PRIVATE PROPERTY AS AN INALIENABLE NATURAL HUMAN RIGHT
30.09.2008 09:26
Author: Valentyn Galunko, Doctor of Philosophy Rh.D. Sciences of law Ñhief of department
[Theory and history of the state and law. History of political and legal studies. Philosophy of law]
The institute of private property always takes a leading place in the theory of jurisprudence of democratic countries with a market economy. Legal modern and historical-and-law opinion of great thinkers of previous epochs are united in it.
The Establishment of modern law is interlinked with the name of a prominent thinker, theorist of law D. Lock, which paid much attention to opening of the noted institute. He said: «We consider a natural reason, which says that people who were born have a right to self-preservation, and accordingly, on similar things which provide their existence. I think that civil interests are life, freedom, health and absence of corporal sufferings, possession of such external well-beings as money, land, houses, domestic things» [1, p.18, 145]. By this, to out mind, D. Lock successfully started the content of private property as a natural inalienable human right.
J-J. Rousseau, P. Montesque, T. Jefferson, E. Kant, Dg. Mill, thinkers of the age Renaissance and Education, determined human rights (to life, freedom, property etc.) as sacred imperatives and founded the bases of the modern understanding of rights and freedoms of a person. Their ideas based on the theory of natural right, after social, economic and political shocks led to acceptance of American Declaration of Independence in 1776 and French Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights in August, 4 1789 , which marked a new era in the history of humanity. It is said in the last one: «p. 2. The guard of natural and inalienable human rights is the purpose of every political society. These rights are freedom, property, safety…. p. 17. The Right to ownership is inviolable and sacred, nobody can be deprived of his property, except same cases, when a public benefit is supported with a legal order, and obviously needs it. An obligatory condition in this case will be a previous payment of equitable reward [2, p. 24, 30] ».
Such ideas were protected and enriched by the prominent Ukrainian thinkers: G.Skovoroda, T. Shevchenko, I. Frankco, L. Ukrainka, M. Groushevskiy, M. Dragomanov, O. Kistyakivskiy. A Special place in this list is occupied with the first in the world history written Constitution of P. Orlik, which declared the idea of the «renewal of natural right and equality» [3, p. 568, 575, 589; 4, p. 168; 5, p. 285-286]. Lawyer O. Kistyakivskiy marked the necessity of limitation of the state authority with «inseparable, inviolable, inalienable human rights, the most important of which he called a right to dignant existence» [4, p. 168]. In his turn G. Skovoroda determined the mentioned hierarchy of values, where A person, with his spiritual needs was put on the top of philosophical pyramid, and property was defined only as the limited necessity, that needs guard in these sizes. He said: «It is useless to state that the necessity of possession for a person is natural, for example, possession of the riches that exceed possibilities of moderate consumption» [5, p. 285].
At the same time the theoretical revisions of all these thinkers practically did not positively affect the real state of provision of rights and freedoms of things when of Ukrainian lands were joined the Russian and Austrian-Hungarian empires. At first, they were only partially introduced in operating normative-legal acts. Secondly, an extraordinary state constantly operating in those empires, when the important public relations were put in order not by laws, but by orders of governors, did not give a chance to develop these theoretical revisions [6, p.186-187].
However, a situation became worse on the Ukrainian territory, when bolsheviks won in the conditions of the civil war. In legal science of Soviet times, Leninist-Stalin looks on property, in the center of which there was a denial of private property, moreover, of a legal property as an inalienable human right had deep toots.
In Euroatlantic jurisprudence a bit later, in the middle of 40th of the ÕÕ th century, private property also yielded to other values on the upper stages of human rights. Many scientists, classifying human rights, stop to determine it separately and examine it among other rights or avoid the problem of right of material ownership at all.[7, p. 354; 139, p. 257, 258; 8, p.54-58].
