The promised land

Examines the House of Lords ruling in Thorner v Curtis on whether the claimant could rely on proprietary estoppel against the estate of the deceased, who had died intestate, based on an assurance given by the deceased that the claimant would inherit the deceased's farm. Reviews case law on proprietary estoppel and testamentary promises, and considers the possible application of constructive trust doctrine in similar cases.

Killing fields. [Review of Rebel land: among Turkey's forgotten peoples by Christopher de Bellaigua]

Alev Adil explores a region still enraged by a 'crime on the sly'

FARM-Africa South Africa Northern Cape land reform and advocacy programme 2004-2008: final evaluation

FARM-Africa South Africa has played a crucial and important role in filling the gap that existed after the return of land to communities by government in the Northern Cape. Their support to farmer communities during the post-settlement phase has been critical for making productive use of land. During 2004-2008, FARM-SA has worked in 20 community projects in the Northern Cape, benefiting 745 poor households.

Famine and land in Ireland and India 1845-1880: James Caird and the political economy of hunger

The perception of Ireland and India as ‘zones of famine’ led many nineteenth-century observers to draw analogies between these two troublesome parts of the British empire. This article investigates this parallel through the career of James Caird (1816–92), and specifically his interventions in the latter stages of both the Great Irish Famine of 1845–50, and the Indian famines of 1876–9. Caird is best remembered as the joint author of the controversial dissenting minute in the Indian famine commission report of 1880; this article locates the roots of his stance in his previous engagements with Irish policy. Caird's interventions are used to track the trajectory of an evolving ‘Peelite’ position on famine relief, agricultural reconstruction, and land reform between the 1840s and 1880s. Despite some divergences, strong continuities exist between the two interventions – not least concern for the promotion of agricultural entrepreneurship, for actively assisting economic development in ‘backward’ economies, and an acknowledgement of state responsibility for preserving life as an end in itself. Above all in both cases it involved a critique of a laissez-faire dogmatism – whether manifest in the ‘Trevelyanism’ of 1846–50 or the Lytton–Temple system of 1876–9.