Aujourd’hui, le terme de logement social est généralement associé en France à l’activité de construction et de gestion locative réalisée par les organismes HLM. Depuis l’invention des Habitations à Bon Marché à la fin du 19ème siècle, le contenu de cette catégorie n’a cependant cessé d’évoluer. La diversité des acteurs qui sont à l’origine de l’émergence du logement social et la multiplicité des causes qu’ils défendent ont été étudiées par les travaux portant sur les « réformateurs sociaux » au tournant du 20ème siècle. Mais ces questions sont peu traitées par les recherches historiques et sociologiques qui portent sur le mouvement HLM depuis les années 1950. Cette thèse entend donc examiner la recomposition des frontières du secteur du logement social depuis cette date en se penchant sur la diversité interne du mouvement HLM et sur les rapports de force qui le traversent. Pour cela, elle prend pour objet principal des acteurs minoritaires parmi les élites dirigeantes de ce mouvement : les promoteurs et spécialistes de l’accession dite « sociale » à la propriété. Elle analyse les processus qui rendent cette activité plus ou moins légitime selon les périodes, qui font évoluer son cadre juridique, et modifient les pratiques économiques auxquelles renvoie ce terme. A partir d’un travail réalisé à partir de sources écrites (dépouillement d’archives publiques et de publications du mouvement HLM), d’une enquête de terrain menée auprès de responsables nationaux de fédérations professionnelles ainsi que de dirigeants d’organismes, complétée par des sources statistiques, cette thèse cherche ainsi à rompre avec une vision homogénéisante du secteur du logement social, comme institution et groupe d’acteurs aux intérêts et aux positions unifiées. / Social housing is a term usually associated in France with the building and the management of rental housing by the organisations of « Habitations à Loyer modéré » in France. However, since the creation of these institutions at the end of the 19th century, the meaning of the term « social housing » as kept evolving. The diversity of the actors who contributed to the institutionnalisation of a social housing sector, and of their discording views on the form it shoud take, has been thoroughly studied by research on social reformers at the turn of the 20th century. By contrast, these questions have been little studied by sociological or historical research on social housing since the 1950’s. This research aims at analyzing how the frontiers of the social housing sector have evolved since then, taking into account the inner diversity of the HLM movement, and the power struggles which characterizes this institution. To that purpose, it focuses on a specific category of actors, which hold a minority situation in the HLM movement, the promoters of « social » home-ownership. It analyzes the processes through which this specific activity gains or loses legitimacy in this institution, the evolution of its legal framework and of its economic content. Relying on a the study of public archives, on a fieldwork conducted on the political and economic elites of the HLM movement, and on the use of statistical data, this research aims at breaking with the homogeneous image which is often given of this institution, too often seen as a unified interest group.

The justification of property ownership based on individual subjective rights is tightly bound to humanist moral perspectives. God is left out as irrelevant to the just grounds of ownership, which is established primarily on the basis of human self-referential, moral capacity. This thesis aims at developing an alternative justification, both for property as an institution and as a private holding, with a view to bringing God back into the centre stage and thereby placing property ownership on the objective concept of right. A tradition hitherto generally left unnoticed, yet uncovered here as the source of inspiration, vests the whole project with a moral-teleological tone. The tradition, enunciated by St. Augustine and developed by St. Bonaventure and John Wyclif, invites us to see property from the perspective of a moral end: it ought to be used for the love of God and neighbours, and as such it can be owned only by the just. In spite of important insights into the moral nature of property, the Augustinian thesis not only fails to spell out what ‘use for love’ means but also suffers from elitism. Nor does it offer an adequate justification of private property. Such weaknesses call for revision. When we reinterpret the Augustinian thesis through the concept of the divine imperative of service coupled with a proper understanding of human work, property acquires a distinctive justification. Property, as an institution, is justified as a requisite for carrying out God’s redemptive work towards the world. From this general justification ensues the particular justification. We hold property as specifically ‘mine,’ since each person’s ordained mission to participate in God’s work requires a uniquely personal material means, although the recognition and fulfilment of individual mission still demands communal efforts. The duty to carry out the God-commanded mission at first allows us to possess private property only in a non-proprietorial and non-exclusive manner. Yet in the prevailing condition of economic scarcity and human greed, civil jurisdiction must provide a structure of rights to enforce property institution. As God’s invitation for the transformation of the world is a universal command, everybody should have a minimum of property, and yet in differentiation of the scope and kinds commensurate with the particularities of individual mission.

