ABSTRACT
The right of alien investors to enjoy property protections under international law is commonly distinguished from that law’s solicitude for ‘human rights.’ Human rights scholars are ambivalent about the fact that some 20 prominent (and often widely ratified) instruments include a ‘human right’ to property protection—and that regional human rights courts regularly enforce that right to benefit indigenous peoples, criminal defendants, and ordinary citizens. Like U.S. courts, many international lawyers question whether governments owe duties not to take the property of their own nationals. Many believe that property rights are not ‘genuine’ human rights. This essay examines the complex international jurisprudence concerning the human right of property—which encompasses state obligations involving private, common, and communal property. It argues that this human right is as instrumentalist in its intent and as dignity-respecting in its roots as are other human rights.
