Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 30, 2023

Eunuchs in China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Eunuchs in China
A group of eunuchs in a mural from the tomb of Prince Zhanghuai, AD 706

A eunuch is a castrated man. Castration has had a social function in history. In China, castration included the removal of the penis and the testicles (emasculation). A knife removed both organs at the same time. Eunuchs have existed in China since about 146 AD, during the reign of Emperor Huan of Han and were common as civil servants by the Qing dynasty. From ancient times to the Sui dynasty, castration was a traditional punishment (one of the Five Punishments) and a means of gaining employment in the imperial service. Some eunuchs, such as the Ming dynasty official Zheng He, gained power that superseded that of the Grand Secretaries. Self-castration was not uncommon, although it was not always performed thoroughly and was later banned.

Eunuchs were employed as high-ranking civil servants because they could not have children, so they were not tempted to seize power and begin a dynasty. They were also used to guard the Emperors wives and concubines. In addition, many in the palace considered eunuchs more reliable than scholar-officials. Finally, as a symbolic assignment of divine authority in the palace system, a constellation of stars was designated as the emperor's; west of the constellation, four stars were known as his "eunuchs."

The tension between eunuchs in the service of the emperor and virtuous Confucian officials is a familiar theme in Chinese history. In his History of Government, Samuel Finer writes that reality often needs to be clearly defined. The emperor valued capable eunuchs as advisers, and resistance from "virtuous" officials often stemmed from jealousy. Ray Huang says that eunuchs represented the personal will of the Emperor, and the officials represented the political will of the bureaucracy; a clash between them would have been a clash of ideologies or political agendas.

The number of eunuchs in imperial employment fell to 470 by 1912. The Chinese government abolished the eunuch system on November 5, 1924. The last imperial eunuch, Sun Yaoting, died in December 1996.

History

Qin (221–206 BC) and Han dynasties (202 BC–9 AD, 25–220 AD)

Men sentenced to castration became eunuch slaves of the Qin dynasty, performing forced labor for projects such as the Terracotta Army. The Qin government confiscated the property and enslaved and castrated the families of rapists as punishment.

In Han dynasty China, references to castration were gōngxíng (宮刑 "palace punishment") or fǔxíng (腐刑 "rotting punishment"), and euphemistically as being "sent to the silkworm house," referring to the new castrate's confinement in a room (like a silkworm) to prevent infection and death. In addition, punished castrated men during the Han dynasty were used for slave labor.

Notable men castrated under Han law included:

  • Historian Sima Qian was charged with dissent and castrated.
  • Emperor Wu ordered the castration of a prince of Loulan Kingdom Xinjiang as punishment for breaking a law.
  • Zhang He, the older brother of Zhang Anshi, had been sentenced to death but was castrated when his brother pleaded for a commuted castration sentence.
  • Li Yannian suffered punishment by castration for a crime.
  • Envoy Ge Du (Ke Too) was castrated for not killing the "Mad King" of the Wusun, instead helping the king by supplying doctors to cure his illness.
  • Su Wen suffered castration for supporting prince Liu Fuling and his mother, Lady Zhao, against Liu Ju (crown prince of Wei) and his mother, Wei Zifu.

Near the end of the Han dynasty in 189, a group of eunuchs known as the Ten Attendants gained considerable power in the imperial court; several warlords planned their murder to restore the emperor's government. The loyalist warlord He Jin was lured into a trap in the palace and killed by the eunuchs. The other warlords, led by Yuan Shao, stormed the court and massacred the Ten Attendants and many other eunuchs. In the wake of the fighting, Dong Zhuo seized power. Castration was abolished twice as a punishment under the Han dynasty: before 167 BC, then during the 110s AD.

Northern Wei (386–535 AD) and Northern Qi (550–577 AD) dynasties

In 446 AD, the Northern Wei crushed an ethnic Qiang rebellion. Wang Yu was a castrated Qiang eunuch who may have undergone castration during the uprising as the Northern Wei frequently castrated elite young Qiang. He was born in the town of Lirun, in Fengyi prefecture (present-day Chengcheng County). Wang Yu, a Buddhist, had a temple built at his birthplace in 488.

The Northern Wei had the young sons of rebels and traitors castrated, forcing them to serve in the palace as eunuchs. Notable survivors of this practice include Liu Siyi (Liu Ssu-i), Yuwen Zhou (Yü-wen Chou 宇文冑), Duan Ba, Wang Zhi, Liu Teng, and Sun Shao. The Northern Qi Gao Huan had Shu Lüè castrated and made a messenger eunuch because his father, Fan Guan (Fan Kuan 樊觀), remained loyal to the Northern Wei. The Northern Wei presented northern wives to Liu Song generals Cui Mo and Shen Mo. Shen Mo had a son, Lingdu, and fled back south to Liu Song; in retaliation, the Northern Wei castrated Lingdu. Cui Mo never returned south, and his northern son escaped punishment.

The eunuch Zong Ai killed two Northern Wei emperors and a prince. The Empress Dowager Hu (Northern Qi) mourned for the eunuch Meng Luan. She reportedly engaged in sexual relations with her eunuchs; traditional historians used the term xiexia (褻狎, "immoral games"), rather than "adultery", to describe her acts with them.

Sui (581–618 AD) and Tang dynasties (618–907 AD)

Indigenous people from southern China endured castration for use as eunuchs during the Sui and Tang dynasties. For example, the rebel An Lushan had a Khitan (Liao) eunuch named Li Zhu'er (李豬兒) (Li Chu'er) when he was a teenager. Lushan used a sword to cut off Zhu'er's genitals, nearly killing him from blood loss and reviving him after putting ashes on his injury. Zhu'er then served Lushan for life and was highly trusted by him, frequently aiding the obese Lushan at home and in the Huaqing (Hua-ch'ing) steam baths. Lushan developed a skin disease and became blind and paranoid later in life, which prompted him to flog and murder his subordinates. Lushan's enemies convinced Zhu'er and Yan Zhuang (Yen Chuang) (嚴莊) to assassinate him, and Zhu'er disemboweled Lushan.

Liao (916–1125 AD), Jin (1115–1234 AD), and Yuan (1271–1368 AD) dynasties

The Liao, Jin, and Yuan dynasties regularly castrated enemy prisoners of war under age 10, forcing them to serve royalty or esteemed citizens. As a result, the war created many opportunities for men and women to kidnap the young sons of enemy combatants and elite civilians. Khitan (Liao) women would fight beside men in combat, and these women took advantage of the number of captured young prisoners of war to fill their palaces with prepubescent eunuchs. These young eunuchs were domestic enslaved people, frequently serving harems of royal women, titled ladies of the court, and concubines, and had no political or social power.

The Khitans captured Chinese eunuchs at the Jin court after their Later Jin invasion. Their war with the Song dynasty helped the Khitans to create more eunuchs. The Khitan Empress Dowager Chengtian led a raid on China and captured 100 young (under age 10), attractive Han Chinese boys to make into eunuchs. One of these eunuchs was Wang Ji'en (王继恩 (辽朝)); another was Zhao Anren (赵安仁). Notable Jin dynasty eunuchs were Liang Chong (梁珫) and Song Gui (宋珪).

Like the dynasties which rose and fell before theirs, the Khitans enacted an ordinance permitting castration in 962 after the rape of a footsoldier's young daughter during the reign of Emperor Muzong of Liao. The rapist (an uncle of an imperial consort) was castrated and enslaved to his victim for life. Like the Mongol Empire, Goryeo (Korea) provided eunuchs to the Mongols; they included Bak Bulhwa, Go Yongbo, and Bang Sinu. Some eunuchs adopted Mongol names.

