ABSTRACT
This chapter explains the interest group ideological activism and appellate adjudication of governmental land use takings since the 1980s, such as the Kelo case, and subsequent changes in state eminent domain law have had limited influence on how political institutions commonly regulate American real property. Additionally, from the observed and reported controversies it is possible to identify situations associated with adversarial conflict about land use policy. Under North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), arbitration is compulsory, meaning that states do not have to consent to the arbitration. Similarly, the awards are binding under the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The story of NAFTA's jurisprudential development demonstrates that non-market sovereign regulatory discretion can be re-legitimated and reconsolidated through property rights disputing. Corporate investors have pushed for judicial review of administrative regulations and procedures in all three countries that affect their property rights claims.
