关于人对自然物的所有权和其他形式的所有权并存的讨论

Viktor Branovytskiy
{"title":"关于人对自然物的所有权和其他形式的所有权并存的讨论","authors":"Viktor Branovytskiy","doi":"10.17721/2227-796x.2020.3.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the author’s approach to solving the problemof coexistence of people’s, state, municipal and private property and to formulate propositions forimproving normative and legal regulation of ownership on natural objects.Methods. The research methodology consists of such methods of scientific cognition as systemand structural, comparative and legal, formal and legal, interpretation, deduction, induction,analysis, synthesis, etc.Results. The author has combined in the first part of the article the existing scientific approacheson understanding the rights of ownership of the people of Ukraine into two concepts and has calledthem the denial concept of people’s property and the recognition concept of people’s property. Theauthor has distinguished two main areas within each of them, where certain variations of themain idea of the concept correspond each of them. The author has placed a special attention onsubstantiating the non-viability of the denial concept of people’s property, since it contradictsthe current legislation and the theory of law. The author has argued that, contrary to the denialconcept of people’s property, the people of Ukraine are a legal category, a subject of law anda subject of the right of ownership; representative democracy does not deprive the people ofUkraine of the status of the holder of rights, assumptions about the inexpediency of the existenceof people’s property is questionable, and arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution of Ukraineand its figural understanding is inadmissible. The author believes that the existence of the denialconcept is due to both the problems of normative legal regulation and insufficiently seriousattitude and perception by the people as a source of power and a subject of law.The author has studied specific features and shortcomings of legal regulation of the right ofpeople’s ownership on natural objects and has formulated propositions for its improvement in thesecond part of the article. The author has substantiated the way to solve the problem of coexistenceof the people’s ownership on natural objects with other forms of ownership.Conclusions. The author has concluded that the objects of the right of ownership of the people arecertain categories of lands (including lands of nature reserve fund) and forests of the highest value,subsoil, waters, open air, are defined in the law as fauna and plants (growing on lands of people’sownership). They are set aside from the objects that may be owned by other entities, according to the criterion of value, significance and category of natural objects. However, their normativeand legal regulation needs to be improved, namely the conflicts, gaps and non-compliance withthe Constitution of Ukraine admitted in regulatory legal acts must be corrected. The provisions ofthe Articles 13–14 of the Constitution of Ukraine should be also brought into accord, since theirambiguity, possibility of double interpretation and inconsistency of presentation contradict therules of rule-making techniques, create obstacles to realize the rights and freedoms of citizens andcause different practices of application of regulations.","PeriodicalId":7222,"journal":{"name":"Administrative law and process","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"REGARDING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COEXISTENCE OF PEOPLE’S AND OTHER FORMS OF OWNERSHIP ON NATURAL OBJECTS\",\"authors\":\"Viktor Branovytskiy\",\"doi\":\"10.17721/2227-796x.2020.3.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the author’s approach to solving the problemof coexistence of people’s, state, municipal and private property and to formulate propositions forimproving normative and legal regulation of ownership on natural objects.Methods. The research methodology consists of such methods of scientific cognition as systemand structural, comparative and legal, formal and legal, interpretation, deduction, induction,analysis, synthesis, etc.Results. The author has combined in the first part of the article the existing scientific approacheson understanding the rights of ownership of the people of Ukraine into two concepts and has calledthem the denial concept of people’s property and the recognition concept of people’s property. Theauthor has distinguished two main areas within each of them, where certain variations of themain idea of the concept correspond each of them. The author has placed a special attention onsubstantiating the non-viability of the denial concept of people’s property, since it contradictsthe current legislation and the theory of law. The author has argued that, contrary to the denialconcept of people’s property, the people of Ukraine are a legal category, a subject of law anda subject of the right of ownership; representative democracy does not deprive the people ofUkraine of the status of the holder of rights, assumptions about the inexpediency of the existenceof people’s property is questionable, and arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution of Ukraineand its figural understanding is inadmissible. The author believes that the existence of the denialconcept is due to both the problems of normative legal regulation and insufficiently seriousattitude and perception by the people as a source of power and a subject of law.The author has studied specific features and shortcomings of legal regulation of the right ofpeople’s ownership on natural objects and has formulated propositions for its improvement in thesecond part of the article. The author has substantiated the way to solve