Ming dynasty (1368–1644)

Castration became a banned legal punishment at the end of Ming Taizu's reign, the first Ming emperor, who reigned over eunuchs from Mongolian, Korea, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Central Asian, Thai, and Okinawan tribes. There were also Korean, Jurchen, Mongolian, Central Asian, and Vietnamese eunuchs under the Yongle Emperor, including Mongol eunuchs who served him when he was the Prince of Yan. Muslim and Mongol eunuchs were in the Ming court, such as those captured from Mongol-controlled Yunnan in 1381; among them was the Ming maritime explorer Zheng He, who served Yongle. The Ming court sent Muslim eunuchs as ambassadors to the Timurids. Vietnamese eunuchs, including Ruan Lang, Ruan An (Nguyễn An), Fan Hong, Chen Wu, and Wang Jin, were sent by Zhang Fu. Korea sent 198 eunuchs, many from Southeast Asia and Korea, to Ming Taizu before ending human tribute in 1435. By the late Ming dynasty, nearly 80 percent of eunuchs came from North China (primarily the Beijing region).

Violence in surrounding countries

Ming Taizu had a contentious relationship with the Korean Joseon dynasty, often competing for influence over the Jurchens in Manchuria. Korean-born Ming eunuch ambassadors flogged Korean officials due to their unmet demands. Ambassadors were sometimes arrogant; in 1398, a drunk Sin Kwi-Saeng brandished a knife in the king's presence at dinner. Sino-Korean relations later became amiable, and the Korean envoy's seat at the Ming court was the highest of the tributaries. The Jurchen eunuch explorer Yishiha lived during the Yongle emperor's reign.

During the Miao rebellions, the Ming governor castrated thousands of Miao boys and gave them to officials as enslaved people; however, Emperor Yingzong of Ming reprimanded him. Prince Zhu Shuang had several Tibetan boys castrated, and Tibetan women seized after a war against the Tibetans. He was a denounced prince after his death.

During the Lê dynasty, Vietnamese emperor Lê Thánh Tông cracked down on foreign contacts and enforced isolationism. His policies affected trade between Guangdong (Leizhou Peninsula and Hainan) and Vietnam, with accounts of captured Chinese sailors blown off course being captured and castrated to become slaves of the Vietnamese.

Malay envoys from the Malacca Sultanate were attacked and captured in 1469 by the Vietnamese navy as they returned to Malacca from China. The Vietnamese enslaved and castrated the young captives.

A 1499 entry in the Ming Shilu reported that during the 1460s, under the Chenghua Emperor (1464–1487 AD), 13 Chinese men from Wenchang (including Wu Rui) were captured by the Vietnamese after their ship was blown off course from Hainan to Guangdong's Qin subprefecture (Qinzhou) and landed near the coast of Vietnam. The Emperor enslaved 12 of the 13 sailors as agricultural laborers; the youngest Chinese man, Wu Rui (吳瑞), was selected by the Vietnamese court for castration and became a eunuch at the Imperial Citadel of Thang Long for nearly 25 years. After the death of Lê Thánh Tông in 1497, Wu Rui became a military superintendent in northern Vietnam. An Lạng Sơn guard told him about a route back to China, and Rui escaped to Longzhou after walking for nine days through the mountains. Local ethnic minority Tusi chief Wei Chen took him into custody, overruling objections from his family (who wanted to return him to Vietnam). Learning about his escape and fearing that he would reveal Vietnamese state secrets, officials sent an agent to repurchase Rui from Wei Chen. An argument about price began; Pingxiang magistrate Li Guangning rescued Rui and sent him to Beijing to serve in the Ming palace.

In 1467, a similar entry in the Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư reports that a Chinese ship blew onshore in the An Bang province of Dai Viet (present-day Quảng Ninh Province). Lê Thánh Tông ordered the Chinese to be detained and not allowed to return to China. Historians Leo K. Shin, John K. Whitmore, and Tana Li suggest that these accounts of sailors blown off course and being captured and castrated may point to Chinese involvement in illegal trade, which the Vietnamese government suppressed.

Rumors about the Ming Zhengde Emperor's possible conversion to Islam abounded after he encouraged his Muslim eunuchs to commission the production of porcelain with blue-and-white inscriptions in Persian and Arabic. Suspicion grew when the emperor was associated with an anti-pig-slaughter mandate, although the author of the proclamation is unknown. Muslim eunuchs contributed money in 1496 to repair the Niujie Mosque, the largest mosque and Muslim cultural center in Beijing, and the emperor's association with his Muslim eunuchs triggered gossip.

The emperor employed nearly 70,000 eunuchs by the end of the Ming dynasty, with some serving in the imperial palace. The dynasty's eunuch population peaked at 100,000. In popular cultural texts, such as Zhang Yingyu's The Book of Swindles (c. 1617), eunuchs were described negatively and accused of enriching themselves with excessive taxation and indulging in cannibalism and sexual debauchery.

The Southern Ming Yongli emperor's wife, Empress Wang, had a young eunuch enslaved person who later wrote an account detailing his childhood in Huguang province's Jingzhou prefecture. First, the eunuch writes that rebels killed his parents; one of the rebels adopted him, who later became a Southern Ming soldier. Then, in 1656, the Southern Ming court ordered high-ranking military officers to give up their sons over the age of seven years for castration in Kunming (Yunnan Fu) and enslavement in the Yongli court. Over 20 boys were castrated one month after the order, including Empress Wang's slave (despite his adoptive father's attempts to save him).

Wang Ruoshue and Pang Tianshou were eunuchs in Zhu Youlang's court.

Imperial eunuchs

In Ming China, eunuchs were a cornerstone of daily operations in the imperial palace. First and foremost was maintaining a comfortable life for the emperor. Their other responsibilities varied in significance, encompassing almost every aspect of the palace routine. They included procuring copper, tin, wood, and iron and repairing and constructing ponds, castle gates, and palaces in major cities like Beijing and Nanjing and the mansions and mausoleums of imperial relatives. Eunuchs prepared meals for many people and cared for pets and wild animals in and around the palace.

They worked closely with other professionals in the palace, frequently associating with those in lower-ranking occupations. In addition, some eunuchs had supportive partnerships with serving women in the palace; the name for such a pair was a "vegetarian couple" (duishi). The relationships offered security and protection to both parties, enabling them to interact with higher-ranking Mandarin bureaucrats.

The duties of eunuchs evolved. The Hongwu Emperor decreed that a few uneducated eunuchs should be kept (to prevent them from seizing power). Still, later emperors began to train and educate eunuchs and often made them their secretaries. The elimination of previous restrictions allowed some eunuchs (particularly Wang Zhen, Liu Jin, and Wei Zhongxian) to attain great power. The Yongle Emperor established the Eastern Depot, a spy and secret police agency run by eunuchs from 1420 to 1644. Zheng He was a seafaring pioneer who spread Chinese influence extensively.

Reputation

Eunuchs were controversial in Ming China as they had a reputation for spying. They served the harem and the emperors who believed they could carry valuable information. Fearful bureaucrat scholars thought of eunuchs as greedy, evil, cunning, and duplicitous because they worked in the palace or other official houses with many concubines. In Chinese society, castration broke conventional moral rules; a son without a male heir to carry on the family name contradicted Confucian ideology. Eunuchs in the palace were stereotyped as exceeding their authority in areas where they did not belong. The Yongle Emperor allowed them to supervise the implementation of political tasks, and eunuchs sometimes interfered in the succession to the throne. As their presence and power increased, they gradually took over the duties of female palace musicians and became the dominant Ming palace musicians.

Qing dynasty (1634-1912)

Photo of the Empress Dowager Cixi in a sedan chair, surrounded by many eunuchs
The Empress Dowager Cixi carried and accompanied by palace eunuchs before 1908
Photo of a young eunuch, nude from the waist down
A young, emasculated eunuch in 1901
Photo of Empress Longyu with five eunuchs
Empress Longyu with five eunuchs; Zhang Lande is third from the left.

Although eunuchs were employed by all Chinese dynasties, their opportunities declined during the Qing dynasty; their work was largely replaced by the Imperial Household Department, which had managed their employment since the reign of the Kangxi Emperor. The Qing palace tended to recruit eunuchs from Zhili who were primarily unmarried adolescent-to-mid-20s Han Chinese from northern Shandong and the counties of Wanping, Jinghai, Daxing, and Hejian in southern Hebei near Beijing. A small number of southern Chinese from Yunnan, Zhejiang, and Guangdong became eunuchs, but the increase was minor compared to the number of eunuchs from the counties around Beijing. In 1621, the Qing beile (princes) were erroneously told that their palace women would have sex with their young male slaves and were instructed to have the slaves castrated by Nurhaci.

