A Comparative Perspective on the Concept of Ownership in Russian Law: From the Svod Zakonov to the 1994 Civil Code

Murray RAFF, Anna Taitslin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The modern European unitary conception of ownership emerged from the dissolution of feudalism and achievement of a deeper understanding of Roman law to become an ideal of property law in the European Civil-Law tradition. Prior to its dissolution European feudalism represented hierarchies of legal tenure in land, such as the division of land ownership between dominus directus (direct owner) and dominus utilis (beneficial owner) and overlapping hierarchies of social class descending from monarchy and aristocracy to bonded serfdom. Support for the resolution of divided land ownership and victory for the unitary concept of ownership was found in the Roman law tradition. The dissolution of feudal hierarchies took different historical courses in the legal traditions that we now identify as the French, German, Common-Law and Russian legal systems and with great local variation even within those emergent traditions. The unitary concept of ownership is found today in the French and German Civil Codes and is for practical purposes reflected in the prevalence of the common-law tenure of freehold. In Russia the systemized digest of the laws of the Russian Empire, the Svod Zakonov of 1832, provided no civil-law notion of divided ownership or perpetual rights. In the Soviet era exclusive state ownership of land and the means of production was also viewed as unitary, which raised serious questions about how state agencies and enterprises could engage in transactions with their assets and products. Venediktov's celebrated doctrine of the right of operative management, codified in the Civil Code of the rsfr of 1964, provided legal recognition of de facto proprietary rights for state enterprises. This introduced a form of divided ownership 'on the ground' despite the dogma of unitary state ownership. This reality further manifested itself in widespread division of ownership between land and buildings. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation of 1994 retained and even extended some of these solutions that relied on split or divided ownership. This might have been a pragmatic way forward in the early 1990s, however twenty years later the demands of a modern sophisticated legal system require a policy trajectory back toward a modern European unitary conception of ownership. The Russian Civil Code thus should be extended in this direction.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)263-341
Number of pages79
JournalReview of Central and East European Law
Volume41
Issue number3-4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Ownership
Dissolution
Enterprise
Legal System
Civil Law
Roman Law
Conception
Feudalism
Common Law
Russia
Tenure
Land Ownership
Monarchy
Serfdom
Victory
Doctrine
Property Law
Aristocracy
Split
Russian Empire

Cite this

@article{de04c2ab7a964b88907739d57b21a9e1,
title = "A Comparative Perspective on the Concept of Ownership in Russian Law: From the Svod Zakonov to the 1994 Civil Code",
abstract = "The modern European unitary conception of ownership emerged from the dissolution of feudalism and achievement of a deeper understanding of Roman law to become an ideal of property law in the European Civil-Law tradition. Prior to its dissolution European feudalism represented hierarchies of legal tenure in land, such as the division of land ownership between dominus directus (direct owner) and dominus utilis (beneficial owner) and overlapping hierarchies of social class descending from monarchy and aristocracy to bonded serfdom. Support for the resolution of divided land ownership and victory for the unitary concept of ownership was found in the Roman law tradition. The dissolution of feudal hierarchies took different historical courses in the legal traditions that we now identify as the French, German, Common-Law and Russian legal systems and with great local variation even within those emergent traditions. The unitary concept of ownership is found today in the French and German Civil Codes and is for practical purposes reflected in the prevalence of the common-law tenure of freehold. In Russia the systemized digest of the laws of the Russian Empire, the Svod Zakonov of 1832, provided no civil-law notion of divided ownership or perpetual rights. In the Soviet era exclusive state ownership of land and the means of production was also viewed as unitary, which raised serious questions about how state agencies and enterprises could engage in transactions with their assets and products. Venediktov's celebrated doctrine of the right of operative management, codified in the Civil Code of the rsfr of 1964, provided legal recognition of de facto proprietary rights for state enterprises. This introduced a form of divided ownership 'on the ground' despite the dogma of unitary state ownership. This reality further manifested itself in widespread division of ownership between land and buildings. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation of 1994 retained and even extended some of these solutions that relied on split or divided ownership. This might have been a pragmatic way forward in the early 1990s, however twenty years later the demands of a modern sophisticated legal system require a policy trajectory back toward a modern European unitary conception of ownership. The Russian Civil Code thus should be extended in this direction.",
keywords = "Common Law, divided ownership, feudalism, French law, German law, law reform, leases, legal history, ownership, perpetual interests, Roman law, Russian law, superficies, transition from socialism, unitary ownership",
author = "Murray RAFF and Anna Taitslin",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1163/15730352-04103003",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "263--341",
journal = "Review of Central and East European Law",
issn = "0925-9880",
publisher = "Martinus Nijhoff Publishers",
number = "3-4",

}

A Comparative Perspective on the Concept of Ownership in Russian Law: From the Svod Zakonov to the 1994 Civil Code. / RAFF, Murray; Taitslin, Anna.

