Suchergebnisse

In 1927 the Palestine Government commissioned us to prepare a statement of the Land Law then in force in Palestine for the use of Officers engage in the work of Land Settlement. The statement then prepared has been given a wider circulation than was, perhaps, at first intended and copies had been made for sale, it has proved useful both to practitioners and students. Circumstances appear to call for a republication of the statements in a more convenient form and this has been made possible with the consent of the government. We have taken the opportunity revising the original statement very thoroughly and adding chapters upon the protection of agricultural tenants expropriation , town planning, Taxation of land, etc. These are matters of interest to the students and practitioners though less relevant to the work of Settlement Officers for whom the original statement was designed We have also inserted a chapter dealing with the Cadastral Survey and the setting forth the law under which Land Settlement operations take place. References to legislations and as far as possible to court decisions , have been brought up to date. Unfortunately no adequate reports of decided cases are published in Palestine . Use have been made of the reports given in Palestine Post for which all persons interested are very grateful, and also of some other sources of information. A Volume of Reports under the editorship of His Honour the Chief Justice has been published and it is to be hoped that the practice of official publication once established will be maintained. Unfortunately the publication of the Volume of Reports took place at too late a date to allow of reference in the text of cases included in the Volume. The most important of the land cases is the Volume of reports has been summarized for references in an Appendix to this book.

"A fundamental aspect of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is the territorial dispute which began long before the State of Israel was established. Analysing the land tenure system in Palestine under the administration of the British Mandate, this book questions whether, and to what extent, the land tenure system in Palestine facilitated Zionist land acquisition.The research uses benchmarks elaborated in the guidelines of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme as its analytical starting point, and looks at the formation and implementation of the land tenure system in Palestine. It goes on to place the penetration of Zionism into the land tenure system within the theoretical context of a colonial-settler framework, employing information from land registry records located at the Jordanian Department of Lands.Providing a political-historical analysis of the land tenure system from the end of Ottoman Rule until the end of the British Mandate, this book will be of interest to scholars and students of Middle Eastern History, Imperial and Colonial History, and Middle Eastern Politics"--

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

This Note addresses the intersection of customary and statutory land law in the land tenure policy of Ghana. It argues that improving the current land tenure policy demands integration of customary land law and customary authorities into the statutory system. After describing why and how customary property practices are central to the economic viability of any property system, the Note gives a brief overview of Ghana's customary and statutory land law. The Note concludes with specific policy suggestions about how Ghana could better draw on the strength of its customary land sector.

Customary land tenure is normally not based on codified or statutory sources, but stems from customary traditions and norms. When westernised courts have to interpret and adjudicate these customary traditions and norms, the normal rules of statutory interpretation cannot be followed. The court has to rely on evidence of the traditional values of land use to determine the rules connected to land tenure. Previously courts in many mixed jurisdictions relied on common or civil law legal principles to determine the nature of customary land tenure and lay down the principles to adjudicate customary land disputes among traditional communities, or between traditional and westernised communities in the same jurisdiction. Many examples of such westernised approach can be found in case law of Canada and South Africa. The interpretation of the nature of customary land tenure according to common law or civil law principles has been increasingly rejected by higher courts in South Africa and Canada, e.g. in Alexkor Ltd v The Richtersveld Community 2004 5 SA 469 (CC) and Delgamuukw v British Columbia 1997 3 SCR 1010. This paper explores the methodology the courts should follow to determine what the distinctive nature of customary land tenure is. As customary land tenure is not codified or based on legislation, the court has to rely, in addition to the evidence of indigenous peoples, on the expert evidence of anthropologists and sociologists in determining the nature of aboriginal title (in Canada) and indigenous land tenure (in South Africa). The court must approach the rules of evidence and interpret the evidence with a consciousness of the special nature of aboriginal claims and the evidentiary difficulties in proving a right which originates in times where there were no written records of the practices, customs and traditions engaged in. The court must not undervalue the evidence presented simply because that evidence does not conform precisely with the evidentiary standards that would be applied in, for example, a private law tort case.

Customary land tenure is normally not based on codified or statutory sources, but stems from customary traditions and norms. When westernised courts have to interpret and adjudicate these customary traditions and norms, the normal rules of statutory interpretation cannot be followed. The court has to rely on evidence of the traditional values of land use to determine the rules connected to land tenure. Previously courts in many mixed jurisdictions relied on common or civil law legal principles to determine the nature of customary land tenure and lay down the principles to adjudicate customary land disputes among traditional communities, or between traditional and westernised communities in the same jurisdiction. Many examples of such westernised approach can be found in case law of Canada and South Africa. The interpretation of the nature of customary land tenure according to common law or civil law principles has been increasingly rejected by higher courts in South Africa and Canada, e.g. in Alexkor Ltd v The Richtersveld Community 2004 5 SA 469 (CC) and Delgamuukw v British Columbia 1997 3 SCR 1010. This paper explores the methodology the courts should follow to determine what the distinctive nature of customary land tenure is. As customary land tenure is not codified or based on legislation, the court has to rely, in addition to the evidence of indigenous peoples, on the expert evidence of anthropologists and sociologists in determining the nature of aboriginal title (in Canada) and indigenous land tenure (in South Africa). The court must approach the rules of evidence and interpret the evidence with a consciousness of the special nature of aboriginal claims and the evidentiary difficulties in proving a right which originates in times where there were no written records of the practices, customs and traditions engaged in. The court must not undervalue the evidence presented simply because that evidence does notconform precisely with the evidentiary standards that would be applied in, for example, a private law tort case.

Customary land tenure is normally not based on codified or statutory sources, but stems from customary traditions and norms. When westernised courts have to interpret and adjudicate these customary traditions and norms, the normal rules of statutory interpretation cannot be followed. The court has to rely on evidence of the traditional values of land use to determine the rules connected to land tenure. Previously courts in many mixed jurisdictions relied on common or civil law legal principles to determine the nature of customary land tenure and lay down the principles to adjudicate customary land disputes among traditional communities, or between traditional and westernised communities in the same jurisdiction. Many examples of such westernised approach can be found in case law of Canada and South Africa. The interpretation of the nature of customary land tenure according to common law or civil law principles has been increasingly rejected by higher courts in South Africa and Canada, e.g. in Alexkor Ltd v The Richtersveld Community 2004 5 SA 469 (CC) and Delgamuukw v British Columbia 1997 3 SCR 1010. This paper explores the methodology the courts should follow to determine what the distinctive nature of customary land tenure is. As customary land tenure is not codified or based on legislation, the court has to rely, in addition to the evidence of indigenous peoples, on the expert evidence of anthropologists and sociologists in determining the nature of aboriginal title (in Canada) and indigenous land tenure (in South Africa). The court must approach the rules of evidence and interpret the evidence with a consciousness of the special nature of aboriginal claims and the evidentiary difficulties in proving a right which originates in times where there were no written records of the practices, customs and traditions engaged in. The court must not undervalue the evidence presented simply because that evidence does not conform precisely with the evidentiary standards that would be applied in, for example, a private law tort case