assumption, that violations of requirements do not need to be explicitly prohibited, but I mean even in that case, we can add a clause about "Expropriation is forbidden in all cases these requirements are not met" or something.

That said, I'll speak to Ostro about this.

[Attempted Socialism]

Would it count as expropriation to abolish private ownership of land (or other means of production) generally in a country?
And if yes, would it count to set taxes on wealth at 100% of the net worth?

[Second Sovereignty]

An unpromising heading if ever one there was. Of course, of course, he was being unreasonable. Expecting to be pleasantly surprised was a sure path to disappointment, but it was better than pessimism, and surely he could do better than that. Raxes thus resolved; he would not disdain a proposal on title alone. Partially because it would be illegal. He would read forward in confidence and respect for his international colleagues, and nothing less.

Recognizing that states throughout the multiverse engage in the seizure of property for the benefit of the public or the provision of social services, often as a necessity for the greater good of the people,
Affirming the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of property as a human right which nations should protect through reasonable legal measures,
Understanding that certain states have taken to the practice of eminent domain, whereby adequate compensation is provided for the seizure of private property,
Seeking to ensure that no unfair or unjust seizure of property violate the rights of the citizens while empowering states to participate in fair and just practices of eminent domain,

Raxes clicked. So much for that. "I understand it's, somewhat absurd to go to all the length of critiquing a preamble, but... there rather is much to say. Firstly, there are a lot of presumptions going unspoken here. Namely, that property rights are taken as prima facie reasonable and legitimate, and that 'adequate compensation' is a precondition for just seizure - the implication of separating 'eminent domain' from expropriation generally. Also, though somewhat tangentially as it is rather immaterial in the face of the terminology used elsewhere in the draft, the use of the term 'seizure' here, rather than expropriation as in the title; this reads an effort in further implication, with the term 'seizure' generally bearing connotations of being innately unjust, as opposed to 'expropriation', which carries the fact of the public good as noted in the first segment. The Sovereignty believe this is telling. Not that it really need be told, given the aforementioned, rest of the draft." He waved a spare hand for dramatic effect.

"This is relevant, of course, as we believe you are drafting from a singular perspective which is both not shared by, at least many Member-States, and one which is incredibly harmful as a matter of international law. This is to be the framing of our critique, and we do hope you are willing to engage with it."

[1.b] ”indirect expropriation” as the act of a government restricting an individual or corporation’s property rights to such an extent that it has de facto expropriated the property,
[...]
[3.a] [Prohibits] indirect expropriation in all member states,

"This, again we must note, rests upon the assumption that ownership of the property in the first place is prima facie legitimate; this is not necessarily the case. We will ask a question, and we will similarly ask that you make your answer explicit both to me and in the text of the draft; is the abolition of a category of property entirely considered 'expropriation' under these terms?" Raxes clicked again. "Let us take the example of land; despite the fact that such is a literally textbook example of a patently obvious public resource, many Member-States have adopted systems wherein the ownership and trade of thereof is not merely permissible, but a presumed fact, and all land must be declared owned by someone - even the state, - or be terra nullius, with regards to ownership, in other words, freely available for whomever so wants to claim ownership first." Raxes clapped his lower pair of hands together - it was more of a click too, hard chitin not quite matching the sound one expects.

"The point. Say a Member-State quite reasonably wishes to rectify this state of affairs; such properties are abolished entirely and any claims thereof are thus as legally illegitimate as they are morally. What then? There is no transfer of property going on - indeed, there is no property at all, that is the point. But for the second definition. Of course, from a reasonable perspective, this cannot be considered to apply; the matter is abolition, not 'restriction', there is no presumption of 'unrestricted' property to be restricting in the first place.

But, of course, we are asking this for a reason; the definition exists for a reason, the presumptions inherent to its language clear. Please confirm the matter one way or the other; is abolition of properties considered, by the terms set within the draft, to be ‘indirect expropriation’? Please don’t start answering that now, I’ve not actually finished the question."