At the beginning of the 20th century, about 2,000 eunuchs worked in the Forbidden City; they were notorious for corruption and theft during the later dynasty after being routinely beaten and abused as slaves governed by a frequently hostile and violent emperor. Many men willingly became eunuchs because of poverty in China, also experiencing physical violence to live a better life. Puyi, the last emperor, wrote about growing up in the Forbidden City: "By the age of 11, flogging eunuchs was part of my daily routine. My cruelty and love of power were already too firmly set for persuasion to have any effect on me... Whenever I was in a bad temper the eunuchs would be in for trouble." A yellow bag with bamboo sticks were kept in the Forbidden City, and Empress Dowager Cixi once ordered the palace servant girls and court women to beat the eunuchs with them. Eunuchs would be punished more unless they begged their mistress (or master) for mercy.

Lin Shuangwen rebellion and aftermath

A new policy of castrating rebels and the sons of killers of three or more related people helped bolster the dwindling supply of young eunuchs for the Qing summer palace. The Qing lowered their age limit for castrating the sons of rebels from nine to four years of age. The Qing Imperial Household Department sometimes waited until the boys were 11 years old before castrating them; two young, imprisoned sons of executed murderer Sui Bilong from Shandong were not castrated until they were older. However, the department immediately castrated 11-year-old, Hunanese Fang Mingzai after his father was executed for murder. One hundred thirty sons of participants in the Lin Shuangwen rebellion, aged four to fifteen, were castrated on the orders of the Qianlong Emperor and Heshen (including rebel leader Zhuang Datian's four-year-old grandson, Zhuang Amo). The rebel leader Datian's family and the family of Lin Da were punished for their participation in the rebellion. Lin Shuangwen ordered Lin Da to lead a group of 100 rebels, and titled him "General Xuanlue". After the rebellion, Lin Da was executed by Lingchi at age 42. He had six sons; the two eldest died before the rebellion, his third son (Lin Dou) died of disease in Beijing before he could be castrated, and his fourth and fifth sons (11-year-old Lin Biao and 8-year-old Lin Xian) were castrated. His sixth and youngest son (seven-year-old Lin Mading) was adopted by his uncle, Lin Qin; since Lin Qin did not join the rebellion, Lin Mading was not castrated and had two children after marrying in 1800.

Castration policy changes

The Qing policy of castrating the sons of rebels and murderers with three or more victims was inspired by the 1781 case of an 18-year-old nephew of a rebel whose death sentence was commuted to castration. Castration for the sons of rebels and murderers was reintroduced by the Qing during the 18th century, after its abolition in the Tang and Ming dynasties. In 1793, Qianlong and the Imperial Household Department (under Heshen) decreed that the sons of murderers over age 16 would be exiled as slaves to the frontier after castration; sons under 16 would be kept as eunuchs in the imperial palace, in the belief that the younger sons could be controlled more easily.

Sons of murderers

The Qianlong Emperor reviewed the case of Zhao Cheng (赵成), who slept with his son's wife. His son, Zhao Youliang, did not want to report his father and took his wife to the safety of their relatives (the Niu family). Zhao Cheng's friend, Sun Si (孙四), helped him murder five members of the Niu family (which he blamed on his son). Under torture and interrogation, Zhao Youliang did not implicate his father. Officials surmised that the murders were probably committed by more than one person and, after torturing and interrogating the Niu family's neighbors, learned that Zhao Cheng and Sun Si committed the murders. The penalty for mass murder was the execution of the same number of individuals from the perpetrator's family as the murder victims. Officials were hesitant to execute Zhao Youliang for his father's crimes and asked the Qianlong Emperor for guidance. The emperor decided that the son should be castrated; although he was the son of a murderer, he was victimized by his father.

In 1791, a mass murderer killed 11 and injured 12 unrelated people. The Qing punishment-by-castration policy made clear the two requirements to grant a murderer castration instead of execution: at least three people must be murdered, and all victims must be members of the same family. Disregarding the requirement for a victim-familial relationship, the Qing Emperor ordered the murderer's sons to be castrated instead of executed. In a related 1789 incident in Henan, three brothers were killed and a fourth brother was severely injured in an attack by a tenant farmer named Zhang. The emperor ordered the castration of Zhang's two sons, instead of execution; Zhang was sentenced to death by lingchi. In 1872, Liu Ch'ang-Yu of Henan was taken by the Imperial Household Department for castration when he became of age to be enslaved as a eunuch in a princely establishment; his father had murdered several relatives.

Sons of rebels

The Qing changed its law about the punishment by castration of sons of rebels four times (in 1801, 1814, 1835, and 1845), saying that if the sons and grandsons of rebels claimed ignorance of their father (or grandfather's) rebellious intent they would be sent to the Imperial Household Department for castration as adults or children. Notable Qing enactments were:

  • 1849: Taiping rebel Shi Dakai's two sons, five-year-old Shi Dingzhong and his younger brother Shi Dingji were sentenced to imprisonment until they reached age 11 (when they would be castrated). It is unknown if the castrations were carried out.
  • 1856: Rebels were captured in the metropolitan province of Zhili with several boys under the age of 15. The rebel adults were beheaded, and the boys were castrated.
  • 1862: Qing forces under Zuo Zongtang suppressed the 1862–1877 Dungan Revolt. The sons of Muslim Hui and Salar rebel leaders in Ningxia, Gansu, and Qinghai, including Ma Benyuan (马本源), were castrated by the Imperial Household Department at age 11 and sent to work as slaves for garrisons in Xinjiang. The wives of the rebel leaders were also enslaved. Ma Jincheng, a son of the Hui Naqshbandi leader Ma Hualong, was also castrated. The department castrated and enslaved Ma Guiyuan's (马桂源) nine sons, since they had reached age 12, and sent them to Qing soldiers in Xinjiang.
  • 1870: Zhang Wenxiang (張汶祥) was accused of the assassination of Ma Xinyi and executed. Before his execution, he was forced to watch his 11-year-old son Zhang Changpao (張長幅) being tortured to get him to confess to the assassination (thought to be a conspiracy by the Qing government against Ma Xinyi). After his father's execution, the boy was castrated by the Imperial Household Department.
  • 1872: Li Mao-Tz'e (Li Maozi), who had rebelled at the border of Henan (Honan) and Anhui (Anhwei) provinces, was executed. His six-year-old son, Li Liu, was captured by Qing forces in Anhui and handed over to Yulu (Yu Luh), the governor of Anhui. Imprisoned in the office of the district magistrate of Huaining (Hwaining) until reaching age 11 in 1877; he was handed to the Imperial Household Department for castration. His case appeared on 28 November 1877 in the Peking Gazette.
  • 1879: Central Asian Muslim conqueror Yaqub Beg was accused of rebellious sedition in 1879, which resulted in the capture of his three sons and one grandson under the age of ten. The court waited until the boys were 11 before trying them for their assumed knowledge of their father's sedition; they faced a slow, agonizing execution if found guilty, and castration and enslavement if acquitted. They were found not guilty and handed over to the Imperial Household Department for castration. Surviving members of Beg's family included four sons, four grandchildren (two boys and two girls), and four wives. All died in prison in Lanzhou, Gansu, or were killed.
  • 1907: Anti-Qing revolutionary Xu Xilin (Hsü Hsi-lin) and his son, Xu Xuewen (1906–1991), were arrested by the Qing. Under Qing law, Xu Xuewen (who was under the age of 16), was supposed to be castrated as punishment. The Qing was overthrown in 1912, however, and the castration was not carried out.

