Abstract During the 1960s both the federal and provincial governments continued to take on new and larger responsibilities. During this same time period citizens began to mobilize and challenge the state on a number of social issues including race, gender, labour, urban sprawl and the environment. Citizens believed that not only did they have the right to challenge the authority of government in planning public policy, but they also had a right to participate in the decision-making process as much as any bureaucrat, expert, or elected official. In planning airports in Pickering, Ste. Scholastique and Sea Island, the federal government was opposed by citizen groups in each of these three cases. Citizens believed their voices were not being heard and that government officials did not respect them. As a result, they disrupted the meticulously laid out plans of elected officials and policy planners by drawing on evidence and expert advice. The conflict over federal airport development is an example of the evolution of the consultation process with citizens, as citizens challenged the way public policy was planned. Governments now had to justify policies like expropriation for the public good since citizen groups would form over any intrusion into their private lives. The debates over airport planning highlights the role of citizens, bureaucrats, provincial and federal politicians as they all tried to navigate the complex shifting landscape of the Canadian state. By 1976 the Pickering Airport had been canceled, Mirabel was opened, and the Sea Island runway expansion would be delayed for 15 years. Although the citizen groups never had complete victories, citizen participation became more paramount to state planning after these events. Public policy planning in Canada had become far more inclusive than ever before. Whether the politicians, bureaucrats or citizens were aware of the consequences remain to be seen. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Abstract During the 1960s both the federal and provincial governments continued to take on new and larger responsibilities. During this same time period citizens began to mobilize and challenge the state on a number of social issues including race, gender, labour, urban sprawl and the environment. Citizens believed that not only did they have the right to challenge the authority of government in planning public policy, but they also had a right to participate in the decision-making process as much as any bureaucrat, expert, or elected official. In planning airports in Pickering, Ste. Scholastique and Sea Island, the federal government was opposed by citizen groups in each of these three cases. Citizens believed their voices were not being heard and that government officials did not respect them. As a result, they disrupted the meticulously laid out plans of elected officials and policy planners by drawing on evidence and expert advice. The conflict over federal airport development is an example of the evolution of the consultation process with citizens, as citizens challenged the way public policy was planned. Governments now had to justify policies like expropriation for the public good since citizen groups would form over any intrusion into their private lives. The debates over airport planning highlights the role of citizens, bureaucrats, provincial and federal politicians as they all tried to navigate the complex shifting landscape of the Canadian state. By 1976 the Pickering Airport had been canceled, Mirabel was opened, and the Sea Island runway expansion would be delayed for 15 years. Although the citizen groups never had complete victories, citizen participation became more paramount to state planning after these events. Public policy planning in Canada had become far more inclusive than ever before. Whether the politicians, bureaucrats or citizens were aware of the consequences remain to be seen.

Depuis les années deux-mille, les Etats latino-américains ont activement participé aux arbitrages d’investissement administrés par le Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (CIRDI). Ainsi, la pratique arbitrale de ce Centre trouve son origine dans les très nombreuses affaires latino-américaines qui ont permis d’encadrer la procédure et d’entériner certaines pratiques liées aux questions de fond de l’arbitrage. Les affaires latino-américaines ont enrichi la procédure en consacrant notamment la participation des tiers à la procédure arbitrale par le biais de l’amicus curiae (l’ami de la Cour). Cette innovation démontre la prise en compte de l’impact des questions d’intérêt public sur les populations concernées. Les divers standards juridiques insérés dans les accords d’investissement ont également été invoqués par les investisseurs afin de voir engagée la responsabilité internationale des Etats. Ainsi, les arbitres ont pu s’exprimer sur le caractère imprécis de certains standards comme celui du traitement juste et équitable. Les tribunaux ont dégagé certains étalons de mesure qui permettent d’évaluer et de comparer les éléments de l’affaire. Deux étalons de mesure semblent être pertinents dans le cas latino-américain. Il s’agit du respect de la stabilité du cadre juridique puis de la protection des attentes légitimes de l’investisseur. C’est dans ce cadre que les Etats latino-américains ont réagi différemment face au contentieux arbitral auprès du CIRDI, ce dernier ayant fait l’objet de critiques quant à sa légitimité et quant aux différentes condamnations prononcées par les tribunaux à l’encontre des Etats. Certains Etats ont pris l’initiative de dénoncer les accords internationaux donnant compétence au CIRDI et de créer un nouveau centre d’arbitrage sur le continent, capable de connaître les différends en matière d’investissement. Ceci dit, les décisions et sentences arbitrales rendues dans le contexte latino-américain constituent une source d’inspiration précieuse pour les arbitrages internationaux