Over the past decade, the regulation of mining in South Africa has undergone a fundamental transformation in order to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, drastically changed the regulation of mining by placing the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources under the custodianship of the state. The transformative objectives of resource reform, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, could however not be achieved without a measure of sacrifice -- most notably, that which had to be shouldered by the owners of the land in which the minerals are contained. Under common law, minerals vested in the owners of land and no one could compel them to extract or consent to the extraction of these minerals. Landowners were able to safeguard their land from mining activities by refusing to consent to mining. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, changed this by providing that landowners could no longer prevent the state from granting qualifying applicants authorisation to mine. The transformative objectives of resource reform, have inevitably made great inroads into a landowner’s rights to use and enjoy his property optimally. The main focus of this study revolves around the limiting impact of South Africa’s current mineral-law dispensation on township development, and conversely, how township development impairs or limits the mining of coal. For a better understanding of the limitations which the current legislative provisions create in respect of the rights of landowners and holders of mining rights, a brief evaluation of the historical development of the right to mine coal is provided. The entitlements and reciprocal obligations of holders of mining rights and owners of the affected land are considered, and the parties’ legal remedies to resist interference in their respective rights are explored. In the process of considering possible remedies to resolve the conflict which inevitably arises, I explain why English-law principles governing lateral support (support owed by two adjacent properties [neighbour law]), and subjacent support (where the landowner may not be deprived of the vertical support his property derives from the sub-surface minerals) were incorrectly transplanted into our law. In Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the previously-held view that the right to subjacent support -- like the right to lateral support -- is a natural property right incidental to the ownership of the land. It was further held that conflict between holders of rights to minerals and owners of land should be resolved, not in accordance with English-law principles of neighbour law, but in terms of the law developed for rights relating to the use of servitudes. In summary, the court found that where the parties have not specifically contracted against the specific action (such as opencast or planned-subsidence mining), and provided that it was reasonably necessary for the mining right holder to use this invasive method, he may do so, so long as he does so in the manner least injurious to the entitlements of the surface owner. This decision, however, did not take into account the changes brought about by the comprehensive statutory framework of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 which I argue has replaced the earlier servitude construction. In this dissertation I consider whether possible solutions to resolve the conflict can be found in the principles relating to neighbour law, and whether the principles governing the use of servitudes remain relevant in resolving conflicts between landowners and holders of mining rights. I evaluate possible legal remedies and place special emphasis on the constitutionality of the curtailment of a landowner’s use and enjoyment of his property resulting from mining activities on or under his land. I further consider whether the exercise of a mining right, granted by the state, which results in a serious infringement of a landowner’s ownership, could in certain circumstances amount to a deprivation or possibly an expropriation in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. I discuss the position where the state’s regulatory interference is so severe that it deprives a landowner of the ability to exercise any, or a substantial portion of his ownership entitlements. I evaluate the possibility that such interference may constitute de facto expropriation for which compensation may be claimed. In the penultimate chapter I briefly mention how the relationship between landowners and holders of mining rights is managed and conflict is defused in other jurisdictions such as China, Australia, the United States of America, India, Germany and Swaziland. I conclude this dissertation with suggestions on possible ways in which the conflict may be resolved or at least minimised in future. / Die regulering van mynbou in Suid-Afrika het die afgelope dekade ‘n fundamentele verandering ondergaan ten einde breër toegang tot die nasie se minerale en petroleum hulpbronne te bevorder. Die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,6 Wet 28 van 2002, het ‘n radikale ommekeer in die mynbou industrie meegebring deurdat die regulering van mynbou aktiwiteite onder die toesig en beheer van die nasionale regering geplaas is. Die transformatiewe oogmerk van hulpbron hervorming ingevolge die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika kon egter nie geskied sonder ‘n mate van opoffering nie. Die grootste aanslag van die nuwe mineraalreg bedeling word sonder twyfel gevoel deur die eienaars van grond ten opsigte waarvan mynregte deur die regering aan ‘n ander party toegeken word. Ingevolge die gemenereg was die eienaar van grond voorheen ook die eienaar van die minerale wat in die grond voorgekom het. Gevolglik was dit onder die uitsluitlike beheer van die eienaar om te bepaal of enigiemand anders die reg kon verkry om minerale