We will mark that the reason of such a state has objective, historical, political, legal and social factors. After two world wars, where millions of people perished , after the concentrated centers of the fascist Germany, where human organs were raw material (property) for goods, and the concentrated centers of the Soviet empire, where people had been buried a live in foundations for non-fulfilment of norms of labour (creation of a new property), world communite could not build a new civilization on material bases. Historical facts testify confidently, to one of the principal reasons of beginning of any war is the redistribution of the world and the spheres of influence, that is power capture and redistribution of the war spoils (property) [9, p. 624; 10, p. 379-384].
A person has become the ground of right of any practically democratic state and hadn’t been an element of the state bureaucratic system any more his rights and freedoms become priority of the state and international policy, and his protection becomes a purpose and a primary task of the various state and international systems.
Searching the objective bases of non-admission of wars, genocide, totalitarian regimes, on the 10th of December, 1948 the General Assembly of UNO dopted and pronounced «the Universal Declaration of Human Rights», where Article 1, that was elaborated and formed by a genius Ukrainian scientst V.M. Koretsky, asserts: «All people are born free and equal in the dignity and rights. They are provided with mind and conscience and must operate in relation to each other the spirit of in fraternity». The inseparable natural human rights are as following: the right to life, to health; illegality of slavery; equality of rights to defence; protection from the illegal law proceeding; security of personal life; equality of men and women; freedom of movement; the right to refuge and others. Only Article 17, taking into consideration everything said above says: «Everybody has a right to his own property individually, and together with somebody else... nobody can be deprived of his property groundlessly » [11].
To our mind, change of values of the world society towards the priority of an rights of individual to life, to health, honor to dignity is correct.
The Ukrainians at those times had lived in the Soviet Union, where there had dominated the marxist - leninist economic and legal conception that had not recognized the main «western description» of human rights – their inalienable, fundamental and individual character, and also natural origin. That’s why the rights of a man, which were fixed in the texts of the Soviet constitutions, remained nominal and did not have the legal guarantees [12, p. 8]. Accordingly, only after the renewal of its independence in 1991, Ukraine began to enter gradually a normal flow of normative consolidation and real provision of rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen.
By that time the humanity had already formulated and confirmed the permanent system of protection of rights and freedoms of a persone and a citizen –International Bill (Charter) about Human’s Rights, including not only«Universal Declaration on Human Rights» but also «Pact of Public and Political Rights», «Pact About Economic, Social And Cultural Rights» ( the two latter were adopted on December, 19 1966 and came into existence in 1976 after their ratification by 35 states) [13; 14; 15].
As an independent addition it is necessary to mark to this system, that on November, 4, 1953 the special European international - legal act – «Convention about Protection of Human Rights and Basic Freedoms», was adopted and which entered into action on September, 3, 1953. It is Clear, that in the conditions of lag from the world development, especially in the field of guard of the right to ownership, home jurisprudence moved exceptionally in direction of «adaptation to the Euro -Atlantic legal standards».
Legal activity attained some success. Article 3 of the Constitution of Ukraine asserts: «A person, his life and health, honor and dignity, inviolability and safety, are considered as the greatest social values in Ukraine ». Article 13 of the Constitution of Ukraine determines: « The state provides protection of rights for all legal subjects of rights of property and management, social orientation of economy. All legal subjects’ rights to property are equal before the law» [16]. The mentioned constitutional norms found the development in other home sources of right – Civil, Criminal, Economic codes of Ukraine, laws of Ukraine about amendments and supplements to the Code of Ukraine about administrative offences and others.
Thus, progressive Euro-Atlantic positions about maintenance and essence of human rights mentioned above became univer -recognized sally at the beginning of the ÕÕ² century.
The comparative analysis of the mentioned aspects points to the a conclusion, that it will be heavy for Ukrainian nation to enter the world community and not to bring national positive originality as a victim without fundamental home developments in the field of human rights. In the context of the modern understanding of the definition of «inseparable human rights» we will form the category of «private property as an inalienable natural human right».
