Abstract
In a context of global change, the human relationship to the land – comprising as well a connection to its natural resources – increasingly defines a key challenge to human and environmental security, which pertains to the socio-ecological unit (socio-ecosystem) of man to his environment. Indeed, from this relationship materializes an ecological dimension on which the humanity depends for its existence, well-being, health, and development. In other terms, human societies rely on a life-support, that is the land which forms the “territory” and the natural resources which sustain human lives. Current pressures on land, including the land grabbing phenomenon, that are growing worldwide and particularly in Africa, place the land issue at the heart of the human and environmental security (through many problems such as food insecurity and climate change induced displacements or ‘climate refugees’). This issue is even considered as one of the main drivers of many current and potential violent conflicts. The human relationship to the land and its resources, and the resulting consequences, depend on how they are supported by relevant laws. The reason is that land-related laws are not subject to a unique thought since they are plural and diversified worldwide. Based on this, and by perceiving legal systems in ‘paradigmatic’ terms, this chapter places side by side two exclusive legal perspectives on the human relationship to the land and its resources due to the cultural diversity which is still present and expressed worldwide despite the claims of the dominant discourse: In a first stage, the ‘property’ paradigm is thoroughly analyzed, allowing its foundations to come to the fore; this leads us to the second stage which deals with a ‘territorial’ paradigm constructed within a logic of social reproduction relating to the law of utilities (cultural, socio-cognitive, economic and political).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
http://www.statistiques-mondiales.com/croissance_population.htm; the world agriculture is facing major challenges: increasing food production by 70 % to feed an additional 2.3 billion people by 2050 (FAO 2009), Forum d’experts de haut niveau, Comment nourrir le monde en 2050, Rome:http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/Issues_papers_FR/L’agriculture_mondiale_à_l’horizon_2050.pdf).
- 2.
- 3.
The Declaration defines the land grabbing as “acquisitions or concessions that are one or more of the following: (i) in violation of human rights, particularly the equal rights of women; (ii) not based on free, prior and informed consent of the affected land-users; (iii) not based on a thorough assessment, or are in disregard of social, economic and environmental impacts, including the way they are gendered; (iv) not based on transparent contracts that specify clear and binding commitments about activities, employment and benefits sharing, and; (v) not based on effective democratic planning, independent oversight and meaningful participation”. The Declaration was orchestrated by the International Land Coalition which is a global alliance of civil society and intergovernmental organizations working together to promote secure and equitable access to and control over land for poor womenand men through advocacy, dialogue, knowledge sharing and capacity-building (www.landcoalition.org).
- 4.
See the alarming report on the grabbing of agricultural land in the South: FAO-IIED-IFAD (2009). According to HLPE and FAO (2011:8–9), there are good reasons to worry about the impact of these land acquisitions on the food security of the populations of many concerned countries. Do these large-scale investments have beneficial effects, or will they inevitably affect the livelihoods of local people and generate social and environmental costs? (…) It seems rather that these large-scale investments are harmful for the food security, incomes, livelihoods and environment of local people.
- 5.
The Land Matrix is a global and independent land monitoring initiative. Its goal is to facilitate an open development community of citizens, researchers, policy-makers and technology specialists to promote transparency and accountability in decisions over land and investment ». The project has been initiated through an international partnership between 5 organizations: International Land Coalition, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Centre pour le Développement et l’Environnement de l’Université de Bern, German Institute for Global and Area Studies et le Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit. For more information: http://www.landmatrix.org/en/about/
- 6.
Data available online at: http://www.landmatrix.org/en/get-the-idea/agricultural-drivers
- 7.
Declaration of the civil society in Africa, “Modernising African agriculture: who benefits?” signed by many organizations and networks in Africa including Via Campesina, African Biodiversity Network,…For more information: http://www.inadesfo.net/A-qui-profite-la-modernisation-de.html
- 8.
Adopted by the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) in its 38th session on May 11, 2012.
- 9.
“Much land in middle and low income countries is productively occupied and used, but does not have formal paper title, rendering such customary rights vulnerable to dispossession. Rights of women, social groups relying on the commons (grazing, woodland, wetlands), ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples are particularly insecure” (HLPE-FAO 2011:10).
- 10.
In opposition to common law.
- 11.
