Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Instruments and the Trend towards the Harmonization of Proprietary Regulation in the Civil Law of Member States of BRICS

  • Alexander Borisovich ZELENTSOV Pеоples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation
  • Vladimira Vladimirovna DOLINSKAYA Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), Moscow, Russian Federation
  • Еvgenia Еvgenevna FROLOVA Pеоples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation
  • Petr Alexandrovich KUCHERENKO Pеоples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation
  • Mihail Nikolaevich DUDIN Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), Moscow, Russian Federation


The current changes confirm the hypothesis that future economic transformations, as well as social and political interaction, will change their direction and that the American-European dominance will be minimized by the active development of the Eurasian and Asia-Africa region. In the medium term, the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) will largely determine the world's political and economic agenda.

Therefore, issues related to the study of the principles of civil law of the BRICS countries are becoming more and more relevant. The purpose of the article is formulated the following way: an analysis of the characteristics of the national regulation of proprietary rights reveals the specifics of the intercultural conflicts of the investigated area, the elimination of which will lead to the harmonization of the legislation of the considered countries, which will accelerate socio-political and economic-technological interactions between the BRICS countries, and will provide them with the best competitive position in the world economy.

The proposed article, using a comparative analysis of the basic rules of the proprietary law of the five BRICS countries and using open economic-statistical, legal and regulatory data posted on the Internet, presented the structural and logical frameworks describing the key approaches of national legislation systems in this area of legal relations. On the basis of the data, it was concluded that the proprietary law of the BRICS countries should be harmonized for the following main reasons: (1) the existence of cross-legal conflicts makes it possible to define the framework boundaries of harmonization of proprietary law in the five BRICS countries; (2) the existing loopholes and gaps in national legislation are sources of legal innovation and motives for the development of an institutional interstate environment within the BRICS.

Thus, on the one hand, the article is analytical aimed at the review of the existing features of national regulation of proprietary rights in the BRICS countries. On the other hand, the article suggests a number of practical steps that need to be taken in order to harmonize the national legislation of the BRICS countries.


[1] Badenhorst, P. and Pienaar, J. 2010. The Principles of the Law of Property in South Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press Southern Africa, pp. 392.
[2] Desai, R. 2013. Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization and Empire. Pluto Press, pp. 328.
[3] Dos Santos Cunha, A. 2011. The Social Function of Property in Brazilian Law. Fordham Review, 80: 1171-1181.
[4] Dudin, M.N., Frolova, E.E, Belikova, K.M. and Badaeva, N.V. 2016. Particularities of Legal Regulation and Harmonization of Proprietary Rights Legislation in the RSA, Brazil and China. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, VII(5(19)): 1026-1036.
[5] Erpyleva, N. 2017. Mezhdunarodnoe chastnoe pravo [International Private Law]. Moscow: Litres, pp. 400
[6] Grazhdanskii Kodeks, chast pervaya (30.11.1994 No. 51-FZ, v redaktsii ot 28.03.2017 No. 39-FZ i Postanovlenii Konstitutsionnogo suda ot 27.06.2012 No. 15-P) [Civil Code, Part One (No. 51-FZ, revised March 28, 2017 No. 39-FZ and Ruling by the Constitutional Court of June 27, 2012 No. 15-P)]. (1994, November 30). Available at: (accessed April 13, 2017)
[7] Gupta, T.S. 2011. Intellectual Property Law in India. Kluwer Law International, pp. 124.
[8] Gureyeva, M.A. 2015. Razvitie mezhdunarodnogo ekonomicheskogo sotrudnichestva v ramkakh BRIKS [Development of International Economic Cooperation under BRICS]. Innovatsionnaya nauka, 12-1: 98-103.
[9] Patel, S., and Uys, T. (Eds.). 2012. Contemporary India and South Africa: Legacies, Identities, Dilemmas. London: Routledge, pp. 340.
[10] Pilati, J.I. 2011. Property Law. Introduction to Brazilian Law. Kluwer Law International, pp. 71-84
[11] Qiao, S., and Upham, F. 2016. Research Handbook of Comparative Property Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 520.
[12] Schutte, F. 2012. The Characteristics of an Abstract System for the Transfer of Property in South African Law as Distinguished from a Casual System. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 15(3): 120-151.
[13] Tikhomirov, Yu.A. 2017. Kollizii kak istochnik razvitiya prava [Conflict as a Source of Development of Law]. Yuridicheskaya tekhnika, 11: 35-39.
[14] Turner, K.G. 2015. The Limits of the Rule of Law in China. Washington: University of Washington Press, pp. 384.
[15] Van der Merwe, C.G., and du Plessis, E. (Eds.). (n. d.). Introduction to the Law of South Africa. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, pp. 548.
[16] Zoellick, R. 2010. The End of the Third World – Modernizing Multilateralism for a Multipolar World. Law & Business Review, 16: 371-380.
How to Cite
ZELENTSOV, Alexander Borisovich et al. Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Instruments and the Trend towards the Harmonization of Proprietary Regulation in the Civil Law of Member States of BRICS. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 5, p. 1641-1649, feb. 2018. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 22 may 2024.