Public Interest as a Ground for Restriction of the Ownership Right

  • Elena Anatolyevna KIRILLOVA Russian Federation Southwest State University, Kursk, Russian Federation
  • Varvara Vladimirovna BOGDAN Russian Federation Southwest State University, Kursk, Russian Federation
  • Petr Martynovich FILIPPOV Chechen State University, Grozny, Russian Federation
  • Bela Bertovna BIDOVA Chechen State University, Grozny, Russian Federation
  • Olesya Genadyevna FILIPENKOVA Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Department of State and Legal Disciplines, Moscow, Russian Federation

Abstract

The public interest right as a ground for restriction of the ownership right is studied in this article. The notion of sustainable development, widely discussed in recent years at the international level, considers the thesis of balanced regulation of economic relations as one of the main principles of state policy. The balanced regulation of economic relations is impossible without clear definition of the areas of private and public interests in law, as well as without development of the common approaches to the notion, content, criteria, and principles of restriction of the ownership rights. The purpose of this study is to analyze public interest as a groundfor restriction of the ownership right. This scientific work is based on the dialectical method, in which each legal phenomenon is considered in development, in constant movement, and the contradictions of different levels within the framework of the common system are recognized as the internal impulses of development. The principle of systematic analysis of the limits of implementation and restrictions of private and public ownership rights is actively applied. The study proposes to expand the subject composition in legal relations on restriction of the ownership rights and to introduce a new subject of law (the ʽfuture generationsʽ), the interests of which may become the limit of the implementation of the ownership right; the authors' definition of the ʽinterest of the societyʽ is given, the conclusion is madethat the restrictions of the ownership rights are independent legal relationships, arising from the legal facts, based on the law. The proposal is substantiated that in the system of fundamental human rights and freedoms it is necessary to single out the right to property as the basic right of an individual (person), different from the ownership right. The right to property is a potential, yet unrealized opportunity for everyone to possess any property. The conclusions and proposals made in the study will make it possible to ensure the balance of the property interests of the owners and the society.

References

[1] Allanina, L.M., Khairullina, N.G., Zyleva, N.V., Ruf, Y.N., Permyakov, A.V., Mikhailova, M.N., and Aleksanrovish, G.V. 2016. Legal Regulation of Subsurface Use-in Russia: Actual Problems. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(18), 12471-12485
[2] Bański, J. 2017. The Consequences of Changes of Ownership for Agricultural Land Use in Central European Countries Following the Collapse of the Eastern Bloc. Land Use Policy, 66, 120-130.
[3] Ben-Nasr, H. 2016. State and Foreign Ownership and the Value of Working Capital Management. Journal of Corporate Finance, 41, 217-240.
[4] Bromley, D.W. 2016. Rights-Based Fisheries and Contested Claims of Ownership: Some Necessary Clarifications. Marine Policy, 72, 231-236.
[5] Bryner, N.S. 2016. Public Interests and Private Land: The Ecological Function of Property in Brazil. Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 34, 122.
[6] Chang, S., and Boontham, W. 2017. Post-Privatization Speed of State Ownership Relinquishment: Determinants and Influence on Firm Performance. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 41, 82-96.
[7] Clò, S., Ferraris, M., and Florio, M. 2017. Ownership and Environmental Regulation: Evidence from the European Electricity Industry. Energy Economics, 61, 298-312.
[8] Dávid R., Neckář J., Sehnálek D. 2009. (Editors). COFOLA 2009: the Conference Proceedings, 1. edition. Brno : Masaryk University
[9] He, L. 2016. Beyond Asset Ownership: Employment and Assetless Firms in the Property Rights Theory of the Firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 130, 261-273.
[10] Holderness, C.G. 2017. Culture and the Ownership Concentration of Public Corporations around the World. Journal of Corporate Finance, 44, 469-486.
[11] Jiang, K., and Wang, S. 2017. A Contractual Analysis of State versus Private Ownership. China Economic Review, 43, 142-168.
[12] Kirillova, E.A., Suslikov, V.N., Tsokur, E.F., Zenin, S.S., and Zulfugarzade, T.E.D. 2016. The Legal Problems of Forced Migration: A Comparative and Legal Analysis Illustrated by the European Union Countries and Russia. Man in India, 96(10), 3561-3571.
[13] Li, H. 2017. Residual State Ownership and Stock Market Integration: Evidence from Chinese Partly-Privatised Firms. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1062976916301697 (accessed January 7, 2004)
[14] Naseri, A., Toorang, H.A., and Sheikhmoradi, V. 2016. Restrictions on the Right to Private Property in the Iranian Legal System. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, Special Issue, 2155-2171.
[15] Sayın, Y., Lehavi, A., Oder, B.E., Onok, M., Francavilla, D., Torre de Silva, V., and Sudarshan, D. 2017. Land Law and Limits on the Right To Property: Historical, Comparative and International Analysis – LSGL Human Rights Group Paper. Law Schools Global League Research Paper No. 5.
[16] Schmidt, C., and Fahlenbrach, R. 2017. Do Exogenous Changes in Passive Institutional Ownership Affect Corporate Governance and Firm Value? Journal of Financial Economics, 124(2), 285-306.
[17] Wang, K.T., and Shailer, G. 2017. Family Ownership and Financial Performance Relations in Emerging Markets. International Review of Economics & Finance, 51, 82-98.
[18] Wenyu, Z., and Jiawen, Y. 2016. State Ownership, Cross-Border Acquisition, and Risk-Taking: Evidence from China’s Banking Industry. Journal of Banking & Finance, 71, 133-153.
[19] Williams, D., Atkinson, R., and Tallon, A. 2017. Who is Responsible for Incorporating the Notion of Public Interest into Sustainable Urban Developments? A Case Study of Three Sites in the South-West of England. In 49th Annual UTSG Conference, Dublin, Eire, 4-6 January 2017. Dublin.
[20] Yılmaz, M., and Keleş, R. 2017. The Role of Local Authorities and the Public for the Protection of Natural Assets. In E. Hepperle (Ed.), Land Ownership and Land Use Development: The Integration of Past, Present, and Future in Spatial Planning and Land Management Policies (p. 239).European Academy of Land Use and Development.
[21] Zevenbergen, J., Stoter, J., Lemmen, C., Molen, P., Oosterom, P.V., Ploeger, H., and Quak, W. 2017. A Modular Standard for the Cadastral Domain. In The 3rd International Symposium on Digital Earth, Brno, September, 2003.
Published
2017-12-30
How to Cite
KIRILLOVA, Elena Anatolyevna et al. Public Interest as a Ground for Restriction of the Ownership Right. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 7, p. 2147-2154, dec. 2017. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/2019>. Date accessed: 22 may 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.14505/jarle.v8.7(29).12.