“Goods are physical items for which exists demands, on which rights of property may be established, and whose property may be transferred from an institutional unity to another through market transactions” (INSEE, online : http://www.insee.fr/fr/methodes/default.asp?page=definitions/biens.htm).
- 12.
- 13.
“constituting goods whose entity is identifiable and isolable, equipped with utilities and the object of a relation based on exclusivity” (Zénati-Castain and Revet 2008, 21).
- 14.
The same analysis was formulated by Frédéric Zénati-Castaing and Thierry Revet, 2008, page 21.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
Concerning natural risks, see: Sanseverino-Godfrin 2009.
- 18.
« Adaptability is a part of resilience. Adaptability is the capacity of a SES to adjust its responses to changing external drivers and internal processes and thereby allow for development within the current stable domain, along the current trajectory » (Folke et al. 2010).
- 19.
- 20.
« That which is founded on « partial» or « local » solidarity (Chevallier 2001, 835).
- 21.
A concept put forward by Edgar Morin in order to express a fusion in a complex unity (that is to say, at the same time complementary, competitive, and antagonist) of two or several different logics, see oppositions (Morin 1990; 99).
- 22.
cf. Ost and Kerchove 2002.
- 23.
A position which permits to confers to nature a status of subject of rights (cf. Hermitte 2011).
- 24.
With a nuance to the “forms of more united ownership” (Rochfeld 2009:73).
- 25.
which some authors affirm, especially: “… in all societies, there are rights that we must recognize as property rights. (…) Rights … related to necessary resources for the life and the survival of a family. Such rights may be qualified as property. (…) ” (Berge 2007, 385).
- 26.
« There is no property definition capable of correctly describing entirely the actual law » points out Xifaras (2004, 8).
- 27.
But Sarah Vanuxem prefers the development of a renovating theory of property through the idea of “things-environments”, 2010 and 2012.
- 28.
« property is a bundle of all possible tangible rights on an item” (Xifaras 2004, 98) citing Demolombe, 1854.
- 29.
Ownership, or property right, exists only in relation to the right to abuse: « when the right to abuse does not exist, when society does not recognize it, there is no (…) property right; there is merely the possession right” (Proudhon 1866, 16). Abusus is limited. Joseph Comby stresses the impossible character of absolutism of property.
- 30.
Reference to « inner » rights, constitutive of personality, « right mixed with the existence of the individual, and which have for their object his individuality » (Xifaras 2004, 37, from Demolombe, 1854). These goods should not be goods, but they should be common patrimony with intergenerational characteristics.
- 31.
cf. French civil code which still employs this « heritage » term for property, for instance article 637: “‘A servitude is a charge imposed on a heritage for the use and usefulness of an inheritance belonging to another owner’, or for example article 666: “any cloture separating inheritance is deemed common, unless there is only one inheritance in a state of closure, or if there is ambiguous mark”. Etc.
- 32.
Re-used by Proudhon (1866, 106).
- 33.
Author of “History of ownership in Europe from Constantine to the present day” (1839), a work noticed by the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres. He was professor of comparative legislation at the College de France.
- 34.
Allowed to share conquered lands, and later to 376 plebians by law tribunes Licinius and L. Sextius stolon.
- 35.
which Proudhon stresses, 1866, 111.
- 36.
It was still for sale cum omnibus pertinentiis, pratis, pascuis silvis, venationibus, piscationibus, molendinis ((with all its outbuildings, meadows, woods, pastures, hunting, fishing, mills) (Laboulaye 1839, 389).
- 37.
“The owner was stripped from the property, and he transferred the seisin to the Lord by symbol presented as a stick or a tuft of grass; then he immediately received the property as income – to make profits from it absque Aliqua diminutione, usufructuatio ordine (without any reduction of the usufruct order). However, becoming beneficiary, the recommended find himself in the position of a usufructuary, and he ensured in advance to his descendants the estate of profit” which was done automatically by presentation to the successor (Laboulaye 1839, 292).
- 38.
Its article 17 rejects that « property right is the one which allowed any citizen to use or dispose of his goods the way he wants, along with his income and profit which his industry provides him with » ; with a transition to the plural of “property rights”, rectified in 1791, to the singular (Suel 1974).
- 39.
Article 544 du cci makes use of a political process: “(…) it is because it establishes, from the side of the individual, the absolute freedom, and it should be recognized that he has the right to have on items or things the ultimate domination” (Xifaras 2004:26).
