By: Dionísio Babo Soares
The narrative of land and property law in Timor-Leste is profoundly intertwined with its tumultuous past, a saga reflecting centuries of external dominion, recurrent conflict, mass displacement, and the persistent pursuit of national sovereignty and stability. This evolution, from the fragmented inheritance of Portuguese colonial neglect through the imposition of Indonesian legal frameworks, the urgent pragmatism of the United Nations transitional administration, to the hard-won establishment of its own comprehensive national regime, meticulously charts the nation’s struggle to forge justice, order, and a robust foundation for development upon its most fundamental resource: the land itself.
The enduring significance of land in Timor-Leste transcends mere economic utility; it is an intrinsic element of national identity and social cohesion, a theme that consistently underpins its historical trajectory. The very resource essential for stability has, paradoxically, often been the primary catalyst for instability, as the layering of incompatible legal systems transformed this foundational element into a persistent fault line.
The Portuguese colonial period, spanning from the 16th century until 1975, introduced formal concepts of land registration and individual title, rooted in European civil law traditions. However, the implementation of these concepts was consistently haphazard and geographically limited, primarily confined to major urban centers such as Dili. Portugal’s direct presence on the island was minimal for centuries, with effective occupation in the eastern part of the island only beginning in 1769 with the founding of Dili. This limited colonial administrative reach meant that vast areas of the territory remained governed by diverse and deeply rooted customary (adat) tenure systems, which demonstrated remarkable resilience despite the colonial influence. Studies indicate that until 1974, as much as 97% of the nation’s land continued to be governed by customary tenure, where local traditional leaders held authority over land ownership and transactions, and the sale of land to outsiders was generally restricted. Within these customary systems, community members retained “highly individuated rights to land” that functioned akin to inheritable usage rights, even if these did not align with statutory definitions. The Portuguese administration offered very limited formal recognition to these community land rights, sometimes granting preferential rights to the families of liurai (kings) who demonstrated loyalty to the colonial government, occasionally at the expense of communal holdings. While approximately 3,000 land titles were issued, over half of these were concentrated in Dili during the last 25 years of Portuguese rule, and many represented limited-term leases (aforamento) rather than full ownership (propriedade perfeita). This limited recognition of community rights led civil society groups to argue against a blanket validation of Portuguese land rights as inherently unjust. Nevertheless, the customary regime was retained and until 1990s such rights die not experience significant change of ownership.
Crucially, no unified, comprehensive national land code was ever established during the Portuguese colonial rule, leaving a patchwork of ill-defined rights and administrative practices that lacked clarity and broad reach across the territory. This foundational ambiguity and the inherent duality between formal and customary systems sowed significant seeds for future conflict, leaving most Timorese without formal land rights and vulnerable to potential eviction.
The introduction of formal concepts without widespread and effective implementation created a fundamental “paper versus practice” disjuncture. The colonial power, primarily focused on extractive economic policies rather than comprehensive governance , failed to effectively transplant its civil law system across the entire territory. This was not merely a passive coexistence of two systems but a scenario where the formal legal framework remained largely irrelevant or inaccessible to the majority of the population, particularly in rural areas where customary law continued to be the dominant force. This enduring disjuncture meant that upon achieving independence, Timor-Leste inherited not a single, albeit complex, legal framework, but a plurality of legal understandings of land, many of which were undocumented or formally unrecognized. This foundational ambiguity became a persistent source of conflict, as subsequent administrations would struggle to formalize rights without alienating the majority whose claims rested on unacknowledged customary practices. This created a deep-seated vulnerability for the majority of the population who lacked formal titles, making them susceptible to dispossession in later periods of conflict and state-building.
Following Indonesia’s invasion and annexation in 1975, the Indonesian Basic Agrarian Law (BAL No. 5 of 1960) was forcibly imposed across Timor-Leste. The BAL aimed to unify land law across the Indonesian archipelago under state control, asserting the state’s highest hierarchical control over earth, water, and airspace. While it recognized ulayat rights (customary communal rights), these were explicitly subjected to national and state interests. The law introduced concepts such as Hak Milik (Right of Ownership) as the most complete and inheritable right, and Hak Guna Bangunan (Right to Build), and mandated land registration to guarantee legal certainty. Only Indonesian citizens could hold Hak Milik, with provisions for the conversion of pre-existing Dutch titles. Despite theoretically offering a more structured system, the introduction of the BAL in Timor-Leste was deeply problematic. It occurred during a period marked by mass displacement, military occupation, and widespread land confiscation.
