dw.com
Ukraine Legalizes Acquisition of Illegally Obtained Property After 10 Years
Ukraine's President Zelenskyy signed a law allowing good-faith acquirers to keep illegally obtained land and property after a 10-year period, sparking debate among businesses and activists, with concerns over environmental impacts and legal challenges.
- What are the immediate consequences of Ukraine's new law on property acquisition, considering its impact on both businesses and environmental protection?
- Ukraine recently passed a law allowing good-faith acquirers to keep illegally obtained property after 10 years, sparking controversy. President Zelenskyy signed the bill despite numerous petitions against it. The law aims to protect businesses from legal challenges, but critics argue it legalizes land grabs and undermines environmental protection.
- What long-term systemic risks does this legislation pose for Ukraine's governance and its commitment to environmental protection and cultural preservation?
- This legislation significantly impacts Ukraine's investment climate and legal framework concerning land ownership. While proponents claim it attracts foreign investment by reducing legal uncertainty, opponents fear it could lead to the loss of vital natural areas and cultural assets. The constitutionality of this law may be challenged.
- How does the 10-year statute of limitations in this law affect the balance between protecting good-faith acquirers and recovering illegally obtained land, particularly concerning environmental assets?
- The new law establishes a 10-year statute of limitations for reclaiming illegally acquired land and property. While the government must compensate good-faith acquirers who lose property in court, they receive no compensation. Exceptions exist for strategic lands and cultural heritage sites.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's headline and introduction emphasize the law's benefits for businesses, framing it as a positive step for economic development. The positive perspectives of business leaders are prominently featured, while criticism from activists and heritage groups is presented later and with less emphasis. This framing may influence readers to perceive the law more favorably than a balanced presentation might allow. The inclusion of quotes from business leaders highlighting the positive impact on investment climate and reduction of pressure from law enforcement significantly shapes the reader's perception of the law's importance.
Language Bias
The article uses language that often favors the business perspective. Words like "positive", "critical", and "favorable" are employed when describing business reactions. While the article does mention criticisms from activists, the language used to describe them is less positive, potentially influencing reader perception. For example, the word "obstructed" used to describe the activists' views is less neutral than "concerned" or "critical".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the perspectives of businesses and government officials who support the law, while the concerns of environmental and heritage groups are presented largely as counterpoints. The potential long-term environmental and cultural impacts of the law are not fully explored, and the article omits discussion of alternative solutions that could balance property rights with environmental and heritage protection. This omission may leave readers with an incomplete understanding of the potential consequences of the law.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between protecting business interests and protecting environmental and cultural heritage. It frames the debate as a choice between supporting economic development and upholding environmental regulations, neglecting the possibility of finding a compromise or alternative approaches that address both concerns.
Sustainable Development Goals
The new law in Ukraine legalizes the acquisition of land even if it was illegally obtained, potentially leading to the legalization of many "resonant buildings" and illegal land schemes. This undermines sustainable urban development and could negatively impact environmental protection and urban planning.