Young eunuchs used for intimate services

Distant photo in front of a large building
The Empress Dowager Cixi, Empress Longyu, and other women with eunuch Cui Yugui, 1902

Sir John Barrow, 1st Baronet noted on his visit to the Qing summer palace as part of the 1793 Macartney Mission that there were two types of Chinese eunuchs: those without testicles (who inspected and maintained buildings, gardens, and other palace works) and those (called rasibus by local Catholic missionaries) who had also had their penises and testicles – amputated. Barrow notes that the term "black eunuch" referred not to skin color but referenced the Ottoman Empire term for eunuchs who had their penis removed. These eunuchs served inside the palace, attending to the imperial harem. The young, emasculated eunuchs, considered nearly as coquettish as the women they served, often painted their faces like the imperial women. Barrow noted that all the Chinese eunuchs (including the rasibus) had female slaves, purchased from poor families who sold their daughters. The Qing court and the eunuchs, however, considered eunuchs male and not female or third sex.

Grainy photo
Empress Longyu, with a eunuch behind her on the right and a palace maid on the left

The 19th-century British researcher George Carter Stent and later historian Norman A. Kutcher observed that young eunuchs were prized by female members of the Qing imperial family as attendants. Both note that young eunuchs were physically attractive, considered "completely pure", and were used for "impossible to describe" duties by female members of the imperial family. Kutcher suggests that the boys were used for sexual pleasure by Qing imperial women, likening them to other young eunuchs called "earrings" who were also used for that purpose. Young eunuchs were used for intimate bathroom and bedroom duties by palace ladies.

During the Qing dynasty, eunuchs satisfied women sexually through use of dildos, oral sex, or foreplay. Liang Zhangju (1775–1849) wrote in his "Wandering Talk" sketches that palace eunuchs performed oral sex on the women and caressed them until the women were sexually satisfied. Eunuchs used dildos and hormones to have a "dry-run orgasm with diminished sensation to reduce the effects of castration", especially if they were past puberty when castrated. Eunuchs still had a sexual desire after castration but were sexually frustrated. The eunuch Zhang Delang engaged in sexual acts with a prostitute in Tianjin's Japanese concession (where he lived after the fall of the Qing) and married three women. Yu Chunhe, a eunuch who worked for Delang, said he was "burning with fever and desire" as he watched Delang and the prostitute. Cixi (Tsu-Hsi) suggested that eunuch Xiao Dezhang (Hsiao Teh-chang) (Zhang Lande) become a sexual partner of the Longyu empress (Lung-yu), since the Guangxi emperor (Kuang Hsu) was impotent. Zhang Lande also had a love affair with Han banner woman Yu Roung Ling, a sister of Princess Der Ling. Sexual relations and marriage between eunuchs and palace maids was referred to as duishi.

Eunuchs and Banner-women

Photo of a young, serious-looking Nellie Yu Roung Ling
Han Banner woman Yu Roung Ling

The Manchu palace maid Ronger (榮兒) (b. 1880) of the Manchu Hešeri clan wrote The Memoirs of a Palace Maid, an autobiography about her experiences as a Qing palace maid. She retired from service at age 18 and was married to Liu, a Han Chinese eunuch given to her by the Dowager Empress Cixi and an adopted son of eunuch Liu Lianying. Ronger writes that Qing court rules required that all court eunuchs must be Han Chinese and not from the Eight Banners (administrative and military divisions in the Later Jin and Qing dynasties into which all Manchu households were placed). All palace maids had to be Manchu Banner-women from the three Upper Banners and were required to "stay ten years at the palace to wait upon Her Majesty, and then they are free to marry". Han girls were not allowed to be palace maids unless their Han Banner-man father was a high official of the sixth rank or higher, and Han fathers were not required to send their daughters to serve.

End of the dynasty

The Qing dynasty ended after the 1911 Revolution. Puyi (the last Qing emperor) continued to live in the Forbidden City with his eunuchs with financial support from the new Chinese republic until 1924 when he and his entourage were expelled by the warlord general Feng Yuxiang. In 1923, after a fire that Puyi believed was started to cover the theft of his imperial treasures, he expelled the eunuchs from the Forbidden City.

Notable eunuchs

First millennium BC

  • Zhao Gao (d. 210 BC) – favorite of Qin Shihuangdi; plotted against Li Si.
  • Sima Qian – first to practice modern historiography (the gathering and analysis of both primary and secondary sources) to write a monumental history of the Chinese empire

First millennium AD

  • Cai Lun – formerly credited with inventing paper before the discovery of earlier paper manuscripts

Second millennium AD

Parental alienation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parental alienation is a theorized process through which a child becomes estranged from one parent as the result of the psychological manipulation of another parent. The child's estrangement may manifest itself as fear, disrespect or hostility toward the distant parent, and may extend to additional relatives or parties. The child's estrangement is disproportionate to any acts or conduct attributable to the alienated parent. Parental alienation can occur in any family unit, but is claimed to occur most often within the context of family separation, particularly when legal proceedings are involved, although the participation of professionals such as lawyers, judges and psychologists may also contribute to conflict.

Proponents of the concept of parental alienation assert that it is primarily motivated by one parent's desire to exclude the other parent from their child's life. Some assert that parental alienation should be diagnosable in children as a mental disorder. Some propose that parental alienation be recognized as a form of child abuse or family violence. They assert that parental alienation creates stress on the alienated parent and the child, and significantly increases the child's lifetime risk of mental illness.

Parental alienation remains controversial both within the psychological community and the legal system. The psychological community has not accepted parental alienation as a diagnosable mental condition. Critics note that alienating behaviors are common in high-conflict family situations such as child custody proceedings, but that the estrangement of a child from a parent remains rare. They assert that the research performed to date does not support the theory that parental alienation results in the harm described by proponents of the concept. They also express concern that a parent who has caused a child to become estranged, for example through acts of domestic violence or child abuse, may claim to be the victim of parental alienation to convince a court that the child's justified response to the abuse is the result of the other parent's misconduct and to potentially gain custody of the child. No diagnostic criteria have been established for parental alienation, and proposals made to date have not been established as reliable. No program of treatment has been demonstrated to be safe or valid, and proponents of parental alienation theory agree that more research into treatment is necessary.

The theory of parental alienation has been asserted within legal proceedings as a basis for awarding custody to a parent who alleges estrangement, or to modify custody in favor of that parent. Courts have generally rejected parental alienation as a valid scientific theory, but some courts have allowed the concept to be argued as relevant to the determination of the child's best interests when making a custody determination. Legal professionals recognize that alienating behaviors are common in child custody cases, but are cautious about accepting the concept of parental alienation.

Characteristics

Parental alienation describes the breakdown of the relationship between a child and one of the child's parents, when there is no valid justification for that breakdown. When parental alienation is found to exist between a parent and child, the alienation is attributed to inappropriate actions and behavior by the other parent.

Parental alienation falls within the spectrum of family estrangement, a term that describes when family members become alienated from each other without regard to cause. As estrangement may occur between a parent and child for other reasons, it is possible to discuss alienation in terms of a child's having a preferred and a nonpreferred parent without implying that a child's avoidance of one parent is due to parental alienation.

The concept of parental alienation is normally raised only in contexts in which the child's alienation from the parent is alleged to be unwarranted. Under that conception, estrangement from a parent falls into one of two broad categories:

  • Justified parental estrangement, that results from such factors as the rejected parent's harmful or abusive behavior, substance abuse, neglect, or abandonment.
  • Parental alienation, in which one parent engages in actions that cause the child to strongly ally with that parent and reject the other without legitimate justification. The rejected parent may contribute to the estrangement in some manner, but the key concept is that the rejection by the child is out of proportion to anything that the rejected parent has done.

Justified parental estrangement is an understandable refusal by a child to see a parent, while parental alienation lacks justifiable reason, although there is no consensus regarding how to differentiate one from the other. There is no established means of assessing whether a child's feelings toward a parent are "irrational" or "without legitimate basis", complicating any effort to attribute a child's attitudes toward a parent to parental alienation.

