introduction:
Land and real estate represent one of the most important elements of national sovereignty, and are not merely funds or commodities to be bought and sold according to abstract market rules. Real estate is linked to a society’s history, identity, stability, and demographic composition, and constitutes one of the most important strategic resources upon which the modern state is built. From this perspective, most legislations worldwide have been careful to regulate non-citizen ownership of real estate, establishing controls that vary from one country to another according to its national interests and its security, economic, and social considerations.
In light of the historical transition Syria is undergoing, and the accompanying efforts to rebuild, attract investments, and revitalize the national economy, the debate has resurfaced regarding expanding the scope of non-Syrians’ ownership of real estate as one of the proposed means to attract foreign capital and stimulate construction and investment activity.
Undoubtedly, attracting investment is a legitimate goal and an economic necessity that cannot be ignored after years of war and the widespread destruction it has caused to the infrastructure and the national economy. However, the importance of this goal should not lead to decisions that could have far-reaching strategic consequences that will be difficult to remedy in the future, especially when it comes to permanent property ownership.
Investment and ownership are not synonymous. Investment is an economic activity aimed at establishing a project, developing an establishment, or utilizing capital in a way that benefits both the state and the investor. Permanent ownership of real estate, on the other hand, is the transfer of a portion of national wealth to a foreign individual or entity, potentially extending for generations. This gives it a sovereign dimension that transcends purely commercial considerations.
For this reason, most countries worldwide, including those with free market economies, do not leave real estate ownership by non-citizens unregulated. Instead, they impose various legal restrictions. Some require prior government approval, others prohibit ownership in border, military, or agricultural zones, and still others limit it to exceptional cases or offer long-term usufruct rights or investment privileges as alternatives. This underscores that regulating ownership is not an anti-investment stance, but rather a natural exercise of the state’s right to protect its sovereignty and national security.
In the Syrian case, this issue takes on even more sensitive dimensions, given the displacement, refuge, and forced migration of millions of Syrians during the years of the revolution. This has resulted in a large number of them losing the ability to manage, return to, or establish their property rights. Furthermore, property ownership files in many areas still require fair legal resolution to ensure the restoration of rights to their rightful owners.
From the perspective of transitional justice, new ownership rights should not take precedence over original ownership rights that remain disputed or that owners have been unable to exercise due to the circumstances of war and forced displacement.
Returning property to its rightful owners or enabling them to reclaim it is a legal and moral obligation that precedes any expansionary policy of transferring property ownership to non-citizens.
Therefore, the legal and moral priority dictates enabling Syrian citizens to reclaim their property rights and resolve the disputes arising from the years of war before considering any expansion of property ownership rights to non-Syrians.
Furthermore, opening the door to unrestricted property ownership could lead to a surge in real estate prices beyond the purchasing power of citizens, increased real estate speculation, and potentially the concentration of real estate in specific areas. This could affect the demographic, economic, or security balance in the future. Additionally, there is the possibility of companies, brokers, or capital of unknown origin being used to circumvent the law, thus necessitating strict legal and financial oversight.
Protecting real estate sovereignty does not equate to economic isolation, just as encouraging investment does not necessarily mean transferring land ownership. Successful nations are those that achieve a balance between these two objectives and effectively manage their strategic resources to serve their present and safeguard the future of their generations.
A Legal Perspective on Achieving a Balance Between Investment and Protecting National Property:
Rejecting the expansion of non-Syrians’ property ownership should not be interpreted as a rejection of foreign investment. On the contrary, the Syrian Future Movement believes that the Syrian economy needs capital, expertise, and international partnerships, and that foreign investment is a crucial partner in the reconstruction process and achieving sustainable development.
However, achieving this goal does not necessarily require the permanent transfer of property ownership. Numerous legal mechanisms exist to achieve the same economic objective, including long-term usufruct rights, investment contracts, build-operate-transfer (BOT) contracts, partnerships with Syrian investors, and other arrangements that ensure investment stability while the land remains under national ownership.
The sound management of real estate wealth is not based on closing investment opportunities, nor is it based on opening them without controls. Rather, it is based on achieving a balance between the requirements of economic development and the imperatives of national sovereignty and social justice. Land is not merely an economic resource; it is the nation’s asset, the collective memory of society, and the right of future generations. Any legislative policy concerning real estate ownership must stem from a long-term strategic vision that considers present interests without mortgaging the country’s future or compromising one of its most important national resources.