en cours et futurs. / Since 2001, Latin American Countries have actively participated in investment arbitrations administered by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Because of that the way to arbitrate in this Centre base itself on a great number of Latin American affairs which helped to delimit the procedures and endorse some practices linked to the very founding principles of arbitration.The procedure of arbitration has been improved by Latin American affairs, by example with the help of the Amicus Curiae, which is the participation of a third party to the arbitral process. This innovation shows how much these questions of public interest are important for the populations concerned.The multiple juridical standards inserted in the investment agreements have often been brought forward by the investors in order to see the responsibility of some countries engaged in an international way. Arbitrators have been able to emphasize on the inaccuracy of some of these standards, such as the the fair and equitable treatment.Different ways to measure the elements of an affair have been brought to light by the tribunals. Two of them are present in the case of Latin American affairs: the compliance with the juridical framework stability and the protection of the investor's legitimate expectations.Latin American countries did take action differently in front of the arbitrations brought to the ICSID which was criticized for its lack of legitimacy and for its decisions in a great number of cases against these countries. Some countries renounced the international treaties giving the ICSID its arbitration rights and created a new arbitration center on the continent capable of giving a ruling in the matter of investment affairs. In spite of this the arbitral decisions and the arbitral awards in the Latin American context should be able to be inspirations for the future of arbitration.

Thesis (Ph.D. (Estate Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2007.

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA} is premised on the principle that minerals are part of the natural heritage of all South Africans. Section 3 of the MPRDA articulates the core of the new mineral law dispensation. Through the provisions of the said section, new concepts are introduced to the field of mineral law previously governed by the South African common law system of private ownership, based on Roman-Dutch principles. The study focused on section 3 of the MPRDA and the consequences ensuing from its implementation. Consequently, a historical overview of the development of South African mineral law was followed by an exposition of the development of the constitutional property concept. It was concluded that mineral rights from the previous dispensation constitute property protected by section 25 of the Constitution. It was also found that the development encapsulated in the MPRDA in respect of the ownership of the country's unsevered minerals, is indicative of the decline of private property. It is substituted by a line of thought which recognises that certain interests 'are held in common' by the nation. This idea is also found in inter alia the National Water Act 36 of 1998 and the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998. This led to the next section of the research where the concept of custodial sovereignty as manifested in the Anglo-American public trust doctrine was studied. It was apparent that the public trust doctrine is a legal construct whereby ownership of certain assets vests in the state, to be administered on behalf of the nation and generations yet to come. The historical survey of the Roman concepts of res publicae and res omnium communes indicated that although this doctrine is not part of South Africa's common law heritage, principles underlying the doctrine found application in South African law in respect of the seashore. The conclusion was reached that the doctrine has indeed been incorporated in South African mineral law by the MPRDA, constituting a new mineral law regime in the country. Due to the fact that a new mineral law dispensation was introduced, mineral rights as they existed in the previous mineral law dispensation were annihilated. It was, therefore, necessary to determine whether this annihilation resulted in the expropriation of property. Consequently the content of the concept 'expropriation' was studied in order to determine whether the previously held mineral rights were expropriated. The study indicated that expropriation entails the acquisition of property by the state, but that ample room exists for the development of the concept of constructive expropriation. Based on the information gained on the concept of expropriation, the consequences ensuing from the MPRDA for the holders of common law mineral rights and old order rights and the impact of the MPRDA on ownership of landowners were analysed. It was indicated that the extent of the deprivation brought about by the MPRDA varies between expropriation and the regulation of mining activities. The significance of section 3 of the MPRDA for the people of South Africa was analysed and it was found that the newly introduced doctrine can be applied to the advantage of the nation as a whole. A separate section of the research entailed a limited comparative analysis of Canadian mining law that focused on constitutional jurisdiction over minerals in the Canadian mining regime and the taking of property interests in minerals. It is proposed that the South African expropriation concept should develop along the lines followed in Canadian jurisprudence. After considering the abovementioned aspects, the final conclusion of the study is that the concepts introduced by and the consequences emanating from the implementation of section 3 of the MPRDA are constitutionally justifiable. / Thesis (LL.D (Indigenous Law)) -- North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2007.