Exempts from this resolution cases where the expropriated property is owned by a convicted criminal, expropriation is performed on property demonstrably being used for a crime, such expropriation is necessary for public safety, the assets are being merely frozen temporarily, and the expropriation was ordered, as part of a criminal sentence, by a court,

“Here the Sovereign’s point is twofold; one to our central concern, and another to tertiary matters already discussed by others. We will begin with the latter.

First of all; the freezing of assets is not generally considered to be a transfer thereof. Indeed, I doubt it is such in any legal structure. It’s simply bad practice. As such, the Sovereign would suggest removing the mention, as it serves no purpose. We are also concerned with the first exemption; there is no reason for such a broad exemption to exist, where the very next one, is a more narrow and appropriate exemption. It simply provides justification for the expropriation of properties uninvolved in criminal activity, which, I should hope is unintentional.

With regards to our central concern; how exactly does this exemption interact with the second definition, ‘indirect expropriation’? If attempting to claim ownership of a property that, cannot be considered property, is criminalized, - to return to our example of land, the abolition of the ownership thereof and the consideration of such claims of ownership to be criminal, a position which is manifestly reasonable, - what then? Ensure that your answer to the question considers this.”

[3.b] [Prohibits] expropriation which unfairly targets individuals based on their immutable characteristics, religion, social class, or income,

“Why, exactly, is income noted here? I can only assume, given what we are gleaning from the draft more broadly, that this represents the concern the wealthy will be ‘unfairly’ targeted with expropriation. Exactly what is ‘unfair’ about that is, rather up for debate, and this clause would functionally result in Member-States seeking to nationalize, say, Industrial organizations, becoming locked in litigation because the organization is owned exclusively by wealthy ‘investors’, and the state is not similarly raiding homes and confiscating power drills. In other words; this clause is bizarre and harmful, even outside our wider point.”

Directs member states to, before expropriating the property of individual persons, attempt in good faith to:
[5.b] Expropriate the property of corporations,

“Again, outside the Sovereign’s point, but this, I am concerned, may result in more expropriations, and unnecessary ones at that. The clause, as written, does not require Member-States to consider alternatives which would merely require the expropriation of corporate properties prior to expropriating individual properties, merely to make such expropriations before moving forward to the expropriation of individual properties. I suspect you do not intend that.

However, the Sovereign wishes to note that there is nothing about individual properties that make them any more inherently legitimate or inviolable than corporate properties. Particularly wherein the owner of the corporation, - investor, whatever, - and said individual are the same person, or whether the individual is similarly situated in another corporation, et-cetera and the meaningful effect of the expropriation is not to impoverish some minuscule family land-owner or somesuch, but to mildly impact the wealth of an obscenely wealthy individual for the public good. That’s why ‘unfair’ determinations based on income can be eminently justifiable, for the record.”

[6] Mandates adequate compensation so that:
[6.b] in all [...] cases, compensation is matched to, or greater than, market prices according to prevailing economic trends and adjusted for inflation, as a fair measure of the property’s value.

“And,” Raxes clicked pointedly, “Herein lies the other half of the point. To put it simply, in Member-States wherein crucial public resources, industry, housing, land, et-cetera, are subject to marketized structures, the market value thereof wildly outstrips the genuine use value of the ‘properties’ in question; indeed, the market value of such ‘properties’ may often, individually represent more than the financial abilities of many divisions of government. It is also, often, far more than what would actually be payed for it were it being purchased by another private party. The expropriation thereof, regardless of public good, is thus prohibitive if a Member-State is required to provide ‘compensation’ at market prices. With regards to the expropriation of entire companies or industries, such as in the course of nationalization, the market value thereof will again vastly outstrip any reasonable quantity.

Such a requirement, thus, effectively renders any such expropriations impossible. Member-States seeking to transition economic or property relations will be forced to either enter into effectively permanent debt, much of it likely international due to nature of modern economies, or to shutter such projects entirely and submit democratic will and legitimate governance solely to the regime of private property holders. That, is simply an absurd proposition, and we cannot support it by any means."

