On Wednesday evening, 30 September 2026, Jusoor for Studies hosted a dialogue salon at its headquarters in Damascus titled "Protests Against Land Expropriations in Syria: Where Are They Headed?", with the participation of human rights and civil society activists, representatives of local residents affected by expropriation files, alongside government and legal figures concerned with the issue.
The salon discussed the reality of expropriations in Syria and their legal, social, and economic repercussions amid rising demands to address the rights of affected landowners, through two main themes: The first theme addressed the historical development of the expropriation system in Syria and the objectives underlying expropriation laws and urban planning projects, in addition to the effects of their implementation on property owners, particularly in cases where landowners' rights remained in dispute, or where determined compensations were not commensurate with the actual value of the property and the damages incurred.
Participants reflected on the statement issued by the Ministry of Housing regarding the expropriation file, expressing disappointment with its content during the discussion—particularly regarding its reliance on the existence of predetermined compensation for property owners without addressing the fairness and adequacy of that compensation, alongside the justification related to delays in achieving the public benefit of projects established on expropriated land. In contrast, representatives of property owners raised questions regarding the feasibility of continuing expropriations and projects that, in some cases, exceed the state’s capacity for investment and implementation. They argued that keeping lands expropriated without fulfilling the public purpose for which they were taken opens the door to questions regarding the legitimacy of the ongoing effects of expropriation and the rights of property owners. Participants also discussed the shift in the concept of public benefit and whether the persistence of the effects of expropriation after the purpose has changed or project implementation has stalled warrants a review of the legal status of the property, compensation mechanisms, and redress for damages.
In the second theme, the discussion shifted to the question of the government's ability to address the expropriation file in light of its legal complexities, economic and social legacy, and associated investment and zoning projects built on expropriated lands. The debate centered on a broader question concerning the nature of the state's role at the current stage: Is the state moving toward building a model based on protecting citizens' rights, guaranteeing property ownership, and equity, or could the persistence of certain remnants of the previous expropriation system keep the relationship with public and private property confined to a revenue-collection logic? Participants stressed that addressing the file cannot be limited to issuing unilateral decisions, but rather requires a clear roadmap for a solution that takes into account legal, economic, and social challenges, balancing the rights of landowners, the public interest, and the rights of investors whose projects were established on those lands.
The discussion noted that the expropriation issue goes beyond being merely a real estate or financial dispute, given the wide segment of affected individuals and the file's connection to trust between citizens and state institutions. This makes addressing it part of a broader trajectory related to economic and social justice, and the consolidation of national stability and security. In this context, it was emphasized that the importance of resolving this file is also tied to the fact that a large segment of rights holders are citizens who supported the Syrian revolution and struggled for freedom and their rights, which means the persistence of this problem without a fair resolution could increase tensions and undermine confidence in the state and its institutions. The discussion concluded that the nature of the expropriation file requires a legal and participatory track bringing together landowners, government institutions, and legal and economic entities, thereby enabling a transition from protest management to addressing the root causes of the problem.
In this context, a set of proposals was put forward, most notably: immediately halting investment projects built on expropriated land until the legal status of landowners' rights is resolved and resolution mechanisms are determined; forming a committee by presidential decree to address the Expropriation Law and Decree 66, comprising legal and economic figures, representatives of landowners, and members of the Supreme Ifta Council to ensure diverse expertise and stakeholders involved in formulating the solution; accelerating the review and repeal of laws inherited from the Assad regime era—foremost among them the Expropriation Law and Decree 66—and addressing their legal ramifications, especially those still used to establish or complete investment projects on expropriated land, following the model of the People's Assembly's passage of the repeal of the Counter-Terrorism Court on 16 September 2026 and the overturning of its rulings; and adopting a draft law on financial compensation and redress for owners of expropriated land, particularly in cases where investment projects have been established, in a manner that accounts for the extent of damage, the actual value of the property, and the repercussions resulting from its loss.
In conclusion, participants emphasized that reaching a sustainable solution requires moving away from treating expropriation as an isolated administrative matter toward recognizing it as a rights-based, economic, and social issue of national dimensions, and that the success of any resolution depends on establishing a clear legal framework, a participatory mechanism, transparency in reviewing files, and genuine guarantees for rights holders.