An estimated 40,000 land rights were created under the BAL during this illegal occupation, with existing Portuguese colonial land rights being abolished or converted. Many titles issued under Indonesian rule were widely perceived as illegitimate, often benefiting newcomers or the state itself at the expense of traditional owners or those who had been displaced.
The violence surrounding the 1999 independence referendum further exacerbated this situation, triggering catastrophic waves of displacement and leaving properties abandoned and chaotically occupied. Approximately 80% of Dili’s available land records were burnt and irrecoverable, and the destruction was even more complete in other regions, further complicating the already tangled web of claims. The BAL fundamentally clashed with the existing Portuguese legal concepts and the resilient customary systems. Attempts to “convert” or impose the BAL utterly failed to resolve underlying disputes; instead, it created new layers of contested claims and mistrust, superimposing complexity upon the Portuguese-era ambiguities. This period left Timor-Leste without an effective legal mechanism to clearly identify private land ownership.
The imposition of the Indonesian Basic Agrarian Law was not merely a change in legal frameworks but a strategic act of control. The law, while designed for order and certainty, became a tool for formalizing land confiscation and dispossessing the local population, often to the benefit of Indonesian transmigrants or military-linked entities. This instrumentalization of law, used to legitimize an illegal occupation, fundamentally undermined the credibility and acceptance of any titles issued during this period. The destruction of pre-existing land records further obscured legitimate claims, making it nearly impossible to differentiate between valid and illegitimate titles post-independence. This resulted in a deep-seated perception of illegitimacy and a “culture of impunity” regarding formal land rights. The enduring consequence is not just a complex legal puzzle but a profound social wound, where the very concept of state-guaranteed land ownership is tainted by historical injustice, perpetuating conflict and hindering efforts to establish a truly legitimate and accepted land tenure system.
The immediate aftermath of the 1999 independence referendum presented the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) with an acute crisis: widespread displacement, chaotic property occupation, and the destruction of existing land registries. An estimated 250,000 people were driven into West Timor, and another 300,000 fled urban homes, leading to widespread illegal occupation of abandoned properties. UNTAET Regulation 2000/27, enacted on August 14, 2000, emerged as a critical, pragmatic, and temporary emergency response. Its primary objective was to freeze the juridical status of certain real estate assets and temporarily prohibit land transactions by Indonesian citizens not habitually resident in East Timor and by Indonesian corporations, thereby preventing prejudice to the legitimate claims of the Timorese people.
The transitional administration faced numerous instances of illegitimate appropriation or occupation of real estate assets, many of which remained unsettled. The regulation established mechanisms to inventory, protect, and temporarily manage these properties. Crucially, it appointed a Protection Officer to grant revocable “Administrative Occupation Leases” to displaced returnees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), while simultaneously safeguarding the underlying rights of absent owners, and prohibited unauthorized transactions. While a necessary measure to staunch a deep wound, UNTAET’s approach, particularly its recognition of some Indonesian law and its propensity for granting temporary land-use agreements over abandoned properties, inadvertently exacerbated land ownership problems and created ill-feeling among some Timorese citizens and foreign investors. This was exemplified by instances where UNTAET took over properties, such as the Dili Sporting Club and Resende Hotel, as “abandoned” without transparent criteria, thereby enraging original owners and highlighting a lack of clear process.
Nevertheless, Regulation 2000/27 established vital precedents for the nascent state, including the principle of state stewardship over contested land, the recognition of the need for formal dispute mediation, and the crucial distinction between temporary use and permanent rights. This period illustrates the inherent tension in post-conflict transitional administrations between addressing immediate humanitarian and security needs and the complex, long-term process of establishing legitimate legal frameworks. UNTAET’s pragmatic approach, while vital for immediate stability and facilitating return, inadvertently legitimized some post-1999 occupations while potentially undermining the rights of others, creating new layers of contested claims and resentment. This “double-edged sword” effect demonstrates that even well-intentioned interventions can have unintended consequences if they do not fully account for the deep historical and socio-legal complexities of land tenure, ultimately adding to the challenges the independent government would face in establishing enduring legal certainty.
