Abstract
AbstractThis chapter reflects on the ways in which loss of place or landscape destruction can be considered intrinsic to property’s formulation in the law. In summarising the relationship between the common law and land by examining property’s impact on various geographic locations, it becomes clear that private property has benefitted from undemocratic and environmentally harmful activities that have concerning implications for sustainable land use. Failure to consider enduring people–place relations developed in response to local limits means that property operates without regard for the physical environment, including its cultural dimensions, and this has implications for human rights and ecological resilience. The chapter closes by identifying this transition from landscape to property as spatial injustice that is upheld by the law.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference13 articles.
1. W Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford 1765–1769).
2. RP Burns, ‘Blackstone's Theory of the Absolute Rights of Property’ (1985) University of Cincinnati Law Review 54: 67–87.
3. S Ciriacy-Wantrup and Richard C Bishop ‘“Common Property” as a Concept in Natural Resources Policy’ (1975) Natural Resources Journal 15: 713–727.
4. A Clarke, ‘How Property Works: The Complex World View’ (2013) Nottingham Law Journal 22: 141–155.
5. M Davies, ‘Can Property Be Justified in an Entangled World?’ (2020) Globalizations 17(7): 1104–1117.