Theories

Alienating behaviors are often demonstrated by both parents in high-conflict divorce and child custody cases, but do not ordinarily result in alienation of a child from a parent and may backfire against the parent who engages in alienating behavior. Theories of parental alienation should explain how the relationship between the child and the rejected parent deteriorates, why under similar circumstances alienation may occur in one family but not another, and the relationship between alienating behaviors and the severity of a child’s alienation from a parent.

In situations where a child avoids one parent and strongly prefers the other, the only behaviors that can be observed are avoidance and preference. Alienation by one parent thus cannot be directly measured, and is instead inferred from the child's behavior. Some researchers thus use "preferred" rather than "alienating" parent and "non-preferred" rather than "alienated", "rejected", or "targeted" parent.

Although a number of theories have been proposed, there is no generally accepted theory of parental alienation, either as to its cause or to the motivation of the allegedly alienating parent. One theory of motivation suggests that parental alienation may occur when divorce triggers reenactment of a parent's childhood feelings of inadequacy or abandonment, and causes alienating parents to reenact psychological processes experienced during their own childhood. However, that theory does not explain alleged parental alienation that may occur in other contexts, nor in cases where there is no evidence of a parent's childhood trauma. Another theory of motivation posits that alienation is a form of harmful parenting by a parent who suffers from a personality disorder, specifically borderline personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. A divorce, breakup of a relationship or similarly difficult experience triggers feelings of inadequacy or abandonment that cause that parent to decompensate into persecutorial delusions, and to project their fears onto the other parent. However, parental alienation is frequently alleged in cases where neither parent has been diagnosed with a personality disorder.

Consequences

Studies suggest that independent of other marital issues, acts of parental alienation may be harmful to children. While not all adults who experience acts of parental alienation during childhood report negative consequences, many report outcomes that they attribute to parental alienation, including low self-esteem, addiction and substance abuse, trust issues, and relationship problems. For example, a retrospective study of adults found that independent of damage of a child's relationship with the other parent, perceived experiences with parental alienation during childhood correlate in adulthood with lower self-sufficiency, lower self-esteem, higher rates of major depressive disorder, and insecure attachment styles. A survey of self-reported childhood experiences of three hundred and sixty-one adults in Italy found that 42.1% of participants reported acts of parental alienation by their mothers, and 54.3% reported acts of parental alienation by their fathers. Reports of parental alienation were found to correlate with reports of psychological maltreatment.

Assessment of the impact of parental alienation within the context of legal proceedings, such as child custody litigation, is complicated by the participation of other professionals, including psychologists, lawyers and judges, whose actions and decisions may negatively affect family relationships. Although alienating behaviors by parents are common in high-conflict divorces, most children do not become alienated from a parent as a result of that behavior.

Some mental health professionals argue that severe parental alienation should be established as a form of emotional abuse and domestic violence. However, controversy persists as to whether parental alienation should be treated as a form of child abuse or family violence.

Diagnosis

No instrument or measure has been demonstrated to be valid or reliable in the assessment of parental alienation, or to diagnose parental alienation from any list of child behaviors. The claim that any individual behavior or cluster of behaviors demonstrates that the preferred parent has caused the child's avoidance is not based on empirical work and as an inference is the result of a problem of critical thinking called affirming the consequent. No diagnostic criteria have been proposed that can be applied to determine if a child's feelings toward a parent are irrational or disproportionate to the actions or behavior of the alienated parent. The absence of a valid and reliable assessment measure also means that it is difficult to evaluate whether parental alienation treatments are effective.

Although it has been proposed that parental alienation can be diagnosed in a child who displays some or all of a set of behaviors, the proposed criteria have not been studied empirically, and have not been demonstrated to occur more often in children who avoid one parent after high-conflict divorce than they do in children matched for age who are experiencing different stressors and do not have a strong preference for one parent. It is also necessary to diagnose the whole family system in order to avoid misattributing a child's estrangement to the actions of a parent. Further, symptoms that are claimed to suggest parental alienation may occur in a high-conflict divorce even without indoctrination by the favored parent, rendering them problematic for identification of improper parenting.

Critics of this approach to diagnosis assert that if the behaviors can occur without an alienating parent, they cannot of themselves be used to determine if a child is demonstrating symptoms from parental alienation. The proposed list of behaviors has also been criticized as vague and subjective. For example, a child's claim to have independently formulated opinions of a rejected parent may be interpreted as "independent-thinker phenomenon", which is proposed as evidence of parental alienation, such that any statement a child makes about parental influence or lack thereof can be interpreted as confirmation of parental alienation.

Treatment

There is no generally recognized treatment protocol for parental alienation. A number of treatment models have been created for children deemed to show parental alienation, with some intensive models carried out after custody of the children has been transferred to the targeted parent. Five treatment programs were evaluated in terms of the levels of evidence provided by the empirical research said to support them. None were supported by research that met standards required for evidence-based treatments. Instead, they were at the third level of evidence, often called “promising”, as they involved before-and-after assessment of nonpreferred parents’ opinions rather than randomized controlled trials or clinical controlled trials using standardized assessments. Reports of some young adults who have been through one of these treatments suggest that as well as lacking an adequate evidence basis, the treatments may be either directly or indirectly harmful to children and adolescents.

One form of reconciliation therapy, described by its proponents as family reunification therapy, involves court-ordered removal of children from their preferred parent and the requirement that they engage in intensive programs with the rejected parent. The safety and effectiveness of family reconciliation therapy, the scientific validity of that therapy, and the question of whether it may properly be considered by a court, are in dispute. Due to its unproven nature, this form of therapy has been criticized as "quack therapy". In order to avoid regulations and oversight that apply to psychological and medical treatment, these programs are often billed as educational or psycho-educational. These programs tend also to be very expensive. Some children who have been compelled to participate in family reunification therapy have reported that they were forced to deny their truthful complaints about the parent that was alleged to be alienated. A recent program evaluation of a four-day intervention called "Turning Point for Families" found preliminary evidence that the program could improve family relationships in situations where a court finds alienation.

Legal issues

Parental alienation concepts have been used to argue for child custody changes when children resist contact with a non-preferred parent. The argument generally involves the request for a court order giving full custody to the nonpreferred parent and denying contact to the preferred parent. The child may also be ordered into a treatment program to facilitate reunification with the nonpreferred parent. The rationale of this argument is that the attitude and actions of children who reject a parent without clear evidence of abuse reflects mental illness. If that belief is correct then the child's mental disorder may be attributed to the actions of the preferred parent and, as the actions have harmed the child, those actions can be defined as abusive. Once an allegation of parental alienation is interpreted as abuse by a parent, that interpretation provides a strong argument against custody of or even contact with that parent. This line of argument, however, ignores other possible factors, such as the effect on a child of poor parenting skills of the nonpreferred parent or the influence of one or both parents’ new romantic partners, and depends on inferences about the behavior of the preferred parent rather than direct evidence of inappropriate parenting.

A number of articles in professional journals have presented critiques of the manner in which parental alienation advocates have construed children's avoidance of one divorced or separated parent and strong preference for the other parent. Key among their concerns is that advocates of parental alienation concepts have presented a highly simplified explanation of visitation and contact resistance or refusal by children of couples in high-conflict divorces. As multiple factors are generally involved in human behavior, they assert that without direct evidence it is not appropriate to infer manipulation or exploitation by one parent as the cause of a child's preference for one parent over the other. Another concern is that there is a lack of evidentiary support for the concept of parental alienation, as proponents of this theory have failed to meet standards for evidence-based treatment and have never produced empirical support for claimed symptoms of alienation such as "black and white thinking".

A particularly problematic aspect of the use of parental alienation concepts in child custody decisions is the possible association of allegations of alienating behavior by the preferred parent with allegations of domestic violence by the nonpreferred parent. As allegations of parental alienation can lead to court-ordered custody changes giving the nonpreferred parent full custody, and often including restraining orders against contact with the preferred parent, it becomes possible for a finding of parental alienation to cause children to be placed in the custody of a physically or sexually abusive parent.