Raxes, sighed? It sounded like an attempt at a sigh, anyway. "We recommend such compensation, with regards to non-total expropriations, be limited to something reasonable; some multiple of a Member-State’s mean annual wage, for example. In such, poorer individuals reliant upon owned property will likely see either the full value of their property, or more, and individuals or entities unlikely to be genuinely harmed by expropriations are permitted a compensation that does not itself abolish the public good for which the expropriation was made. Note that we have no objections to six-A. For total expropriations, such as, industry nationalization the Sovereignty sees no reason to mandate compensation at all; the individuals in ownership of the entities of such sectors are certain to be well-off, and in no danger of meaningful loss; there is no public good served by permitting the already-wealthiest loot a country's coffers on their way out, if you will excuse a little fanciful phrasing."

He clicked again. "But with that, let us return to our question. Allow me to close by stating it in full, with, a somewhat last-minute addition that arises logically from the matter at hand, but which is not considered at all within the text.

Say that a Member-State wishes to transition their economic and property relations; we will retain the example of land. The mode by which this is done is a general abolition of the concept of land ownership; the property is not transferred or restricted, no 'right' is extinguished, the land ceases to exist as property. Is this 'indirect expropriation' within the terms of the draft? Similarly, say that attempts to 'own' land as 'property' are criminalized. With regards to the prior segment of the question, does this change that answer? Presume that instead of an existing Member-State choosing to abolish a certain property, the government in question ceases to exist; it is replaced by another Member-State, and does not preserve law regarding, supporting, establishing, or 'recognizing' the ownership of land as property from the prior state in the first place. Is this new government thus guilty of 'indirect expropriation' by refusing to acknowledge a 'property' for which no legal basis has ever existed within their laws? Again, does this answer change in the event of the criminalization thereof? Finally, is your answer an intended feature of the draft, or a mistake you intend to rectify one way or another? In short; is the purpose of this draft to render the present state of property relations and economic structure within Member-States effectively permanent, excepting the advancement of privatization, or not? Please include your answer both in response, and in the draft itself."

[Ostrovskiy]

OOC: Thank you all of you for all of the feedback, especially Second Sovereignty for the detailed one. Imma be real I probably won't have time to address this till the weekend but it's been heard and a new draft will be published soon (tm)

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why do you think of the practice of expropriating land for development? (The facts in Kelo v City of New London.)

[Second Sovereignty]

Why do you think of the practice of expropriating land for development? (The facts in Kelo v City of New London.)

OOC:
I think the seizure of already private land for the purpose of handing it to other private property developers is one of the exact absurdities this proposal intends to prevent.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't really see the problem with expropriating Nimbys to build housing. There is also no reason to encumber the land with some kind of permanent state ownership. If the state wants to sell it, it should have the power to do that.

[The Ice States]

Requires that expropriation be done for public use, and for any property gained through expropriation to be the property of the state, not a private individual,

As to Section 4, I agree with IA above; in addition "private individual" should say "private individual or entity". I would rewrite Section 2 as follows,

Exempts from this resolution cases where:

1. the expropriated property is owned by a convicted criminal, and such expropration was ordered as part of a criminal sentence by a court; or
   
   
2. expropriation is performed on property demonstrably being used for a crime, where such expropriation is necessary for public safety and the property is merely frozen temporarily;

[Wallenburg]

"I think section 5 needs to clarify that this restriction applies on a per-use basis. Member states ought not be proscribed from expropriating lots in one city for a project that city needs just because it already has property in another city being used for another purpose."

[Second Sovereignty]

I don't really see the problem with expropriating Nimbys to build housing. There is also no reason to encumber the land with some kind of permanent state ownership. If the state wants to sell it, it should have the power to do that.

OOC:
Funny that you managed to manufacture a whole thing I didn't say there; unsurprisingly, the Literal Communist doesn't really care for private property concerns that are held in opposition to the public good. I'd appreciate it if you'd not insinuate otherwise.
As for 'encumberance', you mean like, uh, actual affordable housing that doesn't serve to line the pockets of miserly landlords and property investors who will sit on it for twenty years until the value has gone up enough to sell it to the next vulture who'll sit on it for twenty years? I will freely admit to having an ulterior motive towards the preservation of clauses preventing the looting of one group of petty property-holders for the benefit of another; the development of a public resource as a public resource, the logical and reasonable thing here.