Following the restauration of independence on May 20, 2002, independent Timor-Leste enacted Law No. 1/2003 on the Juridical Regime of Immovable Properties on March 10, 2003. This legislation represented the fledgling nation’s first significant attempt to forge its own legal path, seeking to validate certain pre-independence titles and establish procedures for resolving claims. The law recognized the constitutional right to private property (Section 54) but stipulated that only national citizens had the right to private ownership of land. It also defined illegal occupation and prescribed penalties for the usurpation and illegal appropriation of state or private immovable assets.
During this period, the preparation of a national real estate cadastre was initiated. However, Law 1/2003 proved insufficient. It lacked the comprehensiveness necessary to address the tangled web of Portuguese titles, Indonesian-era grants, customary rights, and post-1999 occupations. Its application was difficult and often confusing due to numerous gaps and contradictions within the legal text. State officials frequently interpreted the law narrowly, recognizing only formal land titles and effectively leaving the majority of customary and informal land rights unprotected, thereby rendering most households legally susceptible to state dispossession. A stricter interpretation even went so far as to deny any legal validity to Indonesian land titles. This legal ambiguity resulted in a significant lack of legal tenure security for the majority of the population. A survey revealed that most respondents believed they owned the land where they lived despite not possessing a formal title, and without the “right” title, their rights were not recognized, leaving them vulnerable. This situation generated a high degree of fear of eviction, particularly in Dili, where 70% of households expressed concern about being evicted by the government. Despite these challenges, almost all households (98%) considered a land title important for avoiding evictions and protecting their rights, and believed that a titling program would help reduce land conflict.
UN reports from 2010 noted that comprehensive legal mechanisms to address property disputes, such as a definitive law on land and property rights, were still not fully in place. This period also saw the establishment of the Commission for Land and Property (CAiP), tasked with researching historical claims, understanding customary systems, mediating disputes, and proposing comprehensive legislation. While the “CAiP refers to – Comissão de Acolhimento, Verdade e Reconciliação sobre Terras,” the broader Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) was established by UNTAET in 2001 to address human rights violations.
Nevertheless, a “Land and Property Commission” was later created through Law No. 13/2017 to assess and resolve disputed cases. The work of these bodies, though lacking executive power in the early post-independence years, was foundational in documenting the crisis and underscoring the non-negotiable imperative for a coherent, state-guaranteed system. The insufficiency of Law 1/2003 stemmed from its inability to bridge the vast chasm between the inherited formal legal systems (Portuguese and Indonesian, with their inherent contradictions and historical illegitimacy) and the pervasive, yet unformalized, customary land tenure practices that governed the majority of the land. By focusing primarily on validating formal pre-independence titles and remaining silent on customary and informal land rights, the law effectively disenfranchised or left vulnerable a significant portion of the population whose claims were not based on formal documents.
This created a situation where legal de jure recognition was limited, while de facto occupation and customary practices continued, leading to persistent insecurity and conflict. The “legal certainty” promised by the law was thus largely unrealized for most, highlighting the critical need for a framework that genuinely integrates the diverse realities of land tenure in Timor-Leste rather than simply imposing another formal layer. This demonstrates that legal reform in post-conflict states cannot succeed by simply adopting or adapting foreign legal models without a deep understanding and integration of local, customary realities and historical grievances. The failure to address the roots of land insecurity meant that the law, despite its intentions, could not deliver true justice or stability, leaving the majority in a state of “codified precarity”.