Although courts have long been concerned with the issue of parental estrangement, and how to safely reunite children with their estranged parents, research into the cause of parental estrangement frequently involves issues of selection bias, lack of operationalization, small sample size, misclassification, and other methodological concerns. There remain significant questions about whether there is sufficient evidence to accurately support claims about the cause, prevalence and consequence of parental estrangement, or appropriate interventions in cases where estrangement exists. Sound research in this area remains in its early stages, and further research is required that is designed to reduce the risk of misclassificaiton, produce findings that are reliable, and to identify appropriate interventions.

Worldwide

Brazil

In August 2010 Brazil passed the first national legislation prohibiting parental alienation. Lei No. 12.318 which it defines "as the interference with the psychological formation of a child or adolescent that promotes repudiation of a parent or damage to the establishment or maintenance of ties with a parent, when such an act is practiced by a parent, grandparent, those who have the child or adolescent under their authority, custody, or supervision." A judge who finds that parental alienation has occurred may issue a warning, may modify the custody arrangement in favor of the alienated parent, may order counseling, or may place the alienated child in an interim residence.

England

In England, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) was formed to promote the welfare of children and families involved family court cases. Cafcass recognizes the possibility of parental alienation in family separation cases. Cafcass has developed a Child Impact Assessment Framework (CIAF) that is focused on understanding the child's personal experience of parental separation as a tool to help courts make more informed decisions about the best interests of the children. Alienation is specifically identified and assessed within that framework.

Israel

In Israel, parental alienation is known as "nikur hori", and some courts are receptive to efforts to attempt to reunify children who have been estranged or alienated from a parent, although concerns remain that there is little empirical evidence to support the concept of parental alienation. In order to expedite the resolution of custody cases and disputes, some jurisdictions in Israel have implemented pilot projects for cases involving child custody and enforcement of visitation orders.

Mexico

In the former Federal District of Mexico, an area that is officially equivalent to Mexico City, 323 Septimus of the Civil Code prohibited a family member from transforming the conscience of a minor so as to prevent, hinder or interfere with the minor's relationship with one of the minor's parents. If a court found that such acts had occurred and were of mild or moderate nature, and that the person responsible for the alienation was the father, the court was required to transfer custody to the other parent. If the court found that the degree of parental alienation attributable to the father was severe, all contact with the father of the child was required to be suspended, and the child was required to receive counseling. This provision was repealed by the Legislative Assembly of Mexico City in 2007 and again, after its reenactment, in 2017.

Republic of Ireland

Although Ireland does not have legislation on parental alienation, in 2020, for the first time in a child access case a judge described a parent's actions as "parental alienation". During 2019 to 2021 thirty of the thirty-one Irish councils have asked the government to recognise and address parental alienation. In 2021 the Irish Government included international parental alienation research and public consultation in its Justice Action Plan.

United States

Although all states have custody laws that require courts to consider how parents' actions affect the best interests of their children, no federal or state laws that incorporate the concept of parental alienation have been passed. Some courts recognize parental alienation as a serious issue with potential long-term effects and serious outcomes for the child. Other jurisdictions may suspend child support in cases where parental alienation occurs. For example, in a New York case in which the father was prevented from seeing his son by the child's mother through a "pattern of alienation", child support was suspended. Some United States courts have tried to address the issue through mandated reunification therapy.

Due to the nature of allegations of parental alienation, many courts require that a qualified expert witness testify in support of allegations of parental alienation or in association with any allegation that a parent has a mental health disorder.

An examination of parental alienation U.S. custody decisions, based upon a review of appellate cases, found that courts are significantly more skeptical of child physical and sexual abuse allegations made by mothers as compared to similar claims made by fathers, rendering parental alienation a powerful defense for fathers accused of abuse but not for mothers. A subsequent, smaller study disputed that conclusion.

History

The term parental alienation is derived from parental alienation syndrome, a term introduced by Richard Gardner in 1985 to describe a set of behaviors that he had observed in children exposed to family separation or divorce whereby children rejected or showed what he interpreted as unwarranted negative feelings towards one of their parents.

The idea that children may be turned against one of their parents, or may reject a parent unjustifiably during family breakdown, has been recognized for centuries. The position that many family estrangements result from such a process of psychological manipulation, undue influence or interference by a third party (rather than from genuine interactions between the estranged parties themselves) is less well-recognized.

Parental alienation syndrome

Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) was proposed by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner as a means of diagnosing parental alienation within a family by virtue of identifying a cluster of symptoms that he hypothesized would only co-exist if a parent were engaged in alienating behavior. This theory involved looking for a set of psychological symptoms in a child and proposing PAS as a basis for concluding that those symptoms were caused by harmful parenting practices.

No mental health organizations recognized parental alienation syndrome. In 2008, the American Psychological Association noted that there is a lack of data to support the concept of parental alienation syndrome, but took no official position on the syndrome. A 2009 survey of mental health and legal professionals found broad skepticism of the concept of parental alienation syndrome, and caution in relation to the concept of parental alienation.

In 2012, in anticipation of the release of the DSM-5, the fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, an argument was made for the inclusion of PAS in the DSM-5 as a diagnosis related to parental alienation. The argument was based upon the position that parental alienation and a variety of other descriptions of behaviors represent the underlying concept of parental alienation disorder. Despite lobbying by proponents, the proposal was rejected in December 2012.

With the exclusion of PAS from the DSM-V, some advocates for the recognition of parental alienation as a diagnosable condition have argued that elements of parental alienation are covered in the DSM-5 under the concept of "Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention", specifically, "Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress". Those advocates assert that children who are exposed to intimate partner distress between their parents may develop psychological symptoms as a result of that exposure. However, relational issues are not mental disorders or diagnoses, but are instead considered to be problems that may be relevant for diagnosis or treatment of a diagnosable disorder. While parent-child estrangement can serve as an example of a relational problem such as "Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress", the observation of a relational issue is not a diagnosis.

Recognition of parental alienation

As the psychological and psychiatric communities did not accept the concept of a "syndrome", the term "parental alienation" was advanced in the 1990s as a possible explanation of a child's behavior independent of a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis. Among theories of parental alienation that have been proposed, psychologists have argued that the term parental alienation may be used in a manner synonymous with the original formulation of parental alienation syndrome, with diagnosis based upon signs observable in children, that it may be used to describe the process or tactics by which a child becomes alienated from a parent, or to describe the outcomes for parents and others who have experienced unwarranted rejection by a child.

Some empirical research has been performed, though the quality of the studies vary widely and research in the area is still developing. One complicating factor for research is that high numbers of parents involved in high conflict custody disputes engage in alienating or indoctrinating behaviors, but only a small proportion children become alienated.

In an informal survey at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in 2010, 98% of the 300 respondents agreed with the question, "Do you think that some children are manipulated by one parent to irrationally and unjustifiably reject the other parent?". Survey participants were divided as to whether a rejected parent partially blame when a child becomes alienated from a parent and the other parent is exhibiting alienating behaviors, and by a significant margin rejected the inclusion of parental alienation in the DSM. However, parental alienation refers not to the acts of manipulation, but rather to the child's rejection of a parent that results from alienating behavior.

United States courts have broadly rejected parental alienation syndrome as a concept that may be presented in a child custody case, but it remains possible to argue within child custody litigation that parental alienation has occurred and to demonstrate how a parent's alienating behaviors should be considered by a court when evaluating a custody case. Behaviors that result in parental alienation may reflect other mental health disorders, both on the part of the alienating parent and the rejected parent that, if proved, remain relevant to a custody determination. The behavior of the alienated child may also be a relevant factor. However, single-factor explanations for a child's estrangement from a parent have not proved valid, and multi-factor models are more complex and difficult to argue in a court setting.

Activism

In late 2005, a Canadian activist named Sarvy Emo proposed that March 28 be designated Parental Alienation Awareness Day. The proposed date was later modified to April 25. The date has received some level of recognition, such as a 2006 proclamation by the Governor of Georgia recognizing April 25 as Parental Alienation Awareness Day, and its unofficial recognition by the Governor of Nevada in 2007.

