Restudying the Legal Structure of Economic Property Rights Based on Steiner’s Rights-Based Theory of Justice: From Negative Liberty to Historical Restitution

Tangestani, Mohammad Ghasem; Moradi Berelian, Mahdi

doi:10.48308/eclr.2025.240772.1189

Restudying the Legal Structure of Economic Property Rights Based on Steiner’s Rights-Based Theory of Justice: From Negative Liberty to Historical Restitution

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mohammad Ghasem Tangestani ¹ ^¶

Mahdi Moradi Berelian ²

¹  Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Political Science, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran. Corresponding Author Email: m.tangestani@khu.ac.ir

² Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.48308/eclr.2025.240772.1189

Abstract

In many legal systems, private ownership of natural resources and public assets has often been founded on historical appropriations made without regard to the equal rights of all individuals to those resources. Hillel Steiner’s rights-based theory of justice emphasizing negative liberty and the need for historical restitution in the initial distribution of natural resources fundamentally challenges these conventional foundations of private property. Using a descriptive-analytical and comparative approach, this study revisits the legal structure of economic property rights from Steiner’s perspective. It aims to identify injustices in the existing system and to propose a novel legal framework grounded in individuals’ equal rights to natural resources. First, Steiner’s key theoretical components including the originality of negative liberty (freedom from interference), the principle of self-ownership, and the notion of common ownership of natural resources are explained and then compared with those of the existing property law regime. The findings indicate that the existing economic property law regime, if it ignores individuals’ equal shares of original resources and lacks mechanisms of compensation for past appropriations, remains unstable from a distributive justice standpoint. In conclusion, applying Steiner’s rights-based principles in legal policymaking can safeguard negative liberty and legitimate property rights while institutionalizing tools for historical injustice restitution and the fair distribution of original resources. Thus, Steiner’s framework can serve as a foundation for reforming property law and achieving a more sustainable order grounded in distributive fairness.

Keywords

Rights-Based Justice

Steiner

Negative Liberty

Historical Restitution

Economic Property Rights

References

Books
1. Cohen, G. A., Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
2. Hurr Ameli, Muhammad ibn Hassan, Wasa’il-Shi’ah to the Study of Sharia Issues, Vol. 17, Qom: Al-Bayt Institute, 2014. (In Arabic)
3. Khomeini, Ruhollah, Tahrir al-Wasilah, vol. 1. Qom: Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini's Works, undated. (In Persian)
4. Merrill, T. W., and H. E. Smith. Property: Principles and Policies. 3^rd New York: Foundation Press, 2017.
5. Nozick, R., Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books, 1974.
6. Pettit, P., Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford University Press, 1997.
7. Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
8. Steiner, H., An Essay on Rights, Wiley-Blackwell, 1994.
Articles
1. Goldsmith, S., “The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend: An Experiment in Wealth Distribution”, Paper presented at the Ninth International Congress of the Basic Income European Network, Geneva, 2002, pp. 1-17 https://basicincome.org/bien/pdf/2002Goldsmith.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
2. Jalalabadi, Asadollah et al., “Evaluation of the Justice Shares Plan from a Privatization Perspective”, Journal of Parliament and Research, Vol. 54, 2007, pp. 103–126. (In Persian)
https://lib.majles.ir/parvan/resource/134741/
1. Kramer, M. H., “Introduction”. In M. H. Kramer (Eds.)”, Rights, Wrongs and Responsibilities (pp. 13-20). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. 1057/9780230523630
2. Lubens, R., “The social obligation of property ownership: A comparison of German and U.S. law”, Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 24(2), 2007, pp.389–449. https://arizonajournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Lubens_Article.pdfRasekh,
3. Mohammad, R., “Right, Part of the Justice Component”, Legal Encyclopedias, Vol. 3, No. 6, 2010, pp. 100–77. (In Persian) 22034/law.2021.525140.1048
4. Salehi, Isfahani, D., & Mostafavi, Dehzooei, M. H., “Cash transfers and labor supply: Evidence from a large scale program in Iran”, (Economic Research Forum Working Paper No. 1090). Economic Research Forum, 2017, pp.1-28 https://erf.org.eg/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/1090.
5. Shnayderman, Ronen, “Freedom, Self-Ownership, and Equality in Steiner’s Left-Libertarianism”, Politics, Philosophy & Economics, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2013, pp. 219–227. 10.1177/1470594X12460638
6. Steiner, H., “A Liberal Theory of Exploitation”, Ethics, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1977, pp. 225–241 10.1086/292529
7. Steiner, H., “The Concept of Justice”, translated by Mohammad Rasekh, Quarterly Journal of Parliament and Research, Vol. 38, 2003, pp. 11–40. (In Persian) https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/428089/%D9%85%D9%81%D9%87%D9%88%D9%85-%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA
8. Vallentyne, P., & Steiner, H. “Libertarian Theories of Intergenerational Justice”, In A. Gosseries & L. Meyer (Eds.), Justice Between Generations (pp. 50–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282951.003.0003
9. Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman., “World Inequality Report 2022. World Inequality Lab”, 2022, pp. 1-235 https://lib.icimod.org/records/mmxhy-6vn34