From Warwick to Westminster: some reflections on law in action

Citation

King, F. (2015), "From Warwick to Westminster: some reflections on law in action", International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, Vol. 7 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-05-2015-0011

From Warwick to Westminster: some reflections on law in action

Article Type: Editorial From: International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, Volume 7, Issue 2

It was a genuine privilege to be one of the co-convenors of the “Challenging Ownership” stream at this year’s Socio-Legal Studies Association (SLSA) annual conference at the University of Warwick. The convenors and participants agreed that it was the most active, varied and discursive stream to date, with sessions scheduled across all three days of the conference. In addition to thanking the presenters and participants, I would like to acknowledge the considerable expertise of my co-convenors Penny English and Sarah Blandy when accepting and organising the papers into cohesive and coherent themes – a difficult task when presented with such a broad scope of property law practices, perspectives and jurisdictions.

The papers were grouped into sessions within the following themes:

• “property, planning and development”;

• “housing and mental health”;

• “property, rights and the body”;

• “property rights and home”;

• “property law and strategies for resistance”; and

• “fragmentation of property rights”.

Each session produced interesting discussion points and peer advice, with a consideration of “law in action” in every session.

What was striking, apart from the quality and scope of the papers presented, were the opportunities for a genuine exploration and consideration of the “hidden aspects” of legal mechanisms. As the discussant for the Hart-SLSA Book Prize for Early Career Academics, I was able to exchange views on the use of formal and informal processes underpinning the eventual outcomes for citizens who had experienced property seizure through eminent domain (compulsory purchase) with author Becher (2014). The book, and subsequent discussion, raised issues of “legitimacy” and “credibility” in governmental interferences with private property and the perception of acceptance by communities and individuals, where such powers were seen to be used in partnership and with a semblance of “legitimacy”.

This theme was further explored in the panel discussion, presented by eminent property academics Sarah Blandy, Susan Bright, Alison Clarke, Nick Hopkins and Sarah Nield. It was very interesting to hear about the informal practices and mechanisms described by the legal subjects in each of the panel’s disparate areas of research, and how much value was attributed to non-legal agreements or behaviours. These were often seen as more appropriate dispute deterences, or behavioural expectations, than those in a conventional “land law arsenal” and articulated the socio-legal nature of any property relationship or regulatory mechanism – truly “law in action”.

As I write my first editorial for the International Journal of Law in the Built Environment in the week after a general election, it seems even more pertinent than usual to be considering the wider implications of “law in action” in such a moment of political turbulence. With threats to the existence of established constitutional foundations, such as EU membership and the Human Rights Act, it is incontrovertible that we are facing a shifting socio-political landscape and property practices and research will consequently be relationally affected. Therefore, I am both pleased and reassured to be the editor for a collection of articles which reflect contemporary considerations in property law practice, theory and policy.

This issue begins with Natalie Pratt’s analysis of recent Supreme Court determinations on the availability of defence mechanisms for village green registrations in the UK, establishing the connections between rights and locality. This theme is subsequently echoed by Emma Lees’ consideration of the rhetoric of “localism” within UK policy and practice, and the “incoherence and incompatibility in planning law” that ensues.

The issue concludes with a number of articles examining protective mechanisms for property’s subjects; Sergio Nasarre-Aznar provides a critical analysis of mortgagor protection by the Spanish courts during the aftermath of the 2007 financial crisis, and both Michel Vols and Julien Sidoli del Ceno evaluate protective mechanisms for tenants – in eviction proceedings in Holland, and Tenancy Deposit Scheme disputes in Birmingham and South Wales.

I feel that the articles presented in the issue mirror the socio-political themes and international scope of the papers and discussions presented at the SLSA conference in April. It is my hope that these papers, articles and discussions will continue to encourage debate about property’s “haves” and “have nots”, and an examination of the institutional treatment of “property outsiders” (Fox O’Mahony, 2014) in an ever-changing socio-political climate.

Francis King

References

Becher, D. (2014), Private Property and Public Power: Eminent Domain in Philadelphia, OUP, New York, NY.

Fox O’Mahony, L. (2014), “Property outsiders and the hidden politics of doctrinalism”, Current Legal Problems, Vol. 62, pp. 409-445.