There are also organizations that actively oppose the use of the concept of parental alienation and the making of custody decisions based on this belief system. For example, the Center for Judicial Excellence argues against the use of the parental alienation argument in custody cases. In 2019 the American Professional Society on Abuse of Children (APSAC) posted on its website a recommendation against using the parental alienation concept or claiming that when a child rejects a parent, emotional abuse by the preferred parent has taken place. The Institute on Violence, Abuse, and Trauma (IVAT) devoted a three-hour session at its September 2019 meeting to arguments opposing the use of parental alienation concepts and related claims.

Eminent domain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Eminent domain (United States, Philippines), land acquisition (India, Malaysia, Singapore), compulsory purchase (Ireland, United Kingdom), resumption (Hong Kong, Uganda), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia, Barbados, New Zealand, Ireland), or expropriation (Canada, South Africa and all the other countries) is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use. It does not include the power to take and transfer ownership of private property from one property owner to another private property owner without a valid public purpose. This power can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized by the legislature to exercise the functions of public character.

The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain have been for roads, government buildings and public utilities. Many railroads were given the right of eminent domain to obtain land or easements in order to build and connect rail networks. In the mid-20th century, a new application of eminent domain was pioneered, in which the government could take the property and transfer it to a private third party for redevelopment. This was initially done only to a property that has been deemed "blighted" or a "development impediment", on the principle that such properties had a negative impact upon surrounding property owners, but was later expanded to allow the taking of any private property when the new third-party owner could develop the property in such a way as to bring in increased tax revenues to the government.

Some jurisdictions require that the taker make an offer to purchase the subject property, before resorting to the use of eminent domain. However, once the property is taken and the judgment is final, the condemnor owns it in fee simple, and may put it to uses other than those specified in the eminent domain action.

Takings may be of the subject property in its entirety (total take) or in part (part take), either quantitatively or qualitatively (either partially in fee simple or, commonly, an easement, or any other interest less than the full fee simple title).

Meaning

The term "eminent domain" was taken from the legal treatise De jure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace), written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625, which used the term dominium eminens (Latin for "supreme ownership") and described the power as follows:

The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or those who act for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But, when this is done, the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property.

The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to real property. Condemnors may also take personal property, even intangible property such as contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. Even the taking of a professional sports team's franchise has been held by the California Supreme Court to be within the purview of the "public use" constitutional limitation, although eventually, that taking (of the Oakland Raiders' NFL franchise) was not permitted because it was deemed to violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

A taking of property must be accompanied by payment of "just compensation" to the [former] owner. In theory, this is supposed to put the owner in the same position pecuniarily that he would have been in had his property not been taken. But in practice courts have limited compensation to the property's fair market value, considering its highest and best use. But though rarely granted, this is not the exclusive measure of compensation; see Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States (business losses in temporary takings) and United States v. Pewee Coal Co. (operating losses caused by government operations of a mine seized during World War II). In most takings owners are not compensated for a variety of incidental losses caused by the taking of their property that, though incurred and readily demonstrable in other cases, are deemed by the courts to be noncompensable in eminent domain. The same is true of attorneys' and appraisers fees. But as a matter of legislative grace rather than constitutional requirement some of these losses (e.g., business goodwill) have been made compensable by state legislative enactments, and in the U.S. may be partially covered by provisions of the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Act.

Africa

Zimbabwe

Since the 1990s, the Zimbabwean government under Robert Mugabe has seized a great deal of land and homes of mainly white farmers in the course of the land reform movement in Zimbabwe. The government argued that such land reform was necessary to redistribute the land to Zimbabweans dispossessed of their lands during colonialism. These farmers were never compensated for this seizure.

Asia

China

In China, "requisitions", the Chinese form of eminent domain, are constitutionally permitted as necessary for the public interest, and if compensation is provided. The 2019 Amendment of the Land Administration Law of China spells out rather detailed guidelines, guaranteeing farmers and those displaced greater financial security.

Japan

Since the post-occupation era, Japan has had very weak eminent domain powers, as evidenced by the high-profile opposition to the expansion of Narita International Airport, and the disproportionately large amounts of financial inducement given to residents on sites slated for redevelopment in return for their agreement to leave, one well-known recent case being that of Roppongi Hills.

India

The Constitution of India originally provided for the Fundamental Right to property under Articles 19 and 31. Article 19 guaranteed to all citizens the right to 'acquire, hold and dispose of property'. Article 31 provided that "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." It also provided that compensation would be paid to a person whose property had been 'taken possession of or acquired' for public purposes. In addition, both the state government as well as the union (federal) government were empowered to enact laws for the "acquisition or requisition of property" (Schedule VII, Entry 42, List III). It is this provision that has been interpreted as being the source of the state's 'eminent domain' powers.

The provisions relating to the right to property were changed a number of times. The 44th amendment of 1978 deleted the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights. A new article, Article 300-A, was added to the constitution to provide, "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." Thus, if a legislature makes a law depriving a person of his property, it will not be unconstitutional. The aggrieved person shall have no right to move the court under Article 32. Thus, the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, though it is still a constitutional right. If the government appears to have acted unfairly, the action can be challenged in a court of law by citizens.

Land acquisition in India is currently governed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into force on 1 January 2014. Until 2013, land acquisition in India was governed by Land Acquisition Act of 1894. However the new LARR (amendment) ordinance 31 December 2014 diluted many clauses of the original act. The liberalisation of the economy and the Government's initiative to set up special economic zones have led to many protests by farmers and have opened up a debate on the reinstatement of the fundamental right to private property.

Pakistan

Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the government has the power to compulsorily acquire private land at the prevailing market rate for public purposes such as roads, highways, railways, dams, airports, etc.

Singapore

Singapore practices eminent domain under the Land Acquisitions Act, which allows it to carry out its Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme for urban renewal. The Amendments to the Land Titles Act allowed property to be purchased for purposes of urban renewal against an owner sharing a collective title if the majority of the other owners wish to sell and the minority did not. Thus, eminent domain often invokes concerns of majoritarianism.

Europe

In many European nations, the European Convention on Human Rights provides protection from an appropriation of private property by the state. Article 8 of the Convention provides that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence" and prohibits interference with this right by the state, unless the interference is in accordance with law and necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, economic well-being of the country, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals, or protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This right is expanded by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, which states that "Every natural person or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions." Again, this is subject to exceptions where state deprivation of private possessions is in the general or public interest, is in accordance with law, and, in particular, to secure payment of taxes. Settled case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) provides that just compensation has to be paid in cases of expropriation.

France

In France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen similarly mandates just and preliminary compensation before expropriation; and a déclaration d'utilité publique is commonly required, to demonstrate a public benefit.

Notably, in 1945, by decree of General Charles de Gaulle based on untried accusations of collaboration with the Nazi occupier, the Renault company was expropriated from Louis Renault posthumously and nationalised as Régie Nationale des Usines Renault, without compensation.

Germany

The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany states in its Article 14 (3) that "an expropriation is only allowed for the public good" and just compensation must be made. It also provides for the right to have the amount of the compensation checked by a court.

Italy

Espropria, "expropriate", protest graffiti in Turin

Esproprio – or more formally espropriazione per pubblica utilità ("expropriation for public utility") – in Italy takes place within the frame of civil law, as an expression of the potere ablatorio (ablative power). The law regulating expropriation is the D.P.R. n.327 of 2001, amended by D.Lgs. n.302 of 2002; it supersedes the old expropriation law, the Royal Decree n.2359 of 1865. Also other national and regional laws may apply, not always giving full compensation to the owner. Expropriation can be total (the whole property is expropriated) or partial; permanent or temporary.

The article 42 of the Italian Constitution and the article 834 of the Italian Civil Code state that any private goods can be expropriated for public utility. Furthermore, the article 2 of the Constitution binds Italian citizens to respect their "mandatory duties of political, economic and social solidarity".