op of in die betrokke grond te ontgin. Na aanvang van die inwerkingtreding van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is hierdie posisie egter omvêrgewerp aangesien die regering voortaan die bevoegdheid het om te bepaal wie en op watter voorwaardes iemand die reg verkry om minerale te ontgin. Die toekenning van die reg om minerale te ontgin op ‘n ander se eiendom sonder die eienaar se toestemming, maak dus ernstige inbreuk op sy regte. Grondeienaars se bevoegdhede wat uit hul eiendomsreg voortvloei word in talle gevalle ernstig ingeperk ten einde die oogmerke van hulpbron transformasie te bereik. Die ondersoek wat hierna volg, is daarop toegespits om die beperkende aanslag van die regulering van steenkoolmynbou-aktiwiteite op die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiede asook dié van die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiedie op steenkoolmynbou beter te verstaan. Ten einde hierdie invloed beter te verstaan, word die geskiedkundige ontwikkeling van die reg om minerale in Suid-Afrika te ontgin kortliks oorweeg. Die regte en verpligtinge van die houers van mynregte en die eienaars van die grond wat deur die uitoefening daarvan geraak word, asook die remedies waaroor die onderskye partye beskik ten einde hul regte teen inbreukmaking deur die ander party te beskerm, word daarna oorweeg. In genoemde ondersoek toon ek aan waarom die Engelsregtelike burereg- beginsels van laterale steun en onderstut nie toepassing in ons reg behoort te vind nie en waarom die botsing wat ontstaan vanweë die uitoefening van die grondeienaar en die houer van ‘n mynreg se regte liefs versoen moet word deur die Suid-Afrikaanse serwituutreg beginsels toe te pas soos aangetoon in die beslissing van Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates. Hiedie beslissing het egter nie die veranderinge wat meegebring is deur die nuwe bedeling van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act in ag geneem nie en daar word gevolglik aangevoer dat die serwituut beginsels vervang is deur ‘n breedvoerige wetgewende stelsel. Die grondwetlikheid van die beperking op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendom te gebruik en te geniet, word ondersoek, asook of daar enige gronde vir ‘n eis om skadevergoeding mag wees. In besonder word daar oorweeg of die leerstuk van konstruktiewe onteiening moontlik toepassing kan vind in gevalle waar die staat se regulering ‘n uitermatige beperkende effek het op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendomsreg uit te oefen. In die voorlaaste hoofstuk ontleed ek baie kortliks hoe die verhouding tussen eienaars van grond in mynbougebiede en houers van regte om minerale te ontgin in Sjina, Australië, die Verenigde State van Amerika, Indië, Duitsland en Swaziland gereguleer word. Ter afsluiting word aandag gegee aan moontlike maniere om die belangebotsing tussen die betrokke partye uit die weg te ruim of te beperk. / Private Law / LL.M.

Over the past decade, the regulation of mining in South Africa has undergone a fundamental transformation in order to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, drastically changed the regulation of mining by placing the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources under the custodianship of the state. The transformative objectives of resource reform, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, could however not be achieved without a measure of sacrifice -- most notably, that which had to be shouldered by the owners of the land in which the minerals are contained. Under common law, minerals vested in the owners of land and no one could compel them to extract or consent to the extraction of these minerals. Landowners were able to safeguard their land from mining activities by refusing to consent to mining. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, changed this by providing that landowners could no longer prevent the state from granting qualifying applicants authorisation to mine. The transformative objectives of resource reform, have inevitably made great inroads into a landowner’s rights to use and enjoy his property optimally. The main focus of this study revolves around the limiting impact of South Africa’s current mineral-law dispensation on township development, and conversely, how township development impairs or limits the mining of coal. For a better understanding of the limitations which the current legislative provisions create in respect of the rights of landowners and holders of mining rights, a brief evaluation of the historical development of the right to mine coal is provided. The entitlements and reciprocal obligations of holders of mining rights and owners of the affected land are considered, and the parties’ legal remedies to resist interference in their respective rights are explored. In the process of considering possible remedies to resolve the conflict which inevitably arises, I explain why English-law principles governing lateral support (support owed by two adjacent properties [neighbour law]), and subjacent support (where the landowner may not be deprived of the vertical support his property derives from the sub-surface minerals) were incorrectly transplanted into our law. In Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the previously-held view that the right to subjacent support -- like the right to lateral support -- is a natural property right incidental to the ownership of the land. It was further held that conflict between holders of rights to minerals and owners of land should be resolved, not in accordance with English-law principles of neighbour law, but in terms of the law developed for rights relating to the use of servitudes. In summary, the court found that where the parties have not specifically contracted against the specific action (such as opencast or planned-subsidence mining), and provided that it was reasonably necessary