Years of extensive research, consultation, and political negotiation, beginning with successive Justice Ministers such as Lucia Lobato (2007-2012), Dionísio Babo Soares (2013-2015) and Ivo Valente (2015-2017) culminated in a landmark legislative package passed by Parliament and promulgated by President Francisco Guterres “Lu Olo” in 2017, representing Timor-Leste’s first truly comprehensive, indigenous framework for land. This package includes several key pieces of legislation. Law No. 13/2017 (Land Law) serves as the cornerstone, establishing state domain over unclaimed land, defining various land rights (e.g., ownership, surface rights), and mandating a nationwide First Registration process to definitively adjudicate and record all claims. Its objectives are to clarify the legal status of immovable property, promote property distribution, and guarantee land access for all, recognizing valid pre-independence titles and good-faith customary rights, subject to formalization. The law explicitly ensures equal ownership rights for men and women, prohibiting any form of discrimination in ownership, access, management, transfer, or disposition. It also restricts foreign ownership to leases, aligning with the constitutional principle that only citizens may own land.
The other legislation refers to Law No. 14/2017 as the “Compensation Law”; however, available research indicates that Law No. 14/2017 is the General Forestry Regime. The principles of fair compensation for public acquisition are instead detailed under the Expropriation Law. Similarly, the user query refers to Law No. 15/2017 as the “Expropriation Law,” but research identifies Law No. 15/2017 as the Private Investment Law, which facilitates foreign investment but reiterates the constitutional restriction on foreign land ownership.
The actual Expropriations’ Law is Law No. 8/2017, approved in April 2017. This law strictly defines and limits the state’s eminent domain power, linking it intrinsically to public purpose and fair compensation, with provisions for judicial oversight through appeals to courts and court-appointed arbitrators. It applies to community immovable property and mandates special attention to vulnerable groups, requiring notifications in both official languages (Tetum and Portuguese). The implementation of this complex legal regime necessitated extensive new regulations (regras), including detailed decrees-law and ministerial diplomas covering cadastral surveying standards, registration procedures, and valuation methods. These regulations establish procedures for systematic and sporadic cadastral surveys using precision equipment and require confirmation or correction of data from previous projects. Institutions such as the National Directorate for Land, Property and Cadastral Services (DNTPSC), which possesses the legal competency to conduct land registration, and the Land and Property Commission (the commission created by Law 13/2017 to assess and resolve disputed cases) were empowered to drive this process.
The passage of these 2017 laws represents a crucial political and legal commitment, signaling a clear intent to establish a robust and internally coherent land regime. However, a significant gap exists between the ambition of these laws and their practical implementation. Legislative reform is merely the initial step in a protracted process of state-building in a post-conflict context. The historical layers of conflicting claims, the destruction of records, and the deeply ingrained customary practices mean that the true challenge lies in the painstaking, resource-intensive, and politically sensitive work of translating legal principles into on-the-ground reality. The ongoing need for extensive new regulations and the empowerment of institutions like DNTPSC and the Land and Property Commission underscores that the success of these laws depends heavily on administrative capacity, technical expertise, and sustained political will to manage the complexities of nationwide cadastral surveys, dispute adjudication, and the integration of diverse tenure systems. This gap is a common feature in post-conflict states, where the capacity to implement complex legal frameworks often lags behind the legislative will to create them. Consequently, the legal certainty promised by the 2017 laws remains a long-term aspiration, contingent on overcoming significant practical, institutional, and social hurdles, rather than an immediate outcome of legal enactment.
Central to translating the legal promise of the 2017 regime into tangible legal certainty is the government’s flagship program: the Serviço Nacional de Cadastrais (SNC) or National Cadastral System. Launched in 2014, the SNC’s monumental task is to systematically survey every parcel of land and conduct the nationwide First Registration. This project, a collaborative effort with a Portuguese company, aims to collect land data across the entire territory and enable the population to obtain land ownership certificates. The SNC process, as determined by law, involves a series of critical steps: defining collection areas, conducting public information campaigns and legal notices (both before and after surveys), registering land and collecting claims (issuing Unique Parcel Identification Numbers – NUIPs), publishing maps and lists of claimants for a 90-day review period, and finally, converting claims to state-guaranteed Certificates of Title.