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA} is premised on the principle that minerals are part of the natural heritage of all South Africans. Section 3 of the MPRDA articulates the core of the new mineral law dispensation. Through the provisions of the said section, new concepts are introduced to the field of mineral law previously governed by the South African common law system of private ownership, based on Roman-Dutch principles. The study focused on section 3 of the MPRDA and the consequences ensuing from its implementation. Consequently, a historical overview of the development of South African mineral law was followed by an exposition of the development of the constitutional property concept. It was concluded that mineral rights from the previous dispensation constitute property protected by section 25 of the Constitution. It was also found that the development encapsulated in the MPRDA in respect of the ownership of the country's unsevered minerals, is indicative of the decline of private property. It is substituted by a line of thought which recognises that certain interests 'are held in common' by the nation. This idea is also found in inter alia the National Water Act 36 of 1998 and the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998. This led to the next section of the research where the concept of custodial sovereignty as manifested in the Anglo-American public trust doctrine was studied. It was apparent that the public trust doctrine is a legal construct whereby ownership of certain assets vests in the state, to be administered on behalf of the nation and generations yet to come. The historical survey of the Roman concepts of res publicae and res omnium communes indicated that although this doctrine is not part of South Africa's common law heritage, principles underlying the doctrine found application in South African law in respect of the seashore. The conclusion was reached that the doctrine has indeed been incorporated in South African mineral law by the MPRDA, constituting a new mineral law regime in the country. Due to the fact that a new mineral law dispensation was introduced, mineral rights as they existed in the previous mineral law dispensation were annihilated. It was, therefore, necessary to determine whether this annihilation resulted in the expropriation of property. Consequently the content of the concept 'expropriation' was studied in order to determine whether the previously held mineral rights were expropriated. The study indicated that expropriation entails the acquisition of property by the state, but that ample room exists for the development of the concept of constructive expropriation. Based on the information gained on the concept of expropriation, the consequences ensuing from the MPRDA for the holders of common law mineral rights and old order rights and the impact of the MPRDA on ownership of landowners were analysed. It was indicated that the extent of the deprivation brought about by the MPRDA varies between expropriation and the regulation of mining activities. The significance of section 3 of the MPRDA for the people of South Africa was analysed and it was found that the newly introduced doctrine can be applied to the advantage of the nation as a whole. A separate section of the research entailed a limited comparative analysis of Canadian mining law that focused on constitutional jurisdiction over minerals in the Canadian mining regime and the taking of property interests in minerals. It is proposed that the South African expropriation concept should develop along the lines followed in Canadian jurisprudence. After considering the abovementioned aspects, the final conclusion of the study is that the concepts introduced by and the consequences emanating from the implementation of section 3 of the MPRDA are constitutionally justifiable. / Thesis (LL.D (Indigenous Law)) -- North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2007.

L’investissement étranger est considéré aujourd’hui comme un facteur clé voire une valeur ajoutée à même de faciliter le développement de l’État d’accueil. Ainsi, l'État congolais mise sur l’amélioration de son arsenal juridique interne dont l’objectif consiste à attirer de nombreux investisseurs et investissements étrangers sur son territoire. Pour ce faire, des réformes tendant à l’amélioration de principaux textes juridiques applicables directement ou indirectement en matière d’admission et de sécurisation des investissements étrangers afin de se conformer aux standards internationaux deviennent une obsession pour cet État, dont la finalité demeure : la valorisation de ses ressources naturelles notamment le cobalt, le germanium et la colombo-tantalite etc. très souvent inexploitées et utile à même de servir à la production des batteries pour les voitures électriques. Il serait donc nécessaire désormais que le contrôle de l’État souverain sur ses ressources naturelles considérées comme des minerais stratégiques soit davantage renforcé et que le contentieux en matière d’investissement soit confié à des entités qui prennent en compte l’intérêt général au détriment des arbitrages sous l’égide des arbitres privés, défendant les intérêts privés. Ainsi, la création d’un Centre international africain de règlement des différends pourrait être profitable notamment en