No economic revival or successful reconstruction can begin without rebuilding trust between citizens and the state through a new social contract founded on the absolute protection of property rights. In his book Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Francis Fukuyama argues that the protection of private property is a fundamental legal prerequisite for any modern economy. His central thesis is that social trust transforms legal institutions into engines of economic prosperity. In his view, modern institutions are necessary but not sufficient for development; rather, secure property rights, the rule of law, and social trust together create the conditions for sustainable economic growth.
“No economic recovery can succeed without secure property rights.”
Dr. Osama Kadi
One of Fukuyama’s most influential observations is that societies characterized by low levels of trust among citizens and between citizens and institutions bear significant additional economic costs. Transactions become more expensive because individuals must rely heavily on contracts, lawyers, and continuous oversight rather than mutual confidence. As he famously noted, widespread distrust imposes “a kind of tax on all forms of economic activity.”
Private property is among the most fundamental individual rights. Investment and economic growth cannot flourish without secure property rights and effective enforcement of contracts. This requires legal stability, judicial independence, reliable contract enforcement, and protection against arbitrary state intervention. In Syria’s case, reconstruction cannot succeed without reforming, or repealing, laws such as Law No. 10 of 2018, Law No. 66 of 2012, the Expropriation Law, and the legal framework governing the Land Registry. Such reforms are essential not only to resolve ownership disputes but also to rebuild institutional trust, encourage domestic investment, facilitate the return of Syrian capital, and attract foreign investment.
Law No. 10 of 2018 should be repealed because it imposed unrealistically short deadlines for proving ownership while failing to account for the circumstances of refugees, internally displaced persons, detainees, and others affected by the conflict. It should be replaced with a new Reconstruction and Urban Development Law that explicitly protects property rights regardless of displacement, asylum, detention, death, or loss of documentation.
The new law should establish a National Authority for Lost Property Documentation tasked with recovering records, digitizing archives, and reconstructing missing property records. Property registration should remain open for ten years rather than one or two. Ownership should be established through multiple forms of evidence, including official documents, judicial rulings, witness testimony, aerial photography, satellite imagery, utility bills, tax records, and municipal archives. Most importantly, no urban redevelopment should proceed until all ownership disputes have been fully resolved.
“No redevelopment should begin until property rights are fully protected.”
Dr. Osama Kadi
Law No. 66 of 2012 should likewise be repealed and comprehensively rewritten. The revised legislation should prioritize voluntary consent whenever possible and provide fair compensation based on the property’s actual market value at the time of expropriation rather than administrative valuations. Property owners should also be given the option of receiving replacement land, equity in the development project, monetary compensation, or a housing unit.
The current Expropriation Law requires complete revision and could be replaced with a Public Interest Land Acquisition Law. The definition of “public interest” should be narrowly limited to projects such as roads, airports, schools, hospitals, railways, dams, electricity infrastructure, and water networks. Expropriation should never be used to transfer property to private investors except under strict legal safeguards. Compensation should include not only fair market value but also relocation expenses, business interruption losses, and resettlement costs. Ownership should not be transferred until a final judicial ruling has been issued and full compensation has been paid.
Rather than merely amending the existing Land Registry Law, Syria should enact a Digital Land Registry Law. Its principal features should include the digitization of all property records, GIS mapping for every parcel of land, and full electronic integration between the land registry, tax authorities, municipalities, the judiciary, and notaries public. The system should eliminate duplicate property sales by assigning every parcel a unique digital identity, making the electronic registry the country’s official legal reference.
The Netherlands and Denmark rank among the world’s most successful agricultural economies not because they allow unrestricted buying and selling of farmland, but because they treat agricultural land as a strategic national asset essential to food security. Their legal systems carefully regulate agricultural ownership to prevent speculation, preserve productive farmland, maintain agricultural land use, prevent uncontrolled conversion into real estate developments, protect fertile land from degradation, discourage unregulated construction, and prohibit the fragmentation of farms into economically unviable plots.
The Netherlands has implemented an integrated framework governing agricultural land ownership, including land consolidation, agricultural cooperatives, agricultural finance, research and innovation, food processing industries, advanced technologies, and strong protection of private property rights.
Although Syria’s population is approximately 45 percent larger than that of the Netherlands and its land area is nearly four times greater, Dutch agricultural exports reached approximately €137 billion in 2025, more than twice Syria’s entire gross domestic product in 2011.
One of the most important legislative priorities for the new Syrian Parliament should be comprehensive reform of agricultural property laws to balance the protection of small farmers with the promotion of investment. Among the necessary reforms are measures allowing fragmented landholdings to be consolidated into economically viable production units. Syria suffers from severe fragmentation of inherited agricultural land, rendering many farms economically unsustainable. Long-term agricultural leases of 20 to 50 years should therefore be encouraged while preserving ownership rights. Procedures governing agricultural land transfers should be simplified, farmland should be protected against unregulated degradation, and large agricultural enterprises should be permitted to invest within a legal framework that prevents monopolies and safeguards the interests of local communities.
Another important reform would authorize the establishment of Agricultural Investment Funds. Such funds would increase productivity, facilitate bank financing through larger consolidated landholdings, attract investors, and enable the introduction of advanced technologies. Farmers needing liquidity could sell a portion of their shares rather than disposing of their land outright.
For example, one hundred farmers, each owning twenty hectares, could collectively transfer their combined 2,000 hectares into an agricultural investment fund. Each contributor would receive shares proportional to the value of the land contributed. The fund would either manage the land directly or lease it to specialized agricultural companies before distributing profits to shareholders. This arrangement would allow landowners to preserve the value of their investment without personally managing agricultural operations.
Syria can draw valuable lessons from internationally recognized agricultural investment funds such as Gladstone, Farmland, and Nuveen in the United States, as well as Fiera and PSP in Canada, together with similar successful models in Australia.
Syria also needs a dedicated Private Property Protection Law. Given its importance, it should stand as an independent piece of legislation guaranteeing constitutional protection of private property, prohibiting confiscation except by judicial order, restricting administrative seizure through robust legal safeguards, ensuring fair compensation, accelerating judicial procedures, promoting digital registration, protecting investors, safeguarding intellectual property rights, and preserving inheritance rights.
A specialized Real Estate Court should be established to resolve property disputes within six months. A compensation fund should also be created for individuals whose properties cannot be restored. In addition, Syria should establish a National Property Dispute Resolution Authority, composed of judges, licensed surveyors, real estate experts, GIS specialists, and representatives of the Land Registry. This body would seek to resolve disputes through mediation whenever possible before cases proceed to court.
“Swift, fair, and transparent property dispute resolution is essential to restoring public trust.”
Dr. Osama Kadi
Syrian legislation would become significantly more advanced if it also adopted a Title Insurance system similar to those operating in the United States and Canada, whereby insurance companies guarantee the validity of property titles. Such a system would strengthen investor confidence while substantially reducing the risks associated with ownership disputes.
One of the most significant achievements of Syria’s new Parliament would be the successful amendment, repeal, or replacement of outdated legislation with modern laws that better serve the Syrian people. Doing so would send a powerful message that property rights in Syria are secure and protected by both the law and an independent judiciary. This is an indispensable prerequisite for attracting investment, supporting the government’s reconstruction efforts, rebuilding confidence between citizens and state institutions, and ultimately fostering greater trust among Syrians themselves by assuring them that their property rights are protected under a fair legal system and enforced by a judiciary capable of deterring any infringement upon private ownership.
