One of the most controversial points of human rights declarations has always been the issue of ownership. Whether it is in terms of violating ownership leading to social resistance and consequently the dissemination of human rights declarations, or in terms of supporters and opponents facing difficulties in recognizing or rejecting ownership in discussions surrounding the publication of a declaration.

Comparison of the main declarations of rights, which have become a standard for interpreting subsequent laws or are considered the beginning of a particular legal tradition, regarding the concept of ownership, can be expressed as a mental diagram that clarifies the ups and downs of the concept of ownership and its relationship with human rights and citizenship.

In the following, we will compare four legal texts from the perspective of ownership, which have undeniable connections with each other and have been influenced by each other. These four texts (the Magna Carta of England, the Declaration of Independence of America, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of France, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) are like roots from which other legal, social, philosophical, and political branches and leaves have grown in different directions.

Among these, Magna Carta or the Great Charter is the first text that was approved in England about seven hundred years ago and is considered one of the foundations of the Anglo-Saxon political tradition. Magna Carta can be seen as the transfer of property rights from the king to free individuals within the kingdom. Homayoun Katouzian describes property ownership as having three essential characteristics: absolute, exclusive, and permanent. Before Magna Carta, the king had at least in theory absolute, exclusive, and permanent rights over everything within the kingdom, but Magna Carta was a strong clause that imposed limitations on the king by making the monarchy conditional on the law, thus returning property rights and fundamental rights to free individuals.

The Great Charter of Freedoms is composed of 63 articles, of which about 35 directly and indirectly address ownership and predict various limits and boundaries that the king or his officials cannot seize the property of citizens. Sometimes these articles address minor issues of ownership that today are only found in ordinary laws. This level of detail in the matter of property and assets reflects the high status of ownership in the minds of the signatories of this charter. It is worth mentioning that the disputes that arose from the publication of Magna Carta were primarily rooted in opposition to taxes.

In the Declaration of Independence of America (1776), however, there is no mention of ownership and in its golden section, the phrase “pursuit of happiness” is used instead of “ownership”.

Our belief is that these truths are self-evident and obvious, that all humans are created equal; that the Creator has endowed them with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

However, for understanding the fundamental idea of the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence alone is not sufficient. The United States Bill of Rights, which was passed a few years after the revolution, consists of ten amendments that were added to the Constitution to protect the rights of citizens from government encroachment, ten amendments that implicitly refer to the right of ownership. Of course, many thinkers consider the lack of explicit references to ownership to be self-evident in the minds of revolutionaries.

From the third supplement: No member of the security forces, whether in times of peace or war, shall be stationed in any house without the consent of the owner, except as determined by a specific law.

From the fourth supplement: The right to life, housing, documents and securities, and the immunity of people’s assets against unjustified inspection and confiscation is guaranteed, and no arrest warrants for individuals or seizure of property will be issued, except on the basis of probable cause with an oath or official declaration, and the exact location of the individuals or properties to be searched or seized must be specified.

From Article 5: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Whatever is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the issue of ownership has been silently addressed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) and has even been given a sacred status. Four of the seventeen articles of this declaration have in some way addressed ownership:

Article 2- The aim of every political society is to preserve the natural and inalienable rights of humanity. These rights include freedom, ownership, security, and resistance against oppression.

Article 13 – It is necessary for the preservation and maintenance of public force and administrative expenses that everyone participate financially. Such payments must be divided among citizens according to their capabilities.

Article 14 – All citizens have the right to personally or through their representatives, monitor the necessity of establishing general taxes and freedom in payment, as well as determining the level, amount, method of collection, and duration of such taxes.

Article 17 – Ownership is sacred and inviolable, and no one can be deprived of it except when public necessity, based on the law and in a specific manner, requires otherwise. In this case, fair compensation must be given in advance.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), there is a mention of property, but it is not thoroughly examined. This treaty was written and adopted at a time when the Soviet Union was at the height of its power and socialism was ruling in some parts of the world, while having countless supporters in other parts. On the other hand, capitalism and socialism were in serious conflict with each other. Therefore, property was not precisely examined even in the two United Nations declarations on civil and political rights, and economic, social, and cultural rights. In Article 17, an attempt was made to mention property in a way that is compatible with both interpretations as much as possible.

Article 17: A- Every individual, either individually or socially, has the right to ownership. 2- No one can be deprived of their right to ownership.

Three clauses out of the four clauses of Article 23, which are mentioned below, can be the source of different opinions regarding ownership:

Article 23: A- Everyone has the right to work. They should be able to choose their work freely, demand fair and satisfactory conditions for their work, and be protected against unemployment. B- Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work, without any discrimination. C- Everyone who works is entitled to a fair and satisfactory wage that ensures their and their family’s livelihood in accordance with human dignity, and if necessary, to be supplemented with any other forms of social support.