NOTE: KEEPING THE WELCOME MAT ROLLED-UP: SOCIAL JUSTICE THEORISTS' FAILURE TO EMBRACE ADVERSE POSSESSION AS A REDISTRIBUTIVE TOOL Skip over navigation
LexisNexis® Browse Law Reviews and Treatises
Skip over navigation
Sign in with your lexis.com® ID to access the full text of this article.
-OR-
Order the full text of this article if you do not have a lexis.com® ID.
 
Price: 
US $22.00 (+ tax)
 
 

Copyright (c) 2010 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy
Journal of Transnational Law & Policy

NOTE: KEEPING THE WELCOME MAT ROLLED-UP: SOCIAL JUSTICE THEORISTS' FAILURE TO EMBRACE ADVERSE POSSESSION AS A REDISTRIBUTIVE TOOL

2010 / 2011

Journal of Transnational Law and Policy

20 J. Transnat'l L. & Pol'y 73

Author

Tessa Davis*

Excerpt



Missed Opportunities: Introduction



Lord Justice Nourse made the statement above in a seminal case regarding adverse possession out of the United Kingdom. His purpose was to clarify the difference between an implied license by prescription and adverse possession as a limitation action. Yet, his use of the phrase "possession as of wrong" is illustrative of more than just this distinction. "Possession as of wrong" or, perhaps more appropriately, wrongful possession, tracks the intuitive reaction to adverse possession as a concept. Adverse possession, a doctrine which grants a squatter (or boundary encroacher) legal title to another's property, cannot be right. Rather, the grant of title to an adverse possessor must be wrong, both in that it effectuates a wrong on the rightful owner and in a moral sense, insofar as it is understood to be theft, and theft is generally agreed upon to be a moral wrong. Nevertheless, the doctrine of adverse possession persists.



While some theorists defend adverse possession on utilitarian grounds and others challenge it with Lockean, rights-based theories, human rights or social justice theorists rarely discuss the doctrine. Scholars debate a proper definition of the term social justice, but herein it describes both theorists who, and theories which, drawing upon human rights and redistributive justice principles, focus on more egalitarian property systems. J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd. and another v. Graham and another (Pye), a recent U.K. case, raised the question of whether adverse possession may violate a human right to own property. The case implicated the then ...
 
 
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.
Search Documents
 
eg., Environmental Insurance Coverage Under the Comprehensive General Liability Policy
 
 
 
 

Lexis® Web - The only search engine that delivers free web content specifically from legal sites validated by LexisNexis® attorney editors and includes tools for faster research and more relevant results.

 
LexisNexis Store
Research Now - Go to lexis.com
Connect the Dots - Free 1 hour webcast
Share. Network. Discover. - Go to LexisNexis Communities