Eastern European societies underwent large-scale deprivations of property by the authoritarian regimes, beginning after World War II, largely ending with the last waves of the kolkhoz movement in the early 1960s. Kuti examines property reparations that took place after 1989, from the perspective of constitutional justice, the rule of law, but also from the point of view of identity politics.
- Cover
- Title page
- Copyright page
- Table of Contents
- Introduction
- 1. On restitution and the rule of law
- 2. What is it all about?
- Chapter 1: Theories of Property
- 1. Classical theories
- 2. Neoclassical theories
- 3. Nozick’s theory of entitlement
- 4. Derivation from justice: John Rawls’s theory
- 5. Practical applications
- 5.1 The Lockean perception
- 5.2 A Hobbesian premise
- 5.3 Neoclassical cynicism
- 5.4 Utilitarian aspects
- 5.5 Rawls challenged
- 6. Conclusions
- Chapter 2: Justice and Reparation
- 1. Justice and the rule of law
- 2. The context
- 3. Property (re)distribution
- 4. Aspects of justice
- 5. Forms of reparations
- 5.1 The Baltic states: military occupation
- 5.2 Poland: the struggle for restitution
- 5.3 Germany: fairness, justice, and the social state
- 5.4 Former Czechoslovakia, hungary, and Romania
- 6. fundamental problems
- 6.1 Do communist-era takings demand reparations?
- 6.1.1 Property loss as a consequence of population exchange
- 6.1.1.1 A footnote: the Sudeten Germans.
- 6.1.2 Property losses as consequence of various domestic takings
- 6.2 Why only certain past wrongs deserve
compensations?
- 7. The wolf, the goat, and the cabbage
- Chapter 3: Rule of law, equality, and limited restitution
- 1. Personal limitations: the citizenship and/or residency
requirement
- 1.1 Strict regimes: citizenship and residence
- 1.2 Milder regimes: citizenship or residence
- 1.3 The exception: germany
- 2. Quantitative limitations
- 2.1 Partial compensation
- 2.2 Partial restitution
- 2.3 Restitution and compensation
- 3. Temporal limitations
- 3.1 Straightforward baselines
- 3.2 Unequivocal baselines: Romania
- 3.3 Problematic dates: Hungary and Czechoslovakia
- 4. Property-based limitations
- 4.1 Movable and immovable property
- 4.1.1 The Baltic States: exclusion of artworks
- 4.1.2 Poland and Hungary: immovable and movable together
- 4.1.3 Germany and Czechoslovakia: compensation for some movables
- 4.1.4 Romania: no grounds for restitution of movables
- 4.2 Different kinds of immovable property
- 4.2.1 In kind compensation only for unrestituted lands
- 4.2.2 No distinction between former owners of lands and buildings
- 4.2.3 Strict conditions upon restituted land
- 4.3 Commercial property
- 4.3.1 Restitution of small businesses
- 4.3.2 Compensation for lost commercial property
- 4.4 Religious and communal property
- 4.4.1 Distinctions between religious and other communal properties
- 4.4.2 Priority for “historical churches”
- 4.4.3 Privileged status of churches
- 4.4.4 Less privileged communities
- 5. Winners and losers of restitution
- Chapter 4; The Rule of law as the law of (Restitution) Rules
- 1. Quantifying reparations
- 1.1 The just compensation dilemma
- 1.1.1 To compensate or not to compensate?
- 1.1.2 The limits of “justness”
- 1.2 Questions of valuation
- 1.2.2 Past taking, present compensation: establishing the value of property
- 1.2.1 Partial compensation: the reasonable percentage
- 1.2.2 Past taking, present compensation: establishing the value of property
- 2. Timelines
- 2.1 Deadlines
- 2.2 Length of procedure
- 3. Proving the entitlement
- 4. A footnote: the pitfalls of a formal solution or the case of Prince Hans-Adam II
- 5. Conclusions
- Conclusion
- 1. The current state of art
- 2. On property: creating the monster
- 3. On restitution
- 4. On the rule of law
- Appendix
- Bibliography
- index
Text
Audio
Adobe DRM
Login to your account