Argentina: More on The Argentina Rural Land Law: A Stand for Sovereignty or The Pursuit of Foreign Investment?

The Land Law, passed in 2011, limited the acquisition of rural land by foreigners with the aim of protecting national sovereignty. Its repeal by the Javier Milei administration reignited a central debate: Do these restrictions defend national interests or hinder the country’s economic development? This article reviews the law’s origins, its current status, and should it survive, how it compares with similar regulations around the world.

On December 22, 2011, the Argentine Congress enacted Law No. 26,737 for the Protection of National Ownership over the Property, Possession, or Tenancy of Rural Land. Known as the “Rural Land Law,” the legislation restricted foreign individuals and legal entities from acquiring and holding rural land. These restrictions included:

• Limiting foreign ownership, at the provincial, municipal, or other local geo-administrative level, of rural land at 15%.
• Capping at 30%, the concentration in any specific foreign nationality, the ownership of this 15%.
• Restricting any foreign person (natural or legal) to ownership of no more than 1,000 hectares.
• Prohibiting all foreigners ownership of land adjacent to borders, coastlines or other large bodies of water (including groundwater).

Recorded in the legislative history preceding the enactment of the Rural Land Law, its proponents justified passage on the following grounds:

• Land is a scarce and non-renewable strategic resource, essential for human and social development.
• A global process of appropriation by speculative capital of large tracts of land is occurring around the world, including Argentina.
• Foreign ownership hinders the construction of affordable housing for Argentines.

Opponents of the proposed legislation argued that the Rural Land Law:

• Violated the constitutional principle of equal protection, specifically as guaranteed to foreign persons by Article 20 of the Argentine Constitution [1].
• Would only serve to fuel xenophobic interests without solving the purported legislative aims (food security, sovereignty, and affordable housing).
• Local, not federal should decide whether a significant land purchase is beneficial for constituents.

Upon assuming office, President Javier Milei issued Decree No. 70/2023 to repeal or to amend more than 300 laws in an effort to deregulate the economy. Decree No. 70 included the repeal of the Rural Land Law and removal of restrictions on the acquisition of rural land by foreign persons as of December 29, 2023. Shortly thereafter, a non-profit organization, the Malvinas Islands Veterans Center of La Plata (the “Malvinas Veterans Center”) filed a constitutional challenge to the repeal and requested an immediate injunction to halt the executive order and to continue to enforce to the congressionally enacted Rural Land Law.

The challenge was dismissed by the trial court based on a finding that the Malvinas Veterans Center suffered no actual harm and lacked standing to represent the public at large. Nonetheless, the dismissal and findings of the trial court were overturned on appeal and the injunction reinstated. The government filed an extraordinary writ of appeal, which stayed the appellate court ruling pending a review by the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the injunction remains in place and, until the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Rural Land Law remains in effect. There is no timeline for that ruling and it could be months or even years before the constitutional challenge is resolved. In the meantime, any acquisitions by foreign persons between the date of Decree No. 70 (December 29, 2023) and the granting of the injunction (January 29, 2024) are valid and binding without regard to the Supreme Court’s final decision.

Argentina is not unique in its enactment of legislation to restrict foreign ownership of land. A quick global survey shows similar laws in other countries. The scope and severity of other countries’ laws on foreign land ownership vary largely according to economic, cultural, and political contexts.

• In Latin America, Brazil applies a similar approach, limiting foreign ownership of rural land to 25% of the relevant rural area [1]. Bolivia regulates foreign ownership and outright prohibits foreign ownership of land offered by the State [2]. In Venezuela, the State prohibits foreigners from acquiring rural land, unless part of a for-profit enterprise majority owned by Venezuelan capital [3]. Chile [4], Peru [5], and Ecuador [6] restrict only ownership of borderlands out of concerns for security and national sovereignty. Paraguay [7] and Uruguay [8] offer more relaxed regulatory environments and report high levels of foreign land ownership, leading to legislative calls for greater restrictions.
• In North America, Mexico limits foreign ownership in border and coastal areas [9], while the United States [10] requires foreigners to register agricultural land larger than ten acres, giving the states freedom to individually regulate foreign acquisitions.
• In Europe, countries like the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany allow land acquisition by foreign hands, merely requiring that the use be “productive.” In Central and Eastern Europe, states like Hungary, Ukraine, and Switzerland are stricter. Scandinavian [11] countries apply rigorous government control, requiring foreign acquisition to be for agricultural purposes and foreign citizens be required to have permanent residency.
• In Asia, countries that concentrate land ownership in the State, such as the People’s Republic of China, prohibit private land ownership. The Islamic Republic of Iran prohibits foreign ownership of agricultural land, while in Russia, foreigners can only invest through corporate entities established in the country. India is also strict about land purchases by non-Indian citizens who do not reside in the country [12].
• In Oceania, Australia and New Zealand do not require permanent residency as a condition to foreign land ownership, but they do have a regulatory process to approve only after verifying that the investment is beneficial to the country and does not prejudicial to sovereignty [13].
• In Africa, most States reserve land ownership to the federal government, often imposing strict restrictions to protect sovereignty and prevent the concentration of land in foreign hands. In countries like Egypt, Nigeria [14], Kenya [15], and Ethiopia [16], foreign ownership of agricultural land is prohibited, limiting it to long-term leases. Additionally, there are usually restrictions on borders or strategic areas.

