Article 17 – Property
Article 17
- Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
- No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
What does this right mean?
Everyone has the right to property. Depending on the country, property can mean private property or mutual property: property of a group or people, or even managed by the state of behalf of everyone. Nobody, including the government, may take your property from you without good reason.
Opinions on property vary greatly
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.
versus:
Property is theft.
What is the history of this right?
Virtually all states which collaborated on the Universal Declaration saw this right as a basic right. But it was still very difficult to reach an agreement on the specific wordings, because of the difference in ideas between the capitalist states led by the United States and the communist states led by the (then) Soviet Union. The capitalist countries had an economic system of individual property rights and a free market, while the communist countries had collective property rights, managed by the state.
Although most states agreed that the subject ‘property’ had to be arranged in the Universal Declaration, both groups of countries wanted to include their own ideas of property in Article 17. Some states saw private property as the foundation of a free society, other states saw private property as the very source of inequality and injustice, and therefore required property to be collectively managed by the state for everyone. The result was a compromise: by adding ‘alone as well as in association with others’, the wording provided space for both ideas (and combined forms of both) on the ideal economic system.
The second part of Article 17 prohibits the arbitrary seizure of people's property. Just like with many parts of the Universal Declaration, this was a reaction to the Second World War, in which millions of people were robbed of their properties.
So this second part also indicates that the right to property is not unlimited. So, if the government expropriates someone's land for the sake of general interest, such as the construction of a road, that is possible. But it has to be clearly arranged in the law and most countries require conditions such as reasonable compensation for this person. States disagreed on this too. This is why the wording of the second part of Article 17 was kept general and vague.
By the way, it still took a very long time in many countries before everyone could own property. An example of this is that until relatively recently, women could not have property in many countries.
Where and how is this right documented?
Because the right to property was and still is so controversial, it is not even included in many humans rights treaties. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESOCUL) have no articles on the right to property. These treaties only determine that someone's property is not allowed to be a reason for discrimination (Art. 26 of the ICCPR and Art. 2 Subsection 2 of the ESOCUL). For instance, someone may not be treated worse because he or she has a certain religious or ethnic background. Article 24 of the ICCPR states that every child has the right to protection by his or her family, regardless of whether it possesses much or little.
There was more agreement within Europe. The right to property is broadly recognised as a human right there. Article 1 of the Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union state that the right to property exists, even though it is not absolute and can thus be restricted. Such a restriction on someone's property is only allowed if it is in the general interest, if it is arranged in the law and not in conflict with generally recognised principles. For this, you can think along the lines of many forms of taxations.
The Constitution of the Netherlands has no explicit arrangement for the right to property, but it does have an indirect one: Article 14 of the Constitution provides rules on expropriation. Expropriation means that the government seizes your property such as land against your will, possibly along with the buildings on it (such as your residence). Article 14 of the Constitution arranges that this is only allowed if the government needs the land for general interest and if the government reimburses you.
How topical is this human right?
Approximately 1.2 billion people worldwide have possessions over which they have no official property rights. For instance, a big part of the rural population in Africa only has access to land and resources because of ancient customs and informal arrangements which are not documented in laws. This enables governments to seize such areas and use them for purposes such as production of food and energy. This can result in the local population losing land which is important for growing their own food or gaining income. In Latin America and Asia too, the rights of many indigenous peoples are not always well protected, for instance if residential areas of indigenous people are taken for mining.
In the Netherlands, an example of the right to property coming into play is if a new road of railroad has to be constructed. Each time, the individual interest has to be weighed against the general interest. And if needed, the judge reviews whether or not an expropriation was justified.