How private property law affects land struggles in Argentina
Despite its numerous maneuvers, and as a result of massive mobilization across the country, the Argentine government of ultraliberal Javier Milei was forced to withdraw Chapter Three of the “Law on the Inviolability of Private Property,” which had been sent to the Senate. This chapter sought to legislate on the “Regime for the Protection of National Sovereignty over the Ownership, Possession, and Tenure of Rural Lands,” thereby aiming to guarantee greater access to land for foreigners. In other words, it sought to deregulate the sale of territory to foreign capital in blatant violation of sovereignty and the protection of lands, borders, watersheds, and glaciers, among other things.
The parliamentary debate surrounding the modification of the Land Law (Law 26.737), which has just been cancelled, reopened a historic and crucial discussion for the region: sovereignty over the territory, the protection of common natural resources and the living conditions of the communities that inhabit the countryside, that is, the rural development model, the geopolitical orientation of strategic resources and equitable access to land and water.
Law 26.737, enacted in 2011, established a regime of protection for national ownership of rural lands, setting a global and provincial limit of 15% for foreign ownership, along with specific limits on concentration in border areas and water basins.
The reform proposals of Milei's government—ranging from attempts at total deregulation to raising the limits on foreign ownership to 25% at the provincial level—threatened to dismantle public control mechanisms against the global phenomenon of land grabbing. Treating rural land as a speculative financial asset or a real estate commodity would postpone its basic social and environmental function: guaranteeing local food production and the balance of ecosystems.
From the perspective of the social sciences and humanities in Latin America and the Caribbean, the legislative treatment puts structural aspects at risk. Namely:
-Sovereignty and strategic commons: The relaxation of national and provincial borders does not affect the territory uniformly. Lacking strict local safeguards, transnational capital tends to concentrate in key areas such as freshwater sources, mountain ranges, wetlands, and lands with high agricultural productivity or mining and energy potential.
-Food sovereignty and family farming: Increased financial competition for land leads to higher land rents and increased food production costs. This displaces family, peasant, and indigenous farming, forcing small producers to abandon rural areas or become subject to precarious lease agreements.
-Territorial rights and local conflicts: Providing greater facilities for the acquisition of land by foreign companies and investment funds exacerbates pre-existing territorial conflicts, making invisible the community and historical forms of possession and sustainable use of land.
However, after the removal of the section on the Land Law, the "Inviolability of Private Property Law" bill, which is being debated in the Senate on Thursday, August 6, maintains a reform of 48 articles that accelerates evictions, modifies the Fire Management Law, toughens expropriations, and changes the rules on private property.
One of the most significant changes accelerates the legal process for recovering property. Cases will now be processed more quickly, and in some instances, a judge may order the restitution of the property before the trial concludes if they deem the owner's right sufficiently proven.
Another highly contested point modifies the Fire Management Law. Current legislation has for decades prevented changes in land use on fire-affected land to prevent it from being set ablaze for real estate, tourism, or agricultural purposes. The bill eliminates some of these restrictions and limits protection to a smaller group of lands and wetlands. With this change, the government seeks to facilitate future development on burned land and weakens a tool created to discourage arson.
The bill changes the rules so that the state can expropriate property when it needs to carry out a project of public interest. Until now, if the state needed land to build a road, a hospital, or a school, it had to justify the public utility and pay compensation for the value of the property.
The reform adds requirements and increases the amount that must be paid: in addition to the property price, it can include the profits the owner claims to have lost, a concept known as lost earnings. The change makes expropriations more expensive and could slow down or make projects needed by the population more difficult to complete. In practice, a road that needs land, a hospital that requires expansion, or a school that must be built in a neighborhood could be delayed if the State cannot cover the new costs. The government maintains that this legislation seeks to protect property rights; its critics warn that it ends up creating more obstacles to public investment and that the cost may ultimately be borne by society with less infrastructure or with projects that take longer to complete.
Latin America remains one of the regions with the greatest inequality in land distribution and ownership in the world. Regional experience demonstrates that the deregulation of rural real estate markets deepens the dependence on primary sector production, encourages enclave-based extractive models, and undermines the self-determination of communities over their ancestral lands.
From the Latin American Council of Social Sciences We reaffirm the urgent need to promote public policies based on empirical research, socio-territorial equity, and respect for the rights of rural communities and Indigenous peoples. Land represents a space for life, identity, and social reproduction; regulating its tenure is not an obstacle to development, but rather an essential condition for safeguarding national sovereignty, regional sustainability, the protection of common natural resources, and the living conditions of rural and Indigenous communities.
In short, land is a space for life, identity, and food sovereignty, and not merely a tradable commodity at the service of international financial speculation.
