Public Benefit as a Legal Imperative for Eminent Domain: A Comparative Analysis of Iraq, and Lebanon’s Jurisprudence

Abstract

This study offers a legal examination of eminent domain in Iraq, juxtaposing its statutory and judicial frameworks with those of Lebanon and France, while also presenting the implementation of the balancing theory in judicial review.  Iraqi law acknowledges the principle of eminent domain as per Law No. 12 of 1981; nonetheless, it does not provide a clear legal definition of "public benefit" and restricts judicial review to procedural formalities.  Conversely, the Lebanese model allows for extensive judicial involvement, while the French Council of State has established a systematic balancing test to evaluate public interest against private detriment, as demonstrated by the Ville Nouvelle Est case. In Malaysia eminent domain (Expropriation) nobody can contest the state's land acquisition process, which involves the appropriation and removal of private property owners from their properties. The paper classifies Iraq's eminent domain activities into consensual, judicial, and administrative categories, emphasising their procedural inadequacies and vulnerability to arbitrary misuse. The study, viewed through a comparative legal perspective, promotes increased judicial oversight in Iraq by integrating the balancing theory, reallocating jurisdiction to administrative courts, and requiring explicit reasons for eminent domain.  An influential Iraqi court case is examined to illustrate a developing transition towards substantive review. The paper recommends legislative amendments to guarantee openness, proportionality, and fairness in the implementation of eminent domain, based on economic rationale and human rights protections.