permettant aux experts africains - tant arbitres qu’avocats - d’être plus présents dans le cadre des procédures impliquant leurs États d’origine / Foreign investment is now considered a key factor or even an added value that can facilitate the development of the host country. Thus, the Congolese State is focusing on improving its domestic legal arsenal, the objective of which is to attract many foreign investors and investments to its territory. To this end, reforms aimed at improving the main legal texts directly or indirectly applicable to the admission and security of foreign investments in order to comply with international standards are becoming an obsession for this State, the purpose of which remains: the development of its natural resources, in particular cobalt, germanium and colombo-tantalite etc., which are very often unexploited and useful for the production of batteries for electric cars. It would therefore now be necessary for the sovereign State to strengthen its control over its natural resources considered as strategic minerals and for investment litigation to be entrusted to entities that take into account the general interest to the detriment of arbitrations under the aegis of private arbitrators, defending private interests. Thus, the creation of an African International Dispute Resolution Centre could be beneficial, in particular by allowing African experts - both arbitrators and lawyers - to be more present in proceedings involving their States of origin

Communities sometimes hold private property rights in or adjacent to a protected area. Section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 (the Constitution) protects a person's private property in that the state may not unfairly deprive or expropriate such private property. The interest in the environment are protected by section 24 of the Constitution which entails that every person has the right to an environment that is not harmful to one's health or well-being and also that the environment has to be preserved for present and future generations. National parks are the most valuable natural resource in terms of nature conservation that South Africa has, as these parks harvest natural resources to be preserved for present and future generations. The question that arises is which restrictions are placed on owners in respect of nature conservation, and what the constitutionality of such restrictions is. The answer this question is somewhat difficult as both the right to property and the right to a safe and clean environment are both fundamental rights in the Constitution, and these rights deserve protection. That being said, it is important to understand that no right in the Bill of Rights is an absolute right and all rights are subject to limitations. Such limitations should adhere to the requirements set out in section 36 of the Constitution. A limitation of any constitutional right will be accepted if it is proportional. Section 36(1) of the Constitution amounts to a general proportionality test to ensure that any right contained in the Bill of Rights is only limited by a law of general application and if such limitation is reasonable and justifiable. The National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) as well as the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPA) can be seen as laws of general application. NEMPA especially implies that private property holders may be deprived of their property, if it is situated in or adjacent to a protected area in order to conserve the environment, and this will also not be arbitrary as the private property holders are still allowed to reside on the land in question. NEMA as well as NEMPA makes provision that property may be expropriated for environmental purposes subject to compensation and the provisions of the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975. Limitation of property rights in order to protect and conserve the environment can thus not be seen as unconstitutional or unfair. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Communities sometimes hold private property rights in or adjacent to a protected area. Section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 (the Constitution) protects a person's private property in that the state may not unfairly deprive or expropriate such private property. The interest in the environment are protected by section 24 of the Constitution which entails that every person has the right to an environment that is not harmful to one's health or well-being and also that the environment has to be preserved for present and future generations. National parks are the most valuable natural resource in terms of nature conservation that South Africa has, as these parks harvest natural resources to be preserved for present and future generations. The question that arises is which restrictions are placed on owners in respect of nature conservation, and what the constitutionality of such restrictions is. The answer this question is somewhat difficult as both the right to property and the right to a safe and clean environment are both fundamental rights in the Constitution, and these rights deserve protection. That being said, it is important to understand that no right in the Bill of Rights is an absolute right and all rights are subject to limitations. Such limitations