- 40.
Xifaras speaks about a significant event involving the disintegration of owner dogma (2004:13) by becoming a “bundle of rights” (ibid., 18): “it is (…) not the political contestation of the owner order that overcame the classic property, but the evolution of capitalism itself, carrying in its transformations the dogma that gave it birth, and the pro-or contra- ideologies integrated this dogma” (ibid., 12). On the transformation of legal regulation, see in particular Clam and Martin 1998.
- 41.
Term designating “a collective attitude consisting of the repudiation of cultural forms: moral, religious, social, aesthetic, which are most distant from those specific to a given society” (Bonte and Izard 2010).
- 42.
Article 75 of the French Constitution, Kanaks could retain their personal customary status. In addition, the “option right,” which is judicially origin, generates real customary common law in that no one may renounce the application of the customary rule. Organic Law of thee 19 March 1999 confirms this position by derogating from the application of the common law: custom is not subject to the rules of the Civil Code. The two statutes are equal (article 7 of Law No. 99–209 of 19 March 1999 on the organic New Caledonia), Lafargue 2010, 297; 2012.
- 43.
This is indeed the case in legal orthodoxy: a recent call for proposals of GIS law Research and relative justice on “The integration of custom in contemporary normative corpus in New Caledonia” (http://www.gip-recherche-justice.fr/IMG/pdf/AO_2013_Coutume-Nouvelle_Caledonie.pdf) (September 2013)
Do not forget to refer to Lafargue 2003, 2010; 2012 on the issue of custom in New Caledonia.
- 44.
Compare with: the attribution of customary lands – judgment of the Court of Appeal of Noumea on 11 October 2012; and personal status of the CA September 29, 2011.
- 45.
The “customary law” notion is very simplistic, so it does not reveal the full dimension of endogenous law. It is a term preferred in legal anthropology, meaning “that which starts inside” of the socio- cultural group. In Africa, in the pre-colonial ownership rights were described as “traditional” then called “customary” in the colonial period. The distinction between “customary rights” and “ traditional rights ” shows, according Ouedraogo (2011, 80), that “ African rights as compiled by the colonial administration probably had not much more to do with the original rights such as the ones interiorized and experienced by people. ” The concept of endogenous law settles itself on “local ownership practices” of societies that do not reproduce the same old practices, and do not adopt State law; rather they put into use a capacity concentrating on “adaptability and legal creativity” (ibid.)
- 46.
Decree of 11 March 1865, called “Faidherbe” decree which greatly manifest the will of the settler to impose on Africa the system of ownership of article 544 of the Civil Code. This decree never published.
- 47.
French State c/Almeida, Penant, 1933 T1, p.252: for the Court, the only admissible theory is the one dealing with vacant land without an owner. It is a decision which was recovered in a judgment taking place in the 2th of November 1934, quoting the decree of 23 October 1905 and 24 July 1906, regulating the domain of the State in Africa, “(…) the State would not claim any other private property than the vacant lands without master. ”/Cf. Verdier 1986 and Durand 2004 322.
- 48.
In order to fill the gaps related to ownership of the Civil Code of 1804, the lawyer Decourdemanche proposed system of registration, real civil status of ownership, consisting of land registration after their public demarcation and a verification of the reality of real rights relating to it. This procedure was initiated by the Director of Australian of lands, Torrens, in the “ Real Property Act ” of July 2, 1858. Later, France applied registration in its colonies, even before the completion of the extraparliamentary commission of the Land Registery which was completed in 1906.
- 49.
Registration is introduced through the article 1 of the Ordinance No. 2006–346 of 23 March 2006 relating to security, and it is also found in the Civil Code: Book V, Title IV (“Dispositions related to the registration of buildings and rights to property”), Article 2510 : “ The registration of a property guarantees the right to property as much as all the other rights recognized in the title of property established after a procedure which permits to reveal all the rights already established on this property …”. See the Enforcement Decree No. 2008–1086 of 23 October 2008 related to registration and to the recoding of rights concerning property in Mayotte.
- 50.
Article 2513 of the french civil code and Section 2 of the Decree of 23 October 2008 op.cit.