the problem of coexistenceof the people’s ownership on natural objects with other forms of ownership.Conclusions. The author has concluded that the objects of the right of ownership of the people arecertain categories of lands (including lands of nature reserve fund) and forests of the highest value,subsoil, waters, open air, are defined in the law as fauna and plants (growing on lands of people’sownership). They are set aside from the objects that may be owned by other entities, according to the criterion of value, significance and category of natural objects. However, their normativeand legal regulation needs to be improved, namely the conflicts, gaps and non-compliance withthe Constitution of Ukraine admitted in regulatory legal acts must be corrected. The provisions ofthe Articles 13–14 of the Constitution of Ukraine should be also brought into accord, since theirambiguity, possibility of double interpretation and inconsistency of presentation contradict therules of rule-making techniques, create obstacles to realize the rights and freedoms of citizens andcause different practices of application of regulations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administrative law and process\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administrative law and process\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17721/2227-796x.2020.3.05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative law and process","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2227-796x.2020.3.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的。本文旨在论证作者解决人民财产、国家财产、市政财产和私有财产并存问题的思路,并提出完善对自然物所有权的规范和法律规制的主张。研究方法论包括系统与结构、比较与法律、形式与法律、解释、演绎、归纳、分析、综合等科学认知方法。在文章的第一部分中,作者将现有的理解乌克兰人民所有权的科学方法合并为两个概念,并将其称为人民财产的否认概念和人民财产的承认概念。作者在每个概念中区分了两个主要领域,其中概念的主要思想的某些变化对应于每个领域。作者特别注意证明否定人民财产概念的不可行性,因为它与现行立法和法律理论相矛盾。作者认为,与否定人民财产的概念相反,乌克兰人民是一个法律范畴,是法律主体和所有权主体;代议制民主并没有剥夺乌克兰人民作为权利持有人的地位,关于人民财产存在的不适宜性的假设是值得怀疑的,对乌克兰宪法及其形象理解的任意解释是不可接受的。笔者认为,否定概念的存在既有规范性法律规制的问题,也有作为权力源泉和法律主体的人民的态度和认知不够严肃的问题。本文第二部分研究了我国物权法规制的特点和不足,并提出了完善物权法规制的建议。论述了解决人民对自然物的所有权与其他形式的所有权并存问题的途径。作者认为,人民所有权的对象是某些类别的土地(包括自然保护区土地),最高价值的森林、底土、水域、露天,在法律上被定义为动植物(生长在人民所有的土地上)。它们是根据自然物的价值、意义和范畴的标准,从其他实体可能拥有的对象中分离出来的。但其规范性和法律规制还有待完善,即规制法律行为中承认的冲突、空白和不符合乌克兰宪法的行为必须予以纠正。乌克兰宪法第13-14条的规定也应该得到一致,因为它们的模糊性、双重解释的可能性和表述的不一致性与规则制定技术的规则相矛盾,给实现公民的权利和自由造成障碍,并造成不同的规则适用实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
REGARDING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COEXISTENCE OF PEOPLE’S AND OTHER FORMS OF OWNERSHIP ON NATURAL OBJECTS
Purpose. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the author’s approach to solving the problemof coexistence of people’s, state, municipal and private property and to formulate propositions forimproving normative and legal regulation of ownership on natural objects.Methods. The research methodology consists of such methods of scientific cognition as systemand structural, comparative and legal, formal and legal, interpretation, deduction, induction,analysis, synthesis, etc.Results. The author has combined in the first part of the article the existing scientific approacheson understanding the rights of ownership of the people of Ukraine into two concepts and has calledthem the denial concept of people’s property and the recognition concept of people’s property. Theauthor has distinguished two main areas within each of them, where certain variations of themain idea of the concept correspond each of them. The author has placed a special attention onsubstantiating the non-viability of the denial concept of people’s property, since it contradictsthe current legislation and the theory of law. The author has argued that, contrary to the denialconcept of people’s property, the people of Ukraine are a legal category, a subject of law anda subject of the right of ownership; representative democracy does not deprive the people ofUkraine of the status of the holder of rights, assumptions about the inexpediency of the existenceof people’s property is questionable, and arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution of Ukraineand its figural understanding is inadmissible. The author believes that the existence of the denialconcept is due to both the problems of normative legal regulation and insufficiently seriousattitude and perception by the people as a source of power and a subject of law.The author has studied specific features and shortcomings of legal regulation of the right ofpeople’s ownership on natural objects and has formulated propositions for its improvement in thesecond part of the article. The author has substantiated the way to solve the problem of coexistenceof the people’s ownership on natural objects with other forms of ownership.Conclusions. The author has concluded that the objects of the right of ownership of the people arecertain categories of lands (including lands of nature reserve fund) and forests of the highest value,subsoil, waters, open air, are defined in the law as fauna and plants (growing on lands of people’sownership). They are set aside from the objects that may be owned by other entities, according to the criterion of value, significance and category of natural objects. However, their normativeand legal regulation needs to be improved, namely the conflicts, gaps and non-compliance withthe Constitution of Ukraine admitted in regulatory legal acts must be corrected. The provisions ofthe Articles 13–14 of the Constitution of Ukraine should be also brought into accord, since theirambiguity, possibility of double interpretation and inconsistency of presentation contradict therules of rule-making techniques, create obstacles to realize the rights and freedoms of citizens andcause different practices of application of regulations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信