In: Review of Central and East European Law, Vol. 41, No. 3-4, 2016, p. 263-341.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Comparative Perspective on the Concept of Ownership in Russian Law: From the Svod Zakonov to the 1994 Civil Code

AU - RAFF, Murray

AU - Taitslin, Anna

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - The modern European unitary conception of ownership emerged from the dissolution of feudalism and achievement of a deeper understanding of Roman law to become an ideal of property law in the European Civil-Law tradition. Prior to its dissolution European feudalism represented hierarchies of legal tenure in land, such as the division of land ownership between dominus directus (direct owner) and dominus utilis (beneficial owner) and overlapping hierarchies of social class descending from monarchy and aristocracy to bonded serfdom. Support for the resolution of divided land ownership and victory for the unitary concept of ownership was found in the Roman law tradition. The dissolution of feudal hierarchies took different historical courses in the legal traditions that we now identify as the French, German, Common-Law and Russian legal systems and with great local variation even within those emergent traditions. The unitary concept of ownership is found today in the French and German Civil Codes and is for practical purposes reflected in the prevalence of the common-law tenure of freehold. In Russia the systemized digest of the laws of the Russian Empire, the Svod Zakonov of 1832, provided no civil-law notion of divided ownership or perpetual rights. In the Soviet era exclusive state ownership of land and the means of production was also viewed as unitary, which raised serious questions about how state agencies and enterprises could engage in transactions with their assets and products. Venediktov's celebrated doctrine of the right of operative management, codified in the Civil Code of the rsfr of 1964, provided legal recognition of de facto proprietary rights for state enterprises. This introduced a form of divided ownership 'on the ground' despite the dogma of unitary state ownership. This reality further manifested itself in widespread division of ownership between land and buildings. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation of 1994 retained and even extended some of these solutions that relied on split or divided ownership. This might have been a pragmatic way forward in the early 1990s, however twenty years later the demands of a modern sophisticated legal system require a policy trajectory back toward a modern European unitary conception of ownership. The Russian Civil Code thus should be extended in this direction.

AB - The modern European unitary conception of ownership emerged from the dissolution of feudalism and achievement of a deeper understanding of Roman law to become an ideal of property law in the European Civil-Law tradition. Prior to its dissolution European feudalism represented hierarchies of legal tenure in land, such as the division of land ownership between dominus directus (direct owner) and dominus utilis (beneficial owner) and overlapping hierarchies of social class descending from monarchy and aristocracy to bonded serfdom. Support for the resolution of divided land ownership and victory for the unitary concept of ownership was found in the Roman law tradition. The dissolution of feudal hierarchies took different historical courses in the legal traditions that we now identify as the French, German, Common-Law and Russian legal systems and with great local variation even within those emergent traditions. The unitary concept of ownership is found today in the French and German Civil Codes and is for practical purposes reflected in the prevalence of the common-law tenure of freehold. In Russia the systemized digest of the laws of the Russian Empire, the Svod Zakonov of 1832, provided no civil-law notion of divided ownership or perpetual rights. In the Soviet era exclusive state ownership of land and the means of production was also viewed as unitary, which raised serious questions about how state agencies and enterprises could engage in transactions with their assets and products. Venediktov's celebrated doctrine of the right of operative management, codified in the Civil Code of the rsfr of 1964, provided legal recognition of de facto proprietary rights for state enterprises. This introduced a form of divided ownership 'on the ground' despite the dogma of unitary state ownership. This reality further manifested itself in widespread division of ownership between land and buildings. The Civil Code of the Russian Federation of 1994 retained and even extended some of these solutions that relied on split or divided ownership. This might have been a pragmatic way forward in the early 1990s, however twenty years later the demands of a modern sophisticated legal system require a policy trajectory back toward a modern European unitary conception of ownership. The Russian Civil Code thus should be extended in this direction.

KW - Common Law

KW - divided ownership

KW - feudalism

KW - French law

KW - German law

KW - law reform

KW - leases

KW - legal history

KW - ownership

KW - perpetual interests

KW - Roman law

KW - Russian law

KW - superficies

KW - transition from socialism

KW - unitary ownership

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84996848763&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/comparative-perspective-concept-ownership-russian-law-svod-zakonov-1994-civil-code

U2 - 10.1163/15730352-04103003

DO - 10.1163/15730352-04103003

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 263

EP - 341

JO - Review of Central and East European Law

JF - Review of Central and East European Law

SN - 0925-9880

IS - 3-4

ER -