Accordingly, the Legal Office of the Syrian Future Movement believes that any future legislation regulating non-Syrians’ ownership of real estate should be based on a set of principles, foremost among them: preserving real estate sovereignty, prioritizing citizens’ rights, achieving a balance between investment and national interest, adopting legal means that have the least impact on national property whenever possible, enhancing transparency and disclosure, and linking any decision related to ownership to considerations of national security and the public interest.
The future of Syrian property ownership requires the following:
- Drafting a modern and comprehensive law to regulate non-Syrians’ ownership of real estate, balancing investment promotion with the protection of national sovereignty.
- Priority should be given to addressing the real estate ownership issues of displaced persons, refugees, and internally displaced Syrians, and ensuring the restoration of their rights before any expansion of ownership rights to non-Syrians.
- Long-term usufruct rights, investment contracts, and partnerships with Syrian investors should be adopted as alternatives to achieve economic development without transferring permanent ownership.
- Non-Syrians should be prohibited from owning real estate located in border areas, areas of military or security importance, archaeological sites, and strategic agricultural lands, except under exceptional regulations defined by law.
- Real estate purchases should be subject to strict financial and legal oversight to verify the sources of funds and prevent money laundering or circumvention of the law.
- A national registry for non-Syrians’ property ownership should be established to ensure the highest levels of transparency and disclosure.
- A periodic assessment of the impact of non-Syrians’ property ownership on real estate prices, demographic balance, and local development should be conducted.
- A national committee should be formed, comprising experts in law, economics, real estate, urban planning, and national security, to draft a comprehensive real estate law, drawing on comparative legislative experiences.
- The legislation should explicitly state that the right to invest does not necessarily entail the right to ownership, and that the principle should be to encourage productive investment while preserving national real estate ownership whenever possible.
- A national dialogue should be launched, involving legislative, judicial, and economic bodies, as well as civil society organizations, to arrive at a balanced real estate policy that enjoys the broadest possible consensus.
The Legal Office of the Syrian Future Movement affirms that protecting real estate sovereignty is not an anti-investment stance, nor does encouraging investment necessitate compromising one of the most important elements of national sovereignty. A truly wise state is one that succeeds in combining an open economy, just laws, preserved sovereignty, and protected rights. Only in this way can the modern Syria we all aspire to be built.
The Constitutional and Legal Basis for Regulating Non-Citizen Ownership:
The state’s right to regulate non-citizen ownership of real estate is based on a well-established legal and constitutional principle: the national territory, with all its components, especially land and property, falls under the state’s full sovereignty. Therefore, regulating the transfer of ownership is a core national legislative prerogative, exercised by states to achieve the public interest and preserve national security, economic stability, and social cohesion.
In international law, there is no general obligation for states to open real estate ownership to non-citizens. Rather, each state enjoys broad discretionary power to impose restrictions and conditions it deems appropriate, provided that these are applied in accordance with the rule of law and without arbitrary discrimination between similar legal situations.
For this reason, international investment agreements generally focus on protecting legitimate investment and ensuring that property is not expropriated without fair compensation, but they do not obligate states to grant foreigners the right to own real estate in the first place.
Comparative legislative experiences confirm this principle. Many countries, despite adopting market economies and encouraging foreign investment, still impose varying restrictions on non-citizen ownership of real estate. In some countries, property ownership is subject to prior approval from the relevant authorities. In others, it is prohibited in border, military, agricultural, or strategically important areas. Meanwhile, several countries have recently tightened restrictions on housing purchases by non-citizens to curb real estate speculation and protect citizens’ ability to own property.
Other countries have opted to grant foreign investors usufruct rights or long-term lease and investment contracts, rather than permanent property ownership, thus achieving economic objectives while simultaneously preserving the state’s property sovereignty.
Therefore, the call to regulate non-Syrians’ property ownership is not an exceptional approach or a closed stance towards investment. Rather, it aligns with the principles of public law and the legislative practices in place in many countries worldwide. It is based on the state’s inherent right to manage its strategic resources in a way that serves the interests of its people and safeguards the rights of future generations.The Legal Office of the Syrian Future Movement recommends