The property register is introduced in France, in Alsace and Moselle on January 1, 1900 by the 18 August 1896 law. Law of the 1st of June 1924 maintains in force the property register by adapting it to the French law. The Decree of 18 November 1924, supplemented by that of 14 January 1927 are the fundamental texts concerned with keeping the property register until the Law of 4 March 2002 which introduces computer storage of the property register (article 36–2, paragraph 2). Finally, article 102 of the Law of 25 March 2009 (modifying the Act of March 4, 2002 and the Act of June 1, 1924), currently functional, suggests computerizing a property register.
- 51.
These collective user rights “include those of passage, grazing and harvesting, consecrated by custom. They can always be converted after the vivification of these lands in individual ownership in favor of the person who worked in them. This then requires the registration of the land ”(Article 3 of the Decree of 23 October 2008 op.cit.). The transformation of user rights to property rights on funds is ambiguous: it is unclear how those receiving collectively a particular right of passage, grazing or harvesting through funds can privatively acquire fund. Here we “phagocytize” a legal order by another.
- 52.
Rural property includes a detailed plan, similar to a cadastral one, along with a property register. It allows you to acknowledge in writing individual rights. It gives rise to a rural property certificate; a certificate of recognition and confirmation of property rights acquired or established by custom or practice or local standards. It provides a presumption of acquired rights. See for example art. 111 of Act No. 2007–03 of 16 October 2007 on rural property regime in the Republic of Benin.
- 53.
Cf. Michaïlidis-Nouaros 1982.
- 54.
“(…) African communities have generated, through their history, their own property systems, and which we cannot understand because it lacks coherence and consistency when looking at them for what they are and not for what they lack ”(Ouedraogo 2011, 79).
- 55.
Edelman et al., 2010.
- 56.
The author gives a related definition to our approach: “an auto or endo-normativeness, one which is not organized around the concept of public power, but taking an opposite direction: that of the civil society and the associations representing it or reflecting its intentions, worries and concerns – a normativeness characterized by progress and respect, by the actors themselves towards the rules they have made (such as, codes of good conduct or good practices), and they themselves apply it. We find here decentralization, the non- prioritization that regulators claim and which permits the establishment the legitimacy of the rules of operation through various techniques, in particular to ensure transparency, predictability, fairness of their actions – this allows them to obtain a recognition by their peers (other regulators) and by actors of the system themselves” (Timsit 2005, 85).
- 57.
“Subject to its national legislation, respect, preservation and knowledge, innovations and practices of native and local communities which incarnate a traditional lifestyles necessary for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promotes its application on a larger scale. With the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices emerge along with the encouragement of equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices ”(article 8j, CBD, 5 june 1992).
- 58.
Agreement on the conservation of polar bears, Oslo, 15.11.1973 (between: Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, the Soviet Union/Russia, and the United States): art.3: « Subject to the provisions of Articles II and IV any Contracting Party may allow the taking of polar bears when such taking is carried out: (…) d) by local people using traditional methods in the exercise of their traditional rights and in accordance with the laws of that Party; (…) ».
- 59.
Recognizing that communities, in particular native communities, groups and, where applicable, individuals, play an important role in the production, safeguarding, maintenance and recreation of the intangible cultural heritage, thus helping to enrich cultural diversity and human creativity, (…) “,” “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artifacts’ and cultural spaces associated with them – that communities, groups and, where applicable, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, which provides them a sense of identity and continuity, thus contributing to the promotion of the respect for cultural diversity and human creativity.”(Article 1)
- 60.
In order to reach a convention, “it is understood that : “ cultural diversity ”refers to the manifold ways in which the cultures of groups and societies express themselves. These expressions are passed on within groups and societies. Cultural diversity is made manifest not only through the varied ways in which the cultural heritage of humanity is expressed, transmitted through the variety of cultural expressions; rather, it is also expressed through diverse modes of artistic creation, production, dissemination, distribution and enjoyment of cultural expressions, whatever the means and technologies used“ (Art. 4). The objectives of the Convention include ” (a) the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions; (…) (b) stimulation of inter-culture in order to develop cultural interaction for building bridges among peoples ; (c) promotion of respect for the diversity of cultural expressions and being aware of its value at the local, national and international levels; (…) “(Article 1).
- 61.
An essential text which agrees with Native Claims … on paper: “respecting native knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to the development of the environment and to its good management “(considering),” natives in general to have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or to have their culture destroyed”(Article 8),“ natives have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with the land, territories, waters and coastal sea areas along with other resources which they traditionally use and occupy, assuming their responsibilities in regards of future generations ”(Art. 25),“ recognize the rights of natives with regard to their lands, territories and resources ”(art. 26 and 27).