should adhere to the requirements set out in section 36 of the Constitution. A limitation of any constitutional right will be accepted if it is proportional. Section 36(1) of the Constitution amounts to a general proportionality test to ensure that any right contained in the Bill of Rights is only limited by a law of general application and if such limitation is reasonable and justifiable. The National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) as well as the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003 (NEMPA) can be seen as laws of general application. NEMPA especially implies that private property holders may be deprived of their property, if it is situated in or adjacent to a protected area in order to conserve the environment, and this will also not be arbitrary as the private property holders are still allowed to reside on the land in question. NEMA as well as NEMPA makes provision that property may be expropriated for environmental purposes subject to compensation and the provisions of the Expropriation Act 63 of 1975. Limitation of property rights in order to protect and conserve the environment can thus not be seen as unconstitutional or unfair. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015

Thesis (LLD)--Stellenbosch University, 2015 / ENGLISH ABSTRACT : Section 25 of the South African Constitution authorises and sets the limits for two forms of legitimate regulatory interference with property, namely deprivation and expropriation. The focus of this dissertation is on the requirement in section 25(1) that no law may authorise arbitrary deprivation of property. According to the Constitutional Court, deprivation is arbitrary when there is insufficient reason for it. The Court listed a number of factors to consider in determining whether there is a sufficient relationship between the purpose to be achieved by deprivation and the regulatory method chosen to achieve it. The outcome of the arbitrariness question depends on the level of scrutiny applied in a particular case. The level of scrutiny ranges from rationality review to proportionality review. Deprivation that results in an excessively harsh regulatory burden for one or a small group of property owners will probably be substantively arbitrary and in conflict with section 25(1). Courts generally declare unconstitutional regulatory interferences with property rights invalid. However, invalidating legitimate regulatory measures that are otherwise lawful purely because they impose a harsh and excessive burden on some property owners may not always be justified if the regulatory measure fulfils an important regulatory purpose. Invalidating excessive regulatory measures may in some instances also be meaningless and may not constitute appropriate relief in vindicating the affected rights. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the appropriateness of alternative solutions to invalidating otherwise lawful and legitimate but excessive regulatory deprivations of property. The goal is to identify remedies that allow courts to uphold the regulatory measure and simultaneously balance out the excessive regulatory burden it imposes on property owners. One alternative solution is to transform the excessive regulatory measure into expropriation and require the state to pay compensation to the affected owner. This approach is referred to as constructive expropriation. However, in view of the Constitutional Court’s approach to and the wording of section 25 it seems unlikely that it will adopt constructive expropriation as a solution. Another alternative solution is for the legislature to include a statutory provision for compensation in the authorising statute. Examples from German, French, Dutch and Belgian law show that this approach balances out the excessive regulatory burden and allows courts to uphold the otherwise lawful and legitimate but excessive regulatory statute without judicially transforming the deprivation into expropriation. An overview of South African law indicates that there is legislation that includes non-expropriatory compensation provisions. In cases where the regulatory statute does not contain a compensation provision, the courts might consider reading such a duty to pay compensation into the legislation or awarding constitutional damages. In conclusion, it is possible for the state to deprive owners of property in a manner that may result in an excessive regulatory burden being suffered by one or a small group of property owners if the regulatory purpose is necessary in the public interest, provided that the legislature explicitly or implicitly provides for non-expropriatory compensation in the regulatory statute. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING : Artikel 25 van die Suid Afrikaanse Grondwet magtig en stel grense daar vir twee regmatige vorme van regulerende staatsinmenging met eiendom, naamlik ontneming en onteiening. Die fokus van hierdie proefskrif is op die vereiste in artikel 25(1) dat geen wet arbitrêre ontneming van eiendom mag toelaat nie. Volgens die Grondwetlike Hof is ʼn ontneming arbitrêr as daar nie ʼn voldoende rede daarvoor is nie. Die Hof het faktore gelys wat oorweeg moet word om te bepaal of daar ʼn voldoende verhouding bestaan tussen die doel wat die staat met ontneming van eiendom nastreef en die regulerende maatreël wat vir die doel gebruik word. Die uitkoms van die toets vir arbitrêre ontneming hang af van die hersieningsstandaard wat die howe in ʼn spesifieke geval gebruik. Die standaard wissel van ʼn redelikheidstoets tot ʼn proporsionaliteitstoets. ʼn Ontneming wat ʼn oormatige swaar las op een of ʼn beperkte groep eienaars plaas sal waarskynlik arbitrêr en teenstrydig met artikel 25(1) wees. Die howe se benadering is om ongrondwetlike ontnemings van eiendom ongeldig te verklaar, maar dit is nie altyd geregverdig om toelaatbare en andersins regmatige ontnemings wat ʼn oormatige las op sommige eienaars plaas ongeldig te verklaar nie. Die ongeldigverklaring van wetgewing wat ʼn oormatige ontneming magtig mag soms ook nutteloos wees en nie ʼn gepaste remedie wees om die eienaar se regte te herstel nie. Die doel van hierdie proefskrif is om die geskiktheid van alternatiewe oplossings tot die ongeldigverklaring van andersins regmatige maar oormatige ontnemings van eiendom te ondersoek Die doel is om remedies te identifiseer wat die howe toelaat om regulerende ontnemings in stand te hou en terselfdertyd die oormatige las op enkele eienaars uit te balanseer. Een alternatiewe oplossing is om die oormatige ontneming te omskep in onteiening en die staat sodoende te verplig om aan die eienaar vergoeding te betaal. Hierdie benadering staan bekend as konstruktiewe onteiening. Gegewe die Grondwetlike Hof se benadering tot en die bewoording van artikel 25 is dit onwaarskynlik dat die howe konstruktiewe ontneming as ʼn oplossing sal aanvaar. ʼn Ander alternatiewe oplossing is vir die wetgewer om ʼn statutêre bepaling vir vergoeding in die magtigende wetgewing in te voeg. Voorbeelde uit die Duitse, Franse, Nederlandse en Belgiese reg toon aan dat hierdie benadering ʼn oormatige las kan uitbalanseer en die howe toelaat om die andersins geldige en regmatige ontneming in stand te hou sonder om dit in onteiening te omskep. ʼn Oorsig van Suid Afrikaanse reg dui aan dat daar wetgewing bestaan wat wel voorsiening maak vir sodanige vergoeding. In gevalle waar die magtigende wetgewing nie vergoeding voorsien nie kan die howe oorweeg om ʼn vergoedingsplig in die wet in te lees of om grondwetlike vergoeding toe te ken. Hierdie proefskrif kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat dit grondwetlik moontlik is vir die staat om eienaars van eiendom te ontneem op ʼn wyse wat soms daartoe kan lei dat enkele eienaars ʼn oormatige swaar las moet dra, mits die ontneming ʼn belangrike openbare doel dien en die wetgewer uitdruklik of implisiet voorsiening maak vir vergoeding.

土地問題在中國始終是一個大問題，1949年國民黨失去大陸政權，最主要原因就是未能處理好農民與土地之間千絲萬縷的關係。中國大陸自1990年代以來，經濟發展迅速，隨著城市化進程的加快，全國掀起土地開發的熱潮，農村集體所有土地被大量徵收，失地農民成為新興弱勢群體，面臨著嚴重的生存與發展問題。土地是農民的命根子，但是在經濟發展的大旗之下，各地政府以「開發區」的名義，占去大量耕地，造成了至少4000萬「種地無田，就業無崗，低保無分」的失地農民。本文認為目前中國大陸失地農民問題集中表現在對失地農民的補償標準太低、土地「農轉非」速度太快、土地徵占浮濫而且範圍太廣。此外，目前的社會保障機制不夠健全，失地農民缺乏專業技能導致失業問題嚴重。本文經由分析造成失地農民的原因與現況，比較海峽兩岸農地改革的模式，提出實施合理徵地補償、制定法律規範、擴大社會保障、嚴格土地管制等方式，從根本上解決失地農民的問題。因為中國大陸因徵地問題引發的群眾抗爭事件與日俱增，如果不能妥善處理相關問題，勢必影響中國社會的穩定與經濟發展。 / Land problems concern China all the time. The major reason resulting in KMT’s losing of regime in 1949 consisted for the most part in its being unable to deal with the thorny relationship between the peasants and their land properly. Paralleling the rapid growth in economy and the acceleration of urbanization in the 1990s was the surge of land exploitation. As a result, a large part of collective-owned land has been requisitioned. As the newly emerging minorities, the land requisitioned peasants were confronted with the dilemma of survival and that of development. It is a truth universally accepted that land is what the peasants are concerned about. To promote the development in economy, some local governments, in the name of exploitation region, took possession of a large part of land, bringing about the truth that at least 40 million land requisitioned peasants had become landless, jobless and what was more, penniless. What is explicated in this article shows that the presents problems resulting from the land requisitioned peasants in Mainland China lie primarily in the prerequisites that the standards for the reparation made to the land requisitioned peasants are unsatisfying, the time for the land use changed from agriculture to non-agriculture is pressing and the scope of the land requisitioned is extensive and overabundant. What is worse, the deficiencies in social security systems and the peasants’ lack of special skills add up to the high percentage of unemployment. The research is so conducted as to bring up, through the analysis on the reasons and present situation that trouble the land requisitioned peasants in Mainland China and the comparison on the land reform models between Taiwan and Mainland China, some reasonable ways to make up for the land requisitioned peasants, to set up standards for legislation, to reinforce intensified protection in society and to carry out precise control over land, trying to solve the problems resulting from the land requisitioned peasants completely. There are more and more street protests arising from the land requisitioned peasants in Mainland China. To tell it like it is, the problems should be attended with care and in detail so that the stability in society and development in economy can thus be maintained.