The implementation of the eminent domain follows two principles:

  • legality: a public institution can expropriate private goods only in the cases law allows it and respecting its procedures (following article 23 of the Italian Constitution);
  • compensation: (art. 42/III) the State must provide a certain amount of money as compensation, which is determined by law. According to the Italian Constitutional Court, this compensation is not required to be equal to the market value of the expropriated good, although this sum must not be merely symbolic.

Nazionalizzazione ("nationalization"), instead, is provided for by article 43 of the Constitution; it transfers to governmental authority and property a whole industrial sector, if it is deemed to be a natural or de facto monopoly, and an essential service of public utility. The most famous nationalization in Italy was the 1962 nationalization of the electrical power sector.

Spain

Article 33.3 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 allows forced expropriation (expropiación forzosa) only where justified on the grounds of public utility or social interest and subject to the payment of appropriate compensation as provided for in law.

Sweden

The right of wla state or municipality to buy property when it is determined to be of "particular public interest" is regulated in Expropriationslagen (1972:719). The government purchases the property at an estimated market value plus a 25% compensation. The law also states that the property owner shall not suffer economic harm because of the expropriation.

United Kingdom

England and Wales

After his victory in 1066, William the Conqueror seized virtually all land in England. Although he maintained absolute power over the land, he granted fiefs to landholders who served as stewards, paying fees and providing military services. During the Hundred Years' War in the 14th century, Edward III used the Crown's right of purveyance for massive expropriations. Chapter 28 of Magna Carta required that immediate cash payment be made for expropriations. As the king's power was broken down in the ensuing centuries, tenants were regarded as holding ownership rights rather than merely possessory rights over their land. In 1427, a statute was passed granting commissioners of sewers in Lincolnshire the power to take land without compensation. After the early 16th century, however, Parliamentary takings of land for roads, bridges, etc. generally did require compensation. The common practice was to pay 10% more than the assessed value. However, as the voting franchise was expanded to include more non-landowners, the bonus was eliminated. In spite of contrary statements found in some American law, in the United Kingdom, compulsory purchase valuation cases were tried by juries well into the 20th century, such as Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd (1919).

In England and Wales, and other jurisdictions that follow the principles of English law, the related term compulsory purchase is used. The landowner is compensated with a price agreed or stipulated by an appropriate person. Where agreement on price cannot be achieved, the value of the taken land is determined by the Upper Tribunal. The operative law is a patchwork of statutes and case law. The principal Acts are the Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, the Land Compensation Act 1961, the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, the Land Compensation Act 1973, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, part IX of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Scotland

In Scotland, eminent domain is known as compulsory purchase. The development of powers of compulsory purchase originated in the railway mania of the Victorian period. Compensation is available to the landowner, with the Lands Tribunal for Scotland dealing with any disputes arising from the value of compensation. As in England and Wales, the law of compulsory purchase in Scotland is complex. The current statutes regulating compulsory purchase include: the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845; the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947; and the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963. The Scottish Law Commission considered the current state of the law of compulsory purchase and advocated reforms in its Discussion Paper on Compulsory Purchase. Such reforms have yet to be made by the Scottish Parliament.

Oceania

Australia

In Australia, section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution permits the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws." This has been construed as meaning that just compensation may not always include monetary or proprietary recompense, rather it is for the court to determine what is just. It may be necessary to imply a need for compensation in the interests of justice, lest the law be invalidated.

Property subject to resumption is not restricted to real estate as authority from the Federal Court has extended the states' power to resume property to any form of physical property. For the purposes of section 51(xxxi), money is not property that may be compulsorily acquired.

The Commonwealth must also derive some benefit from the property acquired, that is, the Commonwealth can "only legislate for the acquisition of Property for particular purposes". Accordingly, the power does not extend to allow legislation designed merely to seek to extinguish the previous owner's title. The states and territories' powers of resumption on the other hand are not so limited. The section 43(1) of the Lands Acquisition Act 1998 (NT) grants the Minister the power to acquire land 'for any purpose whatever'. The High Court of Australia interpreted this provision literally, relieving the Territory government of any public purpose limitation on the power. This finding permitted the Territory government to acquire land subject to Native Title, effectively extinguishing the Native Title interest in the land. Kirby J in dissent, along with a number of commentators, viewed this as a missed opportunity to comment on the exceptional nature of powers of resumption exercised in the absence of a public purpose limitation.

The term resumption is a reflection of the fact that, as a matter of Australian law, all land was originally owned by the Crown before it was sold, leased or granted and that, through the act of compulsory acquisition, the Crown is "resuming" possession.

New Zealand

In New Zealand, the Public Works Act 1981 outlines the powers of the state in relation to land used for public purposes. Under Section 16 of the Public Works Act 1981 the Minister is "empowered to acquire under this Act any land required for a Government work". Local government authorities (such as City or District councils) are also empowered under the same section to acquire land for "local work for which it has financial responsibility."

North America

The Bahamas

In the Bahamas, the Acquisition of Land Act operates to permit the acquisition of land where it is deemed likely to be required for a public purpose. The land can be acquired by private agreement or compulsory purchase (s7 of the Act). Under section 24 of the Acquisition of Land Act, the purchaser may purchase the interest of the mortgagee of any land acquired under the Act. To do so, the purchaser must pay the principal sum and interest, together with costs and charges plus 6 months’ additional interest.

Canada

In Canada, expropriation is governed by federal or provincial statutes. Under these statutory regimes, public authorities have the right to acquire private property for public purposes, so long as the acquisition is approved by the appropriate government body. Once a property is taken, an owner is entitled to "be made whole" by compensation for: the market value of the expropriated property, injurious affection to the remainder of the property (if any), disturbance damages, business loss, and special difficulty relocating. Owners can advance claims for compensation above that initially provided by the expropriating authority by bringing a claim before the court or an administrative body appointed by the governing legislation.

Panama

In Panama, the government must pay a fair amount of money to the owner of the property to be expropriated.

United States

Most states use the term eminent domain, but some U.S. states use the term appropriation or expropriation (Louisiana) as synonyms for the exercise of eminent domain powers. The term condemnation is used to describe the formal act of exercising the power to transfer title or some lesser interest in the subject property.

The constitutionally required "just compensation" in partial takings is usually measured by fair market value of the part taken, plus severance damages (the diminution in value of the property retained by the owner [remainder] when only a part of the subject property is taken). Where a partial taking provides economic benefits specific to the remainder, those must be deducted, typically from severance damages. Some elements of value, such as a business's connection to the location and the goodwill of the public, are only compensable in a few jurisdictions; where they are not, fair market value may be less than the value of the location to the current user.

The practice of condemnation came to the American colonies with the common law. When it came time to draft the United States Constitution, differing views on eminent domain were voiced. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that the taking be for a "public use" and mandates payment of "just compensation" to the owner.

In federal law, Congress can take private property directly (without recourse to the courts) by passing an Act transferring title of the subject property directly to the government. In such cases, the property owner seeking compensation must sue the United States for compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The legislature may also delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the right of states to make their own determinations of "public use".

South America

Argentina

In Argentina expropriations are governed by federal law 21.499 of January 17, 1977. It has been used in many ocations throughout the country's history most recently during the renationalization of YPF. which resulted in the expropriation of 51% of the energy company's shares.

Brazil

Brazil's expropriation laws are governed by the Presidential Decree No. 3365 of June 21, 1941.

Chile

Art. 19, No. 24, of the Chilean Constitution says in part, "In no case may anyone be deprived of his property, of the assets affected or any of the essential faculties or powers of ownership, except by virtue of a general or a special law which authorizes expropriation for the public benefit or the national interest, duly qualified by the legislator. The expropriated party may protest the legality of the expropriation action before the ordinary courts of justice and shall, at all times, have the right to indemnification for patrimonial harm actually caused, to be fixed by mutual agreement or by a sentence pronounced by said courts in accordance with the law."

Religion

Christianity

Since 1967, the encyclical Populorum progressio, an encyclical on Catholic social teaching by Pope Paul VI, allows the expropriation of land estates for common good needs.

Lie point symmetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_point_symmetry     ...