Disputed cases are referred to the Land Commission or courts for resolution, and unclaimed land becomes “vacant” and state property. The process mandates systematic registration, meaning all parcels in a given area are registered simultaneously, and utilizes precision equipment for surveying. Despite its crucial objectives, the SNC’s implementation has faced significant challenges. These include issues with the legal framework, such as the sequencing of legislation, where registration began before Law 13/2017 was approved, leading to contradictions, and persistent gaps and contradictions in the legal framework that continue to confuse implementation, with complementary legislation still needed. Public information dissemination has been limited and insufficient, often failing to meet legal requirements or reach vulnerable groups, and sometimes providing incorrect information. Compliance with legal notice and map publication processes has also been problematic, with surveys and claims accepted before official notifications appeared in the Government Gazette, potentially invalidating the registration process in those areas. Access to land registration is further hindered by barriers to submitting claims, such as requirements for identification documents and signatures from witnesses and local authorities, which are difficult for many citizens to obtain.
The process also struggles to adequately facilitate joint claims (e.g., for married couples) or community property claims, resulting in very few customary land claims being registered and risking their loss to the state if land is registered individually or deemed “vacant”. Transparency issues, including a “culture of secrecy” within the SNC, restricted access to crucial information (contracts, reports, database), lack of corruption prevention mechanisms, and inconsistent field team identification, further undermine trust and accountability.
Quality concerns persist, with a focus on quantity over quality, a significant percentage of incomplete claims (48.7%), difficult field techniques, and a lack of clear data updating processes for post-registration transactions. A significant challenge is the lack of integration between the SNC and the National Directorate for Land, Property and Cadastral Services (DNTPSC), raising concerns about the sustainability and usability of SNC data after the program ends, as DNTPSC staff may lack sufficient understanding and capacity. The challenges faced by the SNC underscore a critical point: technical solutions, such as systematic cadastral surveying and registration, however well-designed in theory, can encounter significant obstacles when applied to complex socio-legal problems rooted in a history of conflict and diverse tenure systems.
The success of the SNC is not solely dependent on its technical execution but on its ability to navigate and integrate the deeply entrenched social, cultural, and historical realities of land tenure in Timor-Leste. Without adequate public engagement, transparent processes, and a nuanced approach to customary rights and vulnerable populations, even a comprehensive cadastral program risks perpetuating existing inequalities or creating new forms of insecurity, thereby failing to deliver true “Terra Segura” for all citizens.
The evolution of land law in Timor-Leste has been profound, yet the journey toward a truly secure and equitable land regime is far from complete. The future hinges on successfully navigating several critical challenges:
The first is the colossal task of implementing the nationwide First Registration program through the SNC. This requires sustained political will, significant financial resources, and robust technical and administrative capacity to complete within a reasonable timeframe, overcoming immense logistical hurdles and the complexities of historical claims.
Second, resolving legacy disputes, particularly the deeply entrenched and overlapping claims from Portuguese, Indonesian, and customary eras, remains a difficult and time-consuming endeavor, necessitating efficient and accessible land courts and mediation mechanisms.
Third, fully reconciling formal state law with deeply rooted customary tenure practices requires ongoing sensitivity, dialogue, and potentially further legal refinement to ensure justice and social acceptance for the majority of Timorese whose land claims are based on traditional systems.
Fourth, ensuring equitable access to the registration process, particularly for rural and vulnerable communities, is crucial to prevent marginalization and ensure the system benefits all Timorese, not just those with formal documentation or greater resources.
Finally, managing the inherent tension between facilitating state acquisition of land for essential infrastructure (using expropriation laws) and protecting individual and community land rights will require constant vigilance to ensure fairness and prevent abuse.
Despite these formidable challenges, the opportunities arising from achieving widespread legal certainty in land tenure are significant. Such certainty promises to unlock agricultural productivity, as secure rights can incentivize investment in land improvement and facilitate access to credit for farmers. It will also enable more effective urban planning, providing a stable basis for property taxation and supporting orderly development. Crucially, secure land rights underpin foreign investment by reducing risk and creating a transparent and predictable environment for long-term leases, which are the primary mechanism for foreign access to land given constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership. This security is not only vital for domestic economic development but also strengthens Timor-Leste’s credentials as it advances towards full ASEAN membership, signaling a mature and predictable investment landscape within the region.