- 62.
While in the West, « goods are items whose utility justifies ownership » (Zenatti 2008, 18).
- 63.
Article 6 which presents local property charts of the law n° 034-2009/AN 16 June 2009 including rural property tenure (Burkina Faso).
- 64.
art.9 Law No. 2007–03 of 16 October 2007 including rural property tenure.
- 65.
- 66.
Cf. Ost and Kerchove 1987.
- 67.
Cf. Chevallier 1983 ; Santi 1975 (1946).
- 68.
Cited by Laboulaye 1839, 332.
- 69.
Xifaras 2004, 229–232.
- 70.
cf. Gaillard 2011.
- 71.
Dictionary of Economic Sciences, published under the direction of Romeuf in1958, Puf.
- 72.
The utilitarianism suggested by Bentham and Mill defends the idea that a behavior (or a politic) which is morally right is the one which produces the greatest happiness of the members of a society. John Stuart Mill, 1838 1861 repr. Puf, 2009; Catherine Audard, 1999; François Dermange, 1997. For Jeremy Bentham, “an action is said to conform to the principle of utility (…) when its tendency to increase the happiness of the community is greater than its tendency to decrease it” (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789/1823).
- 73.
On the anthology of utilitarianism, cf. Audard, 1999 and on the relative and absolute utility, cf. Kim Cuong Pham Thi, 2008.
- 74.
Amartya Sen rethinks the well-being by the approach of ‘capabilities’, a term which does not have a satisfactory translation, but which means “the level of satisfaction of human needs, allowing to behave as a human being” (cf. Muriel Gilardone welfare 2007, Valérie Reboud, 2008).
- 75.
If we are here within the context of acquisition in the sense of assigning a usage, we do not use the notion of “appropriation system” since it is affected by its “taking back” sense, which assimilates the system of acquisition to the system of property rights.
- 76.
Agdal is a territory which depends on a communal management, including establishing defenses in order to preserve resources (cf. Auclair and Alifriqui, 2012 and Barrière 2012a b.
- 77.
For instance, customary lands of kanak are recognized by the legislator as inalienable (art.18 law of the organic law n 99–209 du 19 march 1999) although the term “property” is used.
- 78.
Still in New Caledonia, the detention of the Governor of January 22, 1868 “relative to the constitution of native territorial property,” states that the land delineated for each tribe constitute an incommutability (art. 2–1), i.e, an impossible dispossession. The tribal lands are also “elusive” (Art. 2, 3). In 1959, deliberation No. 87 of 10 March 1959 regarding the system of native reserves in New Caledonia (enforced by Order No. 181 of 16 March 1959, CANE from 6/13 April 1959) states in an article that single “native reserves are incommutable, elusive and inalienable properties of the tribes to which they belong.”
- 79.
Read the chart project: http://www.parc-amazonien-guyane.fr/le-parc-amazonien-de-guyane/la-charte-des-territoires/
- 80.
Descola 2005.
References
Anseeuw, W., Wily, L. A., Cotula, L., & Taylor, M. (2012). Land rights and the rush for land. Findings of the global commercial pressures on land research project. IIED-CIRAD-International Land Coalition.
Aubin, J.-P. (2010) La mort du devin, l’émergence du démiurge. Essai sur la contingence, la viabilité et l’inertie des systèmes. éd. Beauchesne/le miroir des savants.
Auclair, L. & Alifriqui, M. (dir.). (2012). Agdal Patrimoine socio-écologique de l’Atlas marocain, éd. Institut Royal de la culture Amazighe (IRCAM) et IRD, 647 p.
Bailly Jean-Luc. (2012). Macro-économie, utilité et économie. ed. Papiers Universitaires. Available online: http://papiersuniversitaires.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/macroeconomie-utilite-economie-par-jean-luc-bailly/
Barriere, O. (2003). Droit et gestion de l’environnement en pays Bassari (Sénégal oriental); réflexions sur un droit de l’environnement au Sénégal. Revue canadienne Droit et Société/Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 18(1), 73–101.