The acquisition of land by foreigners varies greatly between continents: in Asia and Africa, prohibitions are predominant. The European model is much more flexible, but in general, defends national interests without hindering foreign investment. In Latin America, restrictions focus more on defending sovereignty and protecting borders. In general terms, Argentina (subject to the future of Decree No. 70), Brazil, Bolivia, and Venezuela align more closely with other agrarian economies in Asia and Africa.

The legislative debates over the Rural Land Law and even a cursory review of the policies adopted by other resource-rich countries suggest that restrictions on foreign ownership mostly reflect political ideology. The more statist the government, the more control it desires over land and the less motivated it is by foreign investment [18]. With the change of the Argentine economic model introduced by the Milei Administration, Argentina has veered away from the statist model to encourage foreign direct investment and free capital flows.

The two perspectives need not be antagonistic, and it is possible to balance national agrarian policy with the attraction of foreign investment. As a major global contributor of commodities, Argentina can and must harness the advantages of foreign capital while safeguarding national interests. A policy shift away from restriction toward review would be a good first step toward achieving this balance. An eventual middle-ground model, in which foreign investors can invest, move capital freely, but use land within a rational regulatory framework that protects national sovereignty, natural resources, and food security for the Argentine citizenry is a viable alternative.

[1] Article 20 of the Argentine Federal Constitution guarantees foreign persons within the country the same civil rights as Argentine citizens.

[2] Regulated by Laws No. 5709 and No. 11,952 in conjunction with the ruling of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in 2010.

[3] Article 396 of the Bolivian National Constitution reserves to the State the regulation of the land market to prevent excessive accumulation or subdivision.  Foreigner persons  may not acquire land from the State.

[4] Land and Agricultural Development Law (2001)

[5] Law Decree N° 1.939 from 1977 (https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=6778)

[6] Article 71 of the Peru National Constitution declares foreign persons equal to Peruvian citizens in matters of property rights. Nonetheless, foreign persons cannot acquire or possess mines, lands, forests, waters, fuels, or energy sources, either directly or indirectly  within 50 kilometers of the borders, unless declared a “public necessity” by a Supreme Decree approved by the Council of Ministers.

[7] Article 20 and 21 of the Organic Law of Rural Lands and Ancestral Territories (chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ambiente.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2018/09/Ley-Organica-de-Tierras-Rurales-y-Territorios-Ancestrales.pdf)

[8] https://www.baseis.org.py/tres-de-cada-diez-hectareas-de-tierras-rurales-esta-en-manos-de-extranjeros/

[9] https://www.sudestada.com.uy/articleId__8de24215-7365-44b7-8cdc-130bcbf17e8c/10893/Detalle-de-Noticia

[10] Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution.

[11] Currently, in the United States, more than 40 million acres (3.1% of total rural land) are in the hands of foreign investors (https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/china-foreign-land-ownership-explainer).

[12] Norway is regulated by the Land Act (https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/The-Land-Act/id269774/) while in Denmark the “Agricultural Land Law” is in effect (https://lex.dk/jordlove)

[13] According to the “Foreign Exchange Management Act” (FEMA), the purchase of land by foreigners is prohibited, unless they inherit the land from a resident in India.

[14] In Australia, under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act (FATA) of 1975, foreigners wishing to acquire rural land in Australia must obtain approval from the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB). On the other hand, in New Zealand, under the Overseas Investment Act (OIA) of 2005, foreigners wishing to purchase rural land in New Zealand must obtain approval from the Overseas Investment Office (OIO).

[15] Article 44.3 of the Nigerian National Constitution 1999: Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the entire property in and control of all minerals, mineral oils and natural gas in, under or upon any land in Nigeria or in, under or upon the territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone of Nigeria shall vest in the Government of the Federation and shall be managed in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.

[16] Article 65.1 of the National Constitution from Kenya 2010: A person who is not a citizen may hold land on the basis of leasehold tenure only, and any such lease, however granted, shall not exceed ninety-nine years.

[17] Article 40.3 of the Ethiopian National Constitution: The right to ownership of rural and urban land, as well as of all natural resources, is exclusively vested in the State and in the peoples of Ethiopia. Land is a common property of the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia and shall not be subject to sale or to other means of Exchange.

[18] The “BRICS” alliance supports this conclusion. The countries most closely associated with the alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Ethiopia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates) and their associate members (Bolivia, Cuba, and Nigeria) all rely on economic centralization and restriction of foreign land ownership. South Africa is the only outlier among the member states, having no restrictions on foreign ownership and simply requiring registration (https://www.deeds.gov.za/) and reserving to the government the right to block a purchase if it deems necessary to the national interest. Many of the arguments used by Argentine legislators in the parliamentary debate align with BRICS policies of state economic intervention, protection of national interests, food security, and affordable housing.