Property Rights to Land Plots in the Russian Federation and Great Britain: Dogmatic Approach against Pragmatism

Comparison of the phenomenon of property rights in two unrelated legal systems is an interesting task from the point of view of methodology. A simplifying factor is that English law in its origins was strongly influenced by Roman law, but developed apart from continental legal systems. As a result, using the same terminology in the field of property rights in the Russian Federation and Great Britain, different views have been formed on the nature of property rights to land plots. The paper analyzes the legal structures of real law in both countries and achieves the goal of clarifying the content of controversial terms and classifications existing in the real law of the Russian Federation; taking into account foreign experience the author determines the prospects for the development of domestic concepts of real and absolute rights. The admissibility of comparing property rights to land plots is predetermined by the use of similar legal techniques in both countries, as well as terminology borrowed from Roman law. The paper substantiates the thesis on the admissibility of using the analytical concept of law of W. N. Hochfeld as a comparative legal method of research. Fundamental differences in both legal systems will be in the idea of the object of property rights to land plots, the place of property rights in the classification of rights, in the structure and content of the corresponding legal relationship. Taking into account the analysis of the legal regulation of property rights to land plots in the two countries, theoretical provisions substantiate the conclusion about the need to preserve the idea of the absolute nature of property rights in domestic law.

1. Braginskij M. I. K voprosu o sootnoshenii veshchnyh i obyazatel’stvennyh pravootnoshenij // Grazhdanskij kodeks Rossii. Problemy. Teoriya. Praktika. — M., 1998. — S. 113–130.

2. Genkin D. A. Pravo sobstvennosti v SSSR. — M., 1961. — 223 s.

3. Grazhdanskoe pravo : uchebnik : v 3 t. / otv. red. V. P. Mozolin. — 2-e izd., pererab. i dop. — M., 2012. — T. 1. — 815 s.

4. Dozhdev D. V. Samoj ideej veshchnogo prava my preodolevaem zavisimost’ ot material’nyh veshchej // Zakon. — 2016. — № 6. — S. 6–8.

5. Dozorcev V. A. Ponyatie isklyuchitel’nogo prava // Problemy sovremennogo grazhdanskogo prava : sbornik statej. — M., 2000. — S. 287–320.

6. Efimova L. G. O sootnoshenii veshchnyh i obyazatel’stvennyh prav // Gosudarstvo i pravo. — 1998. — № 10. — S. 35–44.

7. Ivanov A. A. Ekonomicheskie osnovaniya veshchnyh prav // Zakon. — 2015. — № 12.

8. Ioffe O. S. Pravootnosheniya po sovetskomu grazhdanskomu pravu. — L., 1949. — 143 s.

9. Ioffe O. S. Razvitie civilisticheskoj mysli v SSSR // Izbrannye trudy po grazhdanskomu pravu. — M., 2000. — 777 s.

10. Korkunov N. M. Russkoe gosudarstvennoe pravo : v 2 t. — SPb., 1893. — T. 1. — 573 s.

11. Mozolin V. P. Grazhdanskoe pravo i hozyajstvennyj mekhanizm // Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. — 1984. — № 5. — S. 18–26.

12. Pevzner A. G. Ponyatie i vidy sub"ektivnyh grazhdanskih prav : dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 1961. — 242 s.

13. Pobedonoscev K. P. Kurs grazhdanskogo prava : v 3 t. — M., 2003. — T. 1. — 768 s.

14. Sinicyn S. A. Vseobshchaya passivnaya obyazannost’ kak priznak absolyutnogo prava // Zakonodatel’stvo. — 2013. — № 8. — S. 16–20.

15. Birks P. Before We Begin: Five Keys to Land Law // Land Law: Themes and Perspectives / Ed. by S. Bright, J. Dewar. — Ohford, 1998.

16. Del Mar M., Twinning W. Legal Fictions in Theory and Practice // Law and Philosophy Library. — 2015. — Vol. 110.

17. Hohfeld W. N. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays. — New Haven, 1920. — 114 p.

18. Legrand P. European Legal Systems Are Not Converging // The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. — 1996. — Vol. 45. — № 1.

19. Sacco R. Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law // American Journal of Comparative Law. — 1991. — Vol. 39. — № 1.

20. Van Hoecke M. Hohfeld and Comparative Law // International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. — 1996. — Vol. 9. — № 26.

21. Worthington S. The Disappearing Divide between Property and Obligation: the impact of aligning legal analysis and commercial expectation // Texas International Law Journal. — 2007. — Vol. 42. — № 3.