Particularities of Legal Regulation and Harmonization of Proprietary Rights Legislation in the RSA, Brazil and China

  • Mihail Nikolaevich DUDIN Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) Moscow
  • Evgenia Evgenevna FROLOVA Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok
  • Ksenia Michailovna BELIKOVA Peoples Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow
  • Natalia Vladimirovna BADAEVA Peoples Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow


In all countries under consideration, legal regulation of proprietary relationships is a reflection of the current level of social and economic development of these states, as well as of the objective necessity of including certain proprietary legal institutions into the system of rights for things:
• the process of civil legislation reformation in Brazil and China, in so far as it relates to the institutions of the right of ownership and limited proprietary rights, is acceptable to be admitted as generally successful and meeting the stated objectives. The proprietary legislation of the Republic of South Africa is marked by high stability;
• in spite of being based on Roman-Dutch proprietary rights legal institutions, the law of South Africa receives the required development due to the judges’ interpretative activity in the process of creating case laws. Such situation is determined by the fact that during the period of English rule the Republic of South Africa adopted the type of judicial system organization and activity common for the common law countries;
• the improvement of legal systems, as well as the unification and harmonization of national legislations of China, Brazil and the Republic of South Africa, ensures the creation of a unified approach to social and political, and legal interaction, which ensures compliance with the private law and proprietary rights as the basic rights of democratic societies oriented to sustainable social and economic development.


[1] Aleshin, V.V. 2010. O nekotorykh osobennostyakh veshchnykh prav v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave [On Certain Peculiar Features of Priprietary Rights in Foreign Private Law]. Vestnik RGGU. Series: Politology. History. Foreign Affairs. Foreign Studies. Oriental Studies, 4(47): 167-176.
[2] Badenhorst, P. et al. 2012. The Principles of the Law of Property in South Africa. Oxford University Press Southern Africa.
[3] Barkov, A.V. 2015. Sotsializatsiya prava kak factor vliyaniya na razvitiye zakonodatelstva o veshchnykh pravah [Socialization of Law as Factor to Influence the Development of Proprietary Rights Legislation]. Voprosy Rossiyskoy yustitsii, 2(2): 12-15.
[4] Chen, X. 2009. Chinese Property Law (Rights in rem) in the Civilian Tradition. Transition Studies Review, 16(2): 421-428.
[5] Cousins, B. 1995. Common Property Institutions and Land Reform in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 12(4): 481-507.
[6] De Waal, M.J. 1999. Numerus Clausus and the Development of New Real Rights in South African Law. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 3.3. Retrieved from
[7] Den Shen Min. 2007. Kitajskij zakon o veshhnyh pravah 2007 goda: shagi razrabotki i prinjatija [Chinese Law on Proprietary Rights of 2007: Steps for Development and Adoption]. Vestnik Rossijskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Serija: Juridicheskie nauki, 5: 120-124.
[8] Dos Santos Cunha, A. 2011. The Social Function of Property in Brazilian Law. Fordham Review, 80: 1171-1181.
[9] Gebhard, R., and Hinrich, M.J. 2009. The New Chinese Property Rights Law: An Evaluation from a Continental European Perspective. Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 22. Retrieved from
[10] Gureeva, M.A. 2015. Razvitie mezhdunarodnogo ekonomicheskogo sotrudnichestva v ramkah BRIKS [Development of International Economic Cooperation within the Framework of BRICS]. Inovatsionnaya nauka, 12-1: 98-103.
[11] Lenel, B. 2002. The History of South African Law and its Roman-Dutch Roots. Thal, Switzerland. Retrieved from
[12] Long, Q. 2009. Reinterpreting Chinese Property Law. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 19(55): 55-71.
[13] Lund, C., and Boone, K. 2013. Land Politics in Africa – Constituting Authority over Territory, Property and Persons. Africa, 83(Special Issue 01): 1-13.
[14] Pilati, J.I. 2011. Property Law. In F. Deffenti & Barral W. (Eds.) Introduction to Brazilian Law. Kluwer Law International, 71-84.
[15] Pils, E. 2010. Chinese Property Law as an Image of PRC History. Social science research network, Retrieved April 15, 2016, from
[16] Qiao, S., and Upham, F. 2016. Research Handbook of Comparative Property Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[17] Schutte, F. 2012. The Characteristics of an Abstract System for the Transfer of Property in South African Law as Distinguished from a Casual System. PELJ, 15(3): 120-151.
[18] Turner-Gottschang, K., Feinerman, J.V., and Guy, R.K. 2015. The Limits of the Rule of Law in China. University of Washington Press.
[19] Van der Merwe, C.G., and de Waal, M.J. 1993. The Law of Things and Servitudes. Durban: Butterworths.
[20] Van der Merwe, C.G., and du Plessis, E. 2004. Introduction to the Law of South Africa. The Hague.
[21] Zhang, M. 2008. From Public to Private: The Newly Enacted Chinese Property Law and the Protection of Property Rights in China. Berkeley Bus. L.J., 5(2): 317-363.
How to Cite
DUDIN, Mihail Nikolaevich et al. Particularities of Legal Regulation and Harmonization of Proprietary Rights Legislation in the RSA, Brazil and China. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 5, p. 1026–1036, dec. 2016. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 14 apr. 2024.


Proprietary Law; Private Law; Civil Law; domestic legislation; Brazil; China; the RSA