Barriere, O. (2008). « Legal aspects of the co-viability of social and ecological systems in African arid zones: An anthropological approach to environmental law », The future of drylands, C. Lee and T. Schaaf (dir.), Springer-Verlag and Man and the biosphere series, Unesco publishing, pp. 583–597, 855 p.
Barrière, O. (2009). « L’intégration du droit dans la dialectique sociétés-écosystèmes, le droit d’une « socio-écologie » ». in Foncier et environnement en Afrique, des acteurs au(x) droit(s). Barrière & Rochegude (dir.). Cahiers d’Anthropologie du Droit 2008. Karthala. 423p., pp.39–128.
Barrière, O., & Barrière, C. (1997). Le foncier-environnement, fondements juridico-institutionnels pour une gestion viable des ressources naturelles renouvelables au Sahel, éd. FAO, col. “Etudes Législatives” n°60, Rome, 120 p.
Barriére, O., & Faure, J.-F. (2012). L’enjeu d’un droit négocié pour le Parc Amazonien de Guyane. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 20, 167–180.
Bellier, I. (dir.). (2013). Peuples autochtones dans le monde : les enjeux de la reconnaissance, L’Harmattan, coll. Horizons Autochtones.
Berge, E. (2007). « De la multiplicité des ayant droits à la propriété pleine et entière et inversement. Des « Commons » aux Sites de Valeur Mondiale », in Max Falque, Henri Lamotte, Jean-François Saglio (dir.), Les ressources foncières. Droits de propriété, économie et environnement, Bruylant, pp. 379–395.
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bonnemaison, J. (1981). Voyage autour du territoire. L’espace Géographique, n°4, pp. 249–262.
Bonte, P., & Izard, M. (2010). Dictionary of ethnology and anthropology. Puf.
Bourgine, P. (1996). « Modèles d’agents autonomes et leurs interactions co-évolutionnistes », Penser l’esprit : des Sciences de la Cognition à une Philosophie Cognitive. Rialle, V. & Fisette, D. (dir.), Presses universitaires de Grenoble.
Carbonnier, J. (1995). Droit civil, Les biens (monnaie, immeubles, meubles), Tome 3, PUF, 438 p.
Chardeaux, M.-A. (2004). Les choses communes. Paris: LGDJ.
Chevallier, J. (1983). « L’ordre juridique », J. Chevallier, and D. Loschak, (dir.), Le droit en procès, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, pp. 7–49.
Chevallier, J. (2001). « La régulation juridique en question », Droit et Société, 49, pp. 827–846.
Chouquer, G. (2012a). « Les acquisitions massives de terres dans le monde. Bulle foncière ou opportunité de développement ? », Paris, édition Publi-Topex, 64 p.
Chouquer, G. (2012b). « Terres porteuses, entre faim de terres et appétit d’espace, Actes Sud.
Clam, J., & Martin, G. (dir). (1998). Les transformations de la régulation juridique. LGDJ, MSH/Réseau européen Droit et Société, recherches et travaux n 5, 454 p.
Conférence: La coutume en Nouvelle-Calédonie, le droit d’être soi-même, on line : http://www.gitpa.org/web/LASFARGUES%20.pdf
Curtis, M. (2015). New alliance, new risk of land grabs: Evidence from Malawi, Nigeria, Senégal and Tanszaznia. Report ActionAid International. On line: http://www.actionaidusa.org/publications/new-alliance-new-risk-land-grabs-evidence-malawi-nigeria-senegal-and-tanzania
Dalby, S. (2002). « Security and ecology in the age of globalisation ». ECSP report, 8, 95–108David C., « Réflexions sur l’intégration de la coutume autochtone dans l’élaboration de la norme à partir du cas de la Nouvelle Calédonie », L’intégration de la coutume dans l’élaboration de la norme environnementale, M. Nadège et C. David (dir.), Bruylant, 2012, pp. 197–213.
David, G. (1999). Du village à la construction de l’Etat : l’agrandissement de la territorialité dans le pacifique insulaire. In Bonnemaison and al., La nation et le territoire, T2, pp. 235–252.
David, C. (2012). « Réflexions sur l’intégration de la coutume autochtone dans l’élaboration de la norme à partir du cas de la Nouvelle Calédonie ». In Meyer Nadège et David Carine (dir.) L’intégration de la coutume dans l’élaboration de la norme environnementale, Bruylant, pp. 197–213.
