REGARDING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COEXISTENCE OF PEOPLE’S AND OTHER FORMS OF OWNERSHIP ON NATURAL OBJECTS

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the author’s approach to solving the problemof coexistence of people’s, state, municipal and private property and to formulate propositions forimproving normative and legal regulation of ownership on natural objects.Methods. The research methodology consists of such methods of scientific cognition as systemand structural, comparative and legal, formal and legal, interpretation, deduction, induction,analysis, synthesis, etc.Results. The author has combined in the first part of the article the existing scientific approacheson understanding the rights of ownership of the people of Ukraine into two concepts and has calledthem the denial concept of people’s property and the recognition concept of people’s property. Theauthor has distinguished two main areas within each of them, where certain variations of themain idea of the concept correspond each of them. The author has placed a special attention onsubstantiating the non-viability of the denial concept of people’s property, since it contradictsthe current legislation and the theory of law. The author has argued that, contrary to the denialconcept of people’s property, the people of Ukraine are a legal category, a subject of law anda subject of the right of ownership; representative democracy does not deprive the people ofUkraine of the status of the holder of rights, assumptions about the inexpediency of the existenceof people’s property is questionable, and arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution of Ukraineand its figural understanding is inadmissible. The author believes that the existence of the denialconcept is due to both the problems of normative legal regulation and insufficiently seriousattitude and perception by the people as a source of power and a subject of law.The author has studied specific features and shortcomings of legal regulation of the right ofpeople’s ownership on natural objects and has formulated propositions for its improvement in thesecond part of the article. The author has substantiated the way to solve the problem of coexistenceof the people’s ownership on natural objects with other forms of ownership.Conclusions. The author has concluded that the objects of the right of ownership of the people arecertain categories of lands (including lands of nature reserve fund) and forests of the highest value,subsoil, waters, open air, are defined in the law as fauna and plants (growing on lands of people’sownership). They are set aside from the objects that may be owned by other entities, according to the criterion of value, significance and category of natural objects. However, their normativeand legal regulation needs to be improved, namely the conflicts, gaps and non-compliance withthe Constitution of Ukraine admitted in regulatory legal acts must be corrected. The provisions ofthe Articles 13–14 of the Constitution of Ukraine should be also brought into accord, since theirambiguity, possibility of double interpretation and inconsistency of presentation contradict therules of rule-making techniques, create obstacles to realize the rights and freedoms of citizens andcause different practices of application of regulations.