Entropy of property in Western and Russian legal doctrine and practice

The subject of the study is a phenomenon of an “entropy” of property, its interpretation, socio-economic conditionality, genesis of its development in European and Russian doctrine, reflection of a construct of “separated” property in the legislation. “Entropy” of property is a situation when both entities are owners, but in different areas of relations: the first person is the owner in relation to third parties, and the second-in relation to the first The goal of this scientific research is to find out reasons of the existence of phenomenon of “entropy of property” in European and Russian legal doctrines, to identify common and specific features of this phenomenon. Methodology. The authors use the general scientific method, including dialectics, comparative analysis, formal logic, historical method. A number of specific methods pertaining to the legal science were used as well: the formal dogmatic method was applied for analysis of ownership within the institute of property rights; the logical legal method was applied to study general tendencies of development of the institute of property rights; the legal comparative method was used to study European and Russian legislation on ownership and other property rights. The main scientific results. The Western legal doctrine of “entropy of property” has quite a long history of development, unlike the Russian. Specific features of the Russian doctrine are result of its historical, political and cultural characteristics. The phenomenon of “entropy of property” has both positive and negative consequences, which requires pluralistic approach to its assessment. “Reunification” of ownership rights on the land plot and other objects located on it, is a result of socio-economic and legal factors and deserves positive assessment. Property rights as elements of titular possession are not based only on law, but may be created by contract as well. Conclusions. The European and Russian legal doctrines on the “entropy of property” have both common and specific features. The common features are: existence of “absolute” ownership, limited property rights, trends of reunification of “separated” property etc. The specific features are: absence of “trust” in the Russian legal system; excessive fragmentation of right of ownership as a large “bundle” of rights; absence of situations when one person may simultaneously hold statuses of owner and holder of a limited property right in the Russian legislation.

1. Parisi F., Schulz N., Depoorter B. Duality in Property: Commons and Anticommons. International Review of Law and Economics, 2005, vol. 25, iss. 4, pp. 578–591.

2. Buchanan J., Yoon Y. Symmetric Tragedies: Commons and Anticommons. Journal of Law and Economics, 2000, vol. 43, iss. 1. pp. 1–13.

3. Heller M.A. The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets. Harvard Law Review, 1998, vol. 111, iss. 3, pp. 621–688.

4. Parizi F. Entropiya sobstvennosti, in: Dozhdev D. V. (ed.) Ezhegodnik sravnitel'nogo prava. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2011, рр. 188-227. (In Russ.).

5. Venediktov A.V. State socialist property. Moscow, Izdatel'stvo AN SSSR, 1948. 834 p. (In Russ.).

6. Venediktov A.V. Legal nature of state enterprises. Leningrad, 1928. 151 p. (In Russ.).

7. Tolstoi Yu.K. To the development of the theory of a legal entity at the present stage, in: Litovkina V.N., Rakhmilovicha V.A. (ed.) Problems of modern civil law. Moscow, Gorodets Publ. 2000. 382 p. (In Russ.).

8. Andreev V.K. On the right to private property in Russia (critical essay). Moscow, Wolters Kluwer, 2007. 184 p. (In Russ.).

9. Kulagin M.I. Selected Works. Moscow, Statut Publ., 1997. 330 p. (In Russ.).

10. Bogdanova E.E. Protection of rights and interests in contractual relations. Moscow, YUNITI-DANA: Zakon i pravo, 2008. 247 p. (In Russ.).

11. Bogdanov E.V, Bogdanov D.E., Bogdanova E.E. The development of civil law in Russia. Trends, Prospects, Problems. Moscow, YUNITI-DANA: Zakon i pravo, 2014. 335 p. (In Russ.).

12. Novoselova L.A. Cash settlements in business activities. Moscow, Uchebno-konsul'tatsionnyi. tsentr «YurInfoR» Publ., 1996. 160 p. (In Russ.).

13. Sukhanov E.A. Loan and credit. Financing under the assignment of a monetary claim. Bank deposit. Bank account (chapters 42-45) (Comment of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Khozyaistvo i pravo, 1996, no. 7, pp. 3-25. (In Russ.).

14. Bezbakh V.V., Blei G., Knapp V. et al. Soviet and foreign civil law. Problems of interaction and development. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1989. 336 p. (In Russ.).

15. Hegel' G.V.F. Philosophy of Law. Moscow, Mysl' Publ., 1990. 524 p. (In Russ.).

16. Kant I. The Philosophy of Law: An Exposition of the Fundamental Principles of Jurisprudence as the Science of Right. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1887. 265 p.

17. Merrill Th.W., Smith H.E. Optimal Standardization in the Law of property: The Numerus Clausus Principle. Yale Law Journal, 2000, vol. 110, iss. 1, pp. 1–70.

18. Rudden B. Economic Theory v. Property Law: The Numerus Clausus Problem, in: Eekelaar J., Bell J. (eds.) Oxford Essays on Jurisprudence. Oxford, Oxford, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1987. P. 239–263.

19. Gambaro A. Il Diritio di Proprieta, in: Trattato di diritto civile e commercial. Milano, Giuffré Editore, 1995. 1012 p. (In Ital.).

20. Braginskii M.I., Vitryanskii V.V. Contract law. Book one. General Provisions. Moscow, Statut Publ., 1999. 848 p. (In Russ.).

21. Gongalo Yu., Gryadov A., Krief-Semitko K., Krokhalev S., Kuznetsov E., Medvedev I., Yarkov V. French Civil Code: A Practical Commentary. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2008. 752 p. (In Russ.).

22. Sukhanov E.A. Property law: Scientific and educational essay. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2017. 559 p. (In Russ.).

23. Baur F., Baur F., Baur G. F., Sturner R. Sachenrecht. 17. Aufl., Munchen, C. H. Beck, 1999, 917 p.

24. Turubiner A. M. State ownership of land in the Soviet Union. Moscow, Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1958. 330 p. (In Russ.).

25. Aksenenok G.A. in: Kazantsev N.D. (ed.) State ownership of land in the USSR. Moscow, Yuridicheskaja literature Publ., 1960. – 308 p. (In Russ.).

26. Honore A.M. Ownership, in: Guest A. G. (ed.) Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1961. P. 107–147.

27. Hayton D.J., Kortmann S.C.J.J., Verhagen H.L.E. (eds) Principles of European Trust Law. The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 1999. 236 p.

28. Recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Council at the Arbitration Court of the Ural District: «Issues of the application of legislation on certain types of obligations» following a meeting held on June 01-02, 2017 in Ufa. Ekonomicheskoe pravosudie v Ural'skom okruge. 2017, no. 3, pp. 16-30. (In Russ.).