Deffuant, G., & Gilbert, N. (2011). Viability and resilience of complex systems. Concepts, methods and case studies from ecology and society (p. 221). Berlin: Springer.
Descola, P. (2005). Par-delà nature et culture. Paris: Gallimard.
Duguit, L. (2008). 1923. Le pragmatisme juridique. éd. La mémoire du Droit. 252p.
Durand, B. (2004). Le juge colonial et l’introduction du droit de propriété. In Le juge et l’Outre-Mer, Bernard Durand & Martine Fabre (dir), Publication du Centre d’Histoire Judiciaire Editeur, 292–325.
Edelman, B. L. (2002). “Legality and the endogeneity of law” legality and community: On the intellectual legacy of Philip Selznick. In M. Krygier, R. Kagan, & K. Winston (dir.), Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield.
Edelman, B. L. (2005). The endogeneity of law : Civil rights at work. In L. N. Robert, & L. Beth Nielsen (dir.) (Eds.), Handbook on employment discrimination research: Rights and realities. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Press.
FAO-CSA. (2012). Directives volontaires pour la gouvernance responsable des régimes fonciers applicables aux terres, aux pêches et aux forêts dans le contexte de la sécurité alimentaire nationale, Rome.
FAO-IIED-IFAD. (2009). « Land grab or development opportunity ? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa ». Available at: http://www.ifad.org/pub/land/land_grab.pdf
Folke, C. (2006a). « Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses ». Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.
Folke, C. (2006b). « The economic perspective: Conservation against development versus conservation for development ». Conservation Biology, 20(3), 686–688.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., et al. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20.
Folke, C., et al. (2011) Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio, 40(7), 719–738.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.
Gaillard, E. (2011). Générations futures et droit privé. Vers un droit des générations futures (p. 673). Paris: LGDJ.
Gau-Cabée, C. (2006). Droit d’usage et code civil, L’invention d’un hybride juridique. Paris: LGDJ. 566 p.
Hermitte, M.-A. (2011). « La nature sujet de droit ? ». Annales. Histoire, sciences sociales, n 1, pp. 173–212.
HLPE-FAO. (2011). Régimes fonciers et investissements internationaux en agriculture. Rapport du Groupe d’experts de haut niveau sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition, Comité de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale, Rome.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 4, 1–23.
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.
Igersheim, H. (2004). Liberté et choix social. Contribution à l’analyse de la liberté en économie normative, thèse de doctorat de sciences économiques, université Louis Pasteur-Strasbourg 1.
Janssen, M. A., Bousquet, F., & Ostrom, E. (2011). A multimethod approach to study the governance of social-ecological systems. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 19, 382–394.
Kaldor, M., & Marcoux, S. (2006). La sécurité humaine : un concept pertinent ? Politique étrangère, 4, 901–914.
Laboulaye, E. (1839). Histoire du droit de propriété foncière en occident. Paris: Durand/Remmelmann. 560 p.
Lafargue, R. (1994). La Révolution Mabo ou les fondements constitutionnels du nouveau statut des Aborigènes d’Australie. Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique, 5, 1329–1356.
Lafargue, R. (1996). « La Fédération australienne à l’épreuve du Titre Indigène: le Native Title Act 1993 ». Droit et Cultures n 32, pp. 85–106.
Lafargue, R. (1999). La révolution Mabo et l’Australie face à la tentation d’un nouvel apartheid. Journal of legal pluralism and unofficial Law, 43, 89–134.
Lafargue, R. (2003). La coutume judiciaire en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Aux sources d’un droit commun coutumier, Presses universitaires d’Aix-Marseille, 307 p.
Lafargue, R. (2010). La coutume face à son destin. Réflexion sur la coutume judiciaire en Nouvelle-Calédonie et la résilience des ordres juridiques infra-étatiques (p. 417). Paris: LGDJ.
Lafargue, R. (2012). Le droit coutumier en Nouvelle Calédonie. Maison de la Nouvelle Calédonie, Paris, 20 p. On line : http://www.mncparis.fr/uploads/le-droit-coutumier-en-nouvelle-caledonie_2.pdf
Le Roy (2011). La terre de l’autre. Une anthropologie des régimes d’appropriation foncière, LGDJ, 441p
Lévêque, C., & Leeuw, S. (2002). « Sociétés – Environnement ». Prospective Surfaces et Interfaces Continentales 2002, Synthèse de l’atelier n°5, INSU, 6 p.
