Inverse Condemnation In American Law

Traditionally speaking,takings are direct deprivation of property rights,and the most severe interference with private property rights by the state.Basically,all countries follow the principle of "taking accompanied by compensation".For the sake of national governance and social management,private property rights are burdened with social obligations.The state can reasonably limit private property rights in a variety of ways without any compensation.However,it deserves consideration that how to control the "degree" of reasonable restrictions.If the state imposes excessive restrictions on private property rights so as to amount to a taking,how can property owners obtain relief?Based on this issue,we can find the "key" to solve these problems in American taking law,that is,inverse condemnation.This paper will discuss inverse condemnation in four parts.The first part mainly talks about the concept and nature of inverse condemnation in American law.By introducing and analysing United States v.Clarke,we can make clear the basic meaning of inverse condemnation and the procedural distinction between inverse condemnation and formal condemnation.In addition,it also clarifies that the nature of inverse condemnation is a means of compensation relief,which is presented as a kind of judicial procedure.And it is different from the "regulatory takings" and "quasi-takings" which is usually mentioned by domestic scholars.The second part discusses the elements of inverse condemnation,which at least including three elements,that is,the existence of a de facto taking,without initiating formal condemnation procedure and paying just compensation.Among them,the first element constitutes the premise and basis of inverse condemnation,which including physical invasion takings and regulatory takings.And the Supreme Court of the United States has established two tests to identify the de facto taking,that is,Loretto's standard and "two-step" strategy.The second element and the third element are the formal elements of inverse condemnation.It is precisely these two elements that make the "situation" reversed,and the property owners have taken the initiative position in inverse condemnation action and become "initiators" of condemnation procedure.The third part focuses on some special problems that the Supreme Court of the United States encounters in reviewing inverse condemnation action.Through some typical cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States,we can summarize three aspects of these specific problems,including the ripeness doctrine and the final judgment rule in time dimension,just compensation in value dimension and finally the alternative relief in inverse condemnation action.These problems reflect that inverse condemnation which is rooted in the Constitution is also hampered by many practical factors while realizing the functions of compensatory remedies.The court must weigh them and strive to achieve a balance between private interests and public interests.At the last,we talk about what we can learn from inverse condemnation in American law.Although we can't copy entirely the inverse condemnation in dealing with the problems we have faced with because of the difference between the two countries,we still may draw some lessons from it in view of the similar situations which both China and American have faced.