In conclusion, the story of land and property law in Timor-Leste is a microcosm of its broader nation-building project. The evolution from Portuguese neglect and Indonesian imposition, through UNTAET’s crisis management and the foundational efforts of bodies like CAiP, to the comprehensive 2017 laws and the ongoing SNC registration, represents Timor-Leste’s determined claim to govern its own territory justly and effectively. This journey is characterized by a continuous effort to reconcile disparate legal legacies, address historical injustices, and build a unified system that can provide security and foster development. The future of the nation, its social harmony, and its economic prosperity rest firmly on the continued success of building this foundation of secure land rights—the true “Terra Segura” for its people.
Works cited:
1. Timor-Leste – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timor-Leste
2. Formal land tenure in East-Timor: an insider’s perspective – Leiden …, https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2020/09/formal-land-tenure-in-east-timor-an-insiders-perspective.
3. Managing Land Conflict in Timor-Leste – The Web site cannot be found, https://www.files. ethz.ch/isn/120986 B110%20Managing% 20Land%20Conflict%20in%20Timor-Leste.pdf.
4. Managing Land Conflict in Timor-Leste – Refworld, https://www.refworld.org/reference/countryrep/icg/2010/en/75484.
5. Full article: Codified Precarity in postcolonial governance: comparing peacebuilding trajectories in East Timor and Kashmir – Taylor & Francis Online, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03906701.2025.2498700?src=.
6. East Timor Land Law – Indonesian Basic Agrarian Law of 1960, https://www. easttimorlawandjusticebulletin.com/2009/06/east-timor-land-law-indonesian-basic.html.
7. BASIC AGRARIAN LAW, https://www. flevin.com/id/lgso/translations/Laws/Law%20No.%205%20of%201960%20on% 20Basic%20Agrarian%20Principles%20(ETLJ).doc.
8. The Relative Resilience of Property: First Possession and Order …, https://www. cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-society-review/article/relative-resilience-of-property-first-possession-and-order-without-law-in-east-timor DF74DE1FADFE8927AF53D4775417B679.
9. East Timor’s Land Tenure Problems: A Consideration of Land Reform Programs in South Africa and Zimbabwe – IU Robert H. McKinney School of Law – Indiana University, https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/practice/law-reviews/iiclr/pdf/vol17p395.pdf.
10. Post-conflict land administration; a facilitator of the post-conflict state building in the case of Timor-Leste – ResearchGate, https://www. researchgate.net/publication/278494809_Post-conflict_land_administration_a_facilitator_of_the_post-conflict_state_building_in_ the_case_of_Timor-Leste.
11. East Timor’s land rights mess – ETAN.org, http://etan.org/et2000c/december/17-23/ 23etland.htm.
12. East Timorese deserve justice! – Statement by the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) on the anniversary of the Liquiça massacre – ReliefWeb, https://reliefweb.int/report/timor-leste/east-timorese-deserve-justice-statement-east-timor-and-indonesia-action-network.
13. Timor-Leste: Law No. 1/2003 of 2003 on Land and Property | Refworld, https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/2003/en/29463.
14. Regulation 2000-27 – English – United Nations Peacekeeping, https://peacekeeping. un.org/sites/default/files/past/etimor/untaetR/Reg2700E.pdf.
15. UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor au Timor Oriental UNTAET REGULATION NO., https://mj.gov.tl/jornal/lawsTL/UNTAET-Law/Regulations%20English/Reg2000-27.pdf.
16. DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF TIMOR-LESTE NATIONAL PARLIAMENT LAW No. 1 /2003 THE JURIDICAL REGIME OF REAL ESTATE Part I, https://timor-leste.gov.tl/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/: Law_2003_1_juridical_regime_ real_estate_part_I_.pdf.
17. Survey on Access to Land, Tenure Security and Land Conflicts in Timor-Leste – The Asia Foundation, https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Survey-on-Access-to-Land-Tenure-Security-and-Land-Conflicts-in-Timor-Leste-1.pdf.
18. Full article: Understanding the legal dimension of state-led dispossession: the use and misuse of law in Timor-Leste, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/ 14747731.2024.2447670.
19. Human Rights | UNMIT, https://unmit.unmissions.org/human-rights.
20. Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_for_ Reception, _Truth_and_Reconciliation_ in_East_Timor.
21. Council of Ministers Meeting of 20th March 2018 « Government of Timor-Leste, https://timor-leste.gov.tl/?p=19656&lang=en.
