That was a good presentation! Thanks for sharing it.
At minute 9:05 you said "smart contracts are protocols that can verify and enforce agreements". As far as I know there is no protocol that can do that without the help of humans insofar as, if there is a disagreement that needs to be resolved, either a trusted third party or an oracle (only possible if the content of the contract can be quantified) has to "verify" what is right and enforce the contract or respectively tell the software to enforce it (give the funds stored in the contract to one of the parties). Do you see that any differently?
As for property rights management: I contend that blockchain technology can only make property rights management more convenient but does not make it possible in the first place. Ahmed can register anything he wants in some blockchain, no once cares if there is no socially and/or forcefully enforced agreement (enforced by a state or the "local community" or or a security company) about what the basis for property rights is ("the law" or "the laws" for the libertarian version).
If we assume that it was enough if Ahmed proved that he once lived on the land in question before the war began in order to regain his land then he would still have problems proving that he lived there if there was no one else that verified it (anybody can make a entry in a decentralized database claiming all kinds of things). But I could see how that would work if it was combined with the reputation solution and many reputable individuals testify that he actually lived there. Overall this is possible today too (reputable individuals can testify in front of a local court/arbitrator), blockchain technology would just digitize it and scale it better.