The conceptualist view of property is based on the conceptual system or hierarchy of rights conceived by Grotius and developed by the pandectists. It rests on the assumptions that ownership is neutral and timeless. As such it has a number of abstract, timeless and universal characteristics, namely absoluteness, uniformity and exclusivity. Combined with liberalism, this concept of property becomes the guarantee of liberty and equality. The first part of this study shows that not only are the assumptions historically unfounded, but this conceptualist view of property made liberty and equality for women, in particular, impossible. The liberal, conceptualist property concept is a modernist construct that cannot guarantee either liberty or equality. The question then becomes whether constitutionalism can do what conceptualism cannot- can die constitutional protection of property guarantee liberty and equality. The second part of this study suggests that the answer to this is an "it depends" kind of answer. It depends on the structure of a constitution, underlying philosophical, political and, above all, hermeneutics theories employed by courts. In the South African context courts need to reject the private-law conceptualist view of ownership in favour of a constitutional property concept. This last-mentioned concept should be based on the values and normative context of the 1996 constitution. As such it involves value choices and making a political stand. Courts need to abandon conceptualist frameworks and decide on the proportionality of limitations on property. The conclusion to this study suggests that a feminist understanding of human beings as socially constructed and constrained, so that democracy alone cannot provide an answer to the counter-majaritarian dilemma, is necessary far an understanding of property. The creative tension provided by the feminist conflict between a political agenda and a respect far contexts may provide a framework far adjudicating an property issues. / Private Law / LL.D.

The conceptualist view of property is based on the conceptual system or hierarchy of rights conceived by Grotius and developed by the pandectists. It rests on the assumptions that ownership is neutral and timeless. As such it has a number of abstract, timeless and universal characteristics, namely absoluteness, uniformity and exclusivity. Combined with liberalism, this concept of property becomes the guarantee of liberty and equality. The first part of this study shows that not only are the assumptions historically unfounded, but this conceptualist view of property made liberty and equality for women, in particular, impossible. The liberal, conceptualist property concept is a modernist construct that cannot guarantee either liberty or equality. The question then becomes whether constitutionalism can do what conceptualism cannot- can die constitutional protection of property guarantee liberty and equality. The second part of this study suggests that the answer to this is an "it depends" kind of answer. It depends on the structure of a constitution, underlying philosophical, political and, above all, hermeneutics theories employed by courts. In the South African context courts need to reject the private-law conceptualist view of ownership in favour of a constitutional property concept. This last-mentioned concept should be based on the values and normative context of the 1996 constitution. As such it involves value choices and making a political stand. Courts need to abandon conceptualist frameworks and decide on the proportionality of limitations on property. The conclusion to this study suggests that a feminist understanding of human beings as socially constructed and constrained, so that democracy alone cannot provide an answer to the counter-majaritarian dilemma, is necessary far an understanding of property. The creative tension provided by the feminist conflict between a political agenda and a respect far contexts may provide a framework far adjudicating an property issues. / Private Law / LL.D.