22. Law No. 13/2017 establishing the Special Regime for the Definition …, https://www. ecolex.org/es/details/legislation/law-no-132017-establishing-the-special-regime-for-the-definition-of-the-real-estate-ownership-lex-faoc215952/.
23. The East Timor Land Law of 2017 – wwright lawyer, https://wrightlawyer.com.au/blog/f/the-east-timor-land-law-of-2017.
24. LAND REGISTRATION – Lao Hamutuk, https://www.laohamutuk.org/Agri/land/2019/RBR2019_RejistrasaunRai_ENG.pdf.
25. 2024 Investment Climate Statements: Timor-Leste – State Department, https://www. state.gov/reports/2024-investment-climate-statements/timor-leste/.
26. 2020 Investment Climate Statements: Timor-Leste, https://2017-2021.state.gov/reports/2020-investment-climate-statements/timor-leste/
27. 2023 Investment Climate Statements: Timor-Leste – State Department, https://www. state.gov/reports/2023-investment-climate-statements/timor-leste/.
28. Law No. 14/2017 establishing the General Forestry Regime. | FAOLEX, https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC170726/
29. CRA Timor Newsletter – August, September and October 2017, https://www.cratimor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Newsletter_2017 _aug_set_oct.pdf.
30. Legal News – TIMOR-LESTE – Miranda & Associados, https://www.mirandalawfirm.com/download/742/a9dc95b3239fa04d82986130dc7b646a/ln_tl_marmai2017_en.pdf.
31. TIMOR-LESTE – Miranda & Associados, https://mirandalawfirm.com/download/839/dae507261ae313e79ff6b34729cb7a93/ln_tl_junago2017_en.pdf.
32. LAW NO. 15 /2017 August 23, 2017 PRIVATE INVESTMENT LAW The promotion of the private sector of the economy is a mandate deriving, https://customs.gov.tl/wp-content/uploads/formidable/2/ENG-Law-15_2017.pdf.
33. Timor-Leste’s Private Investment Policy – Lao Hamutuk, https://www.laohamutuk.org/econ/invest/16InvestPolicy.h…
34. TIMOR-LESTE EXPROPRIATIONS’ LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPROVED INTRODUCTION GENERAL OVERVIEW Q&A – Miranda Law Firm, https://www.mirandalawfirm.com/download/635/7f1849be907eda9f6a6f16e732a486cc/legalalert_tl_en.pdf.
35. 5. Expropriation or plunder? Property rights and infrastructure development in Oecusse – ANU Press, https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n4586/pdf/ch05.pdf.
36. Expropriation or plunder? Property rights and infrastructure development in Oecusse – SciSpace, https://scispace.com/pd expropriation-or-plunder-property-rights-and-infrastructure-3brtxabx14.pdf.
37. Law No. 8/2017 on Land Expropriation for Public Utility. | FAOLEX, https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC167522/
38. P176687064dc580ac0abff03f2a… – World Bank Documents, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099740005232218590/txt/P176687064dc580ac0abff03f2ac024bdf4.txt. 39. Ministerial Order No. 32/2023 establishing Cadastral Survey Procedures. | FAOLEX, https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC221903/.
40. Direção Nacional dos Serviços Cadastrais – Ministério da Justiça, https://www.mj.gov.tl/?q=node/1479.
41. Ministério da Justiça lança projeto do Sistema Nacional de Cadastro, https://timor-leste.gov.tl/?p=10727&print=1&lang=pt.
42. Making Agriculture Work for the Poor in Timor-Leste – World Bank Documents and Reports, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099531207252433244/pdf/IDU1a2a92a0a1f4b614d0e18bb4198610080e562.pdf.
43. Investment Opportunities in Timor-Leste’s Digital Economy – ASEAN Briefing, https://www.aseanbriefing.com/news/investment-opportunities-in-timor-lestes-digital-economy/.
44. Preparing the Nation for Integration: Timor-Leste’s Path to ASEAN, https://aric.adb.org/blog/preparing-the-nation-for-integration:-timor-lestes-path-to-asean.
45. guide to doing business in timor-leste, https://www.mlgts.pt/xms/files/site_2018/guias/2025/Doing_Business_Timor-Leste_March-2025.pdf.