Lévêque, C., et al. (2003). « L’anthroposystème : entité structurelle et fonctionnelle des interactions sociétés-milieux ». In Quelles natures voulons-nous ? pour une approche socio-écologique du champ de l’environnement, Lévêque C., Leeuw S. (dir.), Elsevier, pp. 110–129, 324 p.
Liu, J., et al. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and naturel systems. Science, 317, 1513–1516.
Merle, I. (1998). Le Mabo case. L’Australie face à son passé colonial. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 53(2), 209–229.
Meyer, N., & David C. (dir.). (2012). L’intégration de la coutume dans l’élaboration de la norme environnementale. Eléments d’ici et d’ailleurs, Bruylant, 510 p.
Michaïlidis-Nouaros, G. (1982). Droit vivant et droit naturel. Introduction à des problèmes cardinaux de la sociologie juridique et de la philosophie du droit. Athènes, Éditions Fres Sakkoulas, 532 p.
Naim-Gesbert. (1999). Les dimensions scientifiques du droit de l’environnement. Contribution à l’étude des rapports de la science et du droit. Bruylant, 808 p.
Ost, F., & van de Kerchove, M. (1987). Comment concevoir aujourd’hui la science du droit ? Déviance et société, 11(2), 183–193.
Ost, F., & van de Kerchove, M. (2002). De la pyramide au réseau : pour une théorie dialectique du droit, Bruxelles, Facultés universitaires Saint Louis, col. Publications des Facultés universitaires Saint Louis, 596 p.
Ouedraogo, H. M. G. (2011). De la connaissance à la reconnaissance des droits fonciers endogènes. Etudes rurales, EHESS, 187, 79–93.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2005). Actor based analysis and modeling approaches. The Integrated Assessment Journal Bridging Sciences & Policy, 5(1), 97–118.
Proudhon, P.-J. ([1866] 1997). Théorie de la propriété, L’harmattan/Les introuvables, 246 p.
Rochfeld, J. (2009). « Entre propriété et accès : la résurgence du commun ». In La bioéquité Batailles autour du partage du vivant, F. Bellivier et C. Noiville (dir), Autrement, pp. 69–87, 176 p.
Sanseverino-Godfrin, V. (2009). « Risques naturels, vulnérabilité, résilience et droit … dans un contexte de développement durable ». Actes 20èmes JSE – Environnement entre passé et futur : les risques à l’épreuve des savoirs, Créteil, en ligne : http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/59/51/42/PDF/3-JSE-2009-Sanseverino-Godfrin-Manuscrit-2009-02-26.pdf
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2004). Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (CBD Guidelines). Montreal, 21 p.
Sen, A. (1991). Ethique et économie, éd. PUF (2012).
Suel, M. (1974). « La Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen : l’énigme de l’article 17 sur le droit de propriété. La grammaire et le pouvoir ». Paris: Revue de droit public, pp. 1295–1318.
Terré, F., & Simler, P. (1992). Droit civil, Les biens, Dalloz, 636 p.
Timsit, G. (2005). La cumulativité des connaissances dans le domaine de la science juridique. Revue européenne des sciences sociales, XWLIII-131, 81–86.
Vanuxem, S. (2012). Les choses saisies par la propriété. T34. Paris: IRJS Editions, 743 p.
Verdier, R. (1986). Civilisations paysannes et tradition juridique. In Verdier Raymond, & Rochegude Alain (éd.), Systèmes fonciers à la ville et au village, pp. 5–26.
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., et al. (2002). Resilience management in social-ecological systems: A working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology, 6(1), 14.
World Bank. (2007). World development report 2008: Agriculture for development. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/5990
Xifaras, M. (2004). La propriété, étude de philosophie du droit (p. 530). Paris: PUF.
Zénati, F. (1981). Essai sur la nature juridique de la propriété. Contribution à la théorie du droit subjectif. Thèse Université Jean-Moulin Lyon III, 817 p.
Zénati-Castain, F., & Revet, T. (2008). Les biens. Paris: PUF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barrière, O. (2017). Human Relationship to the Land from a Legal Perspective as a Human and Environmental Security Challenge. In: Behnassi, M., McGlade, K. (eds) Environmental Change and Human Security in Africa and the Middle East. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45648-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45648-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45646-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45648-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)