for the mining right holder to use this invasive method, he may do so, so long as he does so in the manner least injurious to the entitlements of the surface owner. This decision, however, did not take into account the changes brought about by the comprehensive statutory framework of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 which I argue has replaced the earlier servitude construction. In this dissertation I consider whether possible solutions to resolve the conflict can be found in the principles relating to neighbour law, and whether the principles governing the use of servitudes remain relevant in resolving conflicts between landowners and holders of mining rights. I evaluate possible legal remedies and place special emphasis on the constitutionality of the curtailment of a landowner’s use and enjoyment of his property resulting from mining activities on or under his land. I further consider whether the exercise of a mining right, granted by the state, which results in a serious infringement of a landowner’s ownership, could in certain circumstances amount to a deprivation or possibly an expropriation in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. I discuss the position where the state’s regulatory interference is so severe that it deprives a landowner of the ability to exercise any, or a substantial portion of his ownership entitlements. I evaluate the possibility that such interference may constitute de facto expropriation for which compensation may be claimed. In the penultimate chapter I briefly mention how the relationship between landowners and holders of mining rights is managed and conflict is defused in other jurisdictions such as China, Australia, the United States of America, India, Germany and Swaziland. I conclude this dissertation with suggestions on possible ways in which the conflict may be resolved or at least minimised in future. / Die regulering van mynbou in Suid-Afrika het die afgelope dekade ‘n fundamentele verandering ondergaan ten einde breër toegang tot die nasie se minerale en petroleum hulpbronne te bevorder. Die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,6 Wet 28 van 2002, het ‘n radikale ommekeer in die mynbou industrie meegebring deurdat die regulering van mynbou aktiwiteite onder die toesig en beheer van die nasionale regering geplaas is. Die transformatiewe oogmerk van hulpbron hervorming ingevolge die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika kon egter nie geskied sonder ‘n mate van opoffering nie. Die grootste aanslag van die nuwe mineraalreg bedeling word sonder twyfel gevoel deur die eienaars van grond ten opsigte waarvan mynregte deur die regering aan ‘n ander party toegeken word. Ingevolge die gemenereg was die eienaar van grond voorheen ook die eienaar van die minerale wat in die grond voorgekom het. Gevolglik was dit onder die uitsluitlike beheer van die eienaar om te bepaal of enigiemand anders die reg kon verkry om minerale op of in die betrokke grond te ontgin. Na aanvang van die inwerkingtreding van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is hierdie posisie egter omvêrgewerp aangesien die regering voortaan die bevoegdheid het om te bepaal wie en op watter voorwaardes iemand die reg verkry om minerale te ontgin. Die toekenning van die reg om minerale te ontgin op ‘n ander se eiendom sonder die eienaar se toestemming, maak dus ernstige inbreuk op sy regte. Grondeienaars se bevoegdhede wat uit hul eiendomsreg voortvloei word in talle gevalle ernstig ingeperk ten einde die oogmerke van hulpbron transformasie te bereik. Die ondersoek wat hierna volg, is daarop toegespits om die beperkende aanslag van die regulering van steenkoolmynbou-aktiwiteite op die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiede asook dié van die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiedie op steenkoolmynbou beter te verstaan. Ten einde hierdie invloed beter te verstaan, word die geskiedkundige ontwikkeling van die reg om minerale in Suid-Afrika te ontgin kortliks oorweeg. Die regte en verpligtinge van die houers van mynregte en die eienaars van die grond wat deur die uitoefening daarvan geraak word, asook die remedies waaroor die onderskye partye beskik ten einde hul regte teen inbreukmaking deur die ander party te beskerm, word daarna oorweeg. In genoemde ondersoek toon ek aan waarom die Engelsregtelike burereg- beginsels van laterale steun en onderstut nie toepassing in ons reg behoort te vind nie en waarom die botsing wat ontstaan vanweë die uitoefening van die grondeienaar en die houer van ‘n mynreg se regte liefs versoen moet word deur die Suid-Afrikaanse serwituutreg beginsels toe te pas soos aangetoon in die beslissing van Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates. Hiedie beslissing het egter nie die veranderinge wat meegebring is deur die nuwe bedeling van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act in ag geneem nie en daar word gevolglik aangevoer dat die serwituut beginsels vervang is deur ‘n breedvoerige wetgewende stelsel. Die grondwetlikheid van die beperking op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendom te gebruik en te geniet, word ondersoek, asook of daar enige gronde vir ‘n eis om skadevergoeding mag wees. In besonder word daar oorweeg of die leerstuk van konstruktiewe onteiening moontlik toepassing kan vind in gevalle waar die staat se regulering ‘n uitermatige beperkende effek het op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendomsreg uit te oefen. In die voorlaaste hoofstuk ontleed ek baie kortliks hoe die verhouding tussen eienaars van grond in mynbougebiede en houers van regte om minerale te ontgin in Sjina, Australië, die Verenigde State van Amerika, Indië, Duitsland en Swaziland gereguleer word. Ter afsluiting word aandag gegee aan moontlike maniere om die belangebotsing tussen die betrokke partye uit die weg te ruim of te beperk. / Private Law / LL. M.