To our mind, human rights are natural, inalienable factors of a person’s existence in concrete - historical terms, identical for all individuals, objectively defined with the received level of the state and society development and set up at the level of international standards.
In many modern publications devoted to the mentioned subject, private property is determined as one of the rights of citizens. At the same time to such signs of the right of private ownership, as « priesthood », «inviolability» and «boundless domination» become more cool. Actually the refered tendency, in our opinion, has an offensive and irreversible character. The legal constituent of the marked before can be formed like this: in the interests of social development of the state and society, of provision of protection of all persons from the property of the high danger, the state limits an absolute of a proprietor related to his possession, use and order of his property.
Taking into consideration of such a situation we propose to divide all private property according to the criteria of its importance for a person into two parts:
1) private property as an inalienable natural human right;
2) other private property.
Private property as an inalienable natural right of a person and a citizen is a complex social, economic and legal category. The primary purpose of such a new definition consists of the selection among all large variety of private property, such its constituents which allow normal existing for a person. It must be under the increased guard of the state; the state must provide conditions for all its capable citizens to acquire it, and provide all the socially non-protected persons with it.
What does «normally» mean? The answer for this question is predetermined by biological and social motivation of a person’s necessities. These necessities as a result of historical - natural and social development of a person are changeable. They can be called to satisfy a person’s vital needs [17, p. 89].
The procedure of making the noted definition consists of the complex social, economic and legal research. In a legal aspect the given property differs almost by the complete identity of absolute and real right of ownership. The right to possession is an absolute right in this case. Nobody and never, can be deprived of the inalienable natural property which a person needs to exist, except in accordance with the decision of the court and in compliance with the low.
The state must carry out the increased guard of inalienable private property of man. Such a guard can be carried out with a complex in such basic directions, as: 1) making effective norms of right, that set an increased legal responsibility for illegitimate encroachments on it;
2) creation of conditions of provision of its self-protection;
3) establishment of the effective administrative regulation and control of operations about real estate;
4) input of obligatory valuable property insurance from this list;
5) material responsibility of the state in the case when a citizen lost such property.
It is necessary to use international standards. These criteria must be «normal»; and a citizen, the society and the state, with the leading role of the after must aspire them.
The results of the conducted analysis indicate to expedience of attributing to property which constitutes the inalienable natural private property of a man and a citizen, such as:
1) costs to provide permanent, balanced, highly-qualified food;
2) costs to provide diagnostics, other prophylaxis of diseases and professional, timely medical treatment of a man;
3) clothes, shoes, other objects, necessary for protection from natural factors;
4) costs to education (complete secondary is obligatory, higher – depending on the desire and progress of the previous education);
5) costs for house hold;
6) housing – according to the sanitary norms ratified in the society, other things necessary for the normal residence of a man;
7) means of communication and reception of information (telephone, television etc.);
8) motor vehicles;
9) costs to rest (annual rest out of scopes of permanent residence) etc [18].
The author does not put a purpose to define a complete list, quantity and quality of this property – that is a difficult social and economic task. In search of objective bases of legal settlement of society the resulted example in this sphere confirms that property exists, and a man cannot normally exist in modern conditions without it. This question needs motivated research of different scientific economic, social and legal sciences. It is important that such aproperty exists objectively, and all other private property left out of scopes of the noted category, is named as «other private property ».
Such an approach, in our opinion, successfully provides differentiation of degree of guard of the right to private property. The inalienable private property of citizens gets an absolute guard from the state, and other private property finds its ordinary private and protection at the level with the state.
Let’s consider the most substantial signs of private property as an inalienable, natural human’s and citizen’s right.
At first, such property can be own not all the property, belonging to a person, but such property that provides his “normal” in the given society and at the given time needs on the basis of international standards.
Secondly, a person can never be deprived of such property by anybody, but by the state on the basis of law.
Thirdly, in the exceptional cases in the interests of a proprietor or other persons at severe adherence of principle of legality, a proprietor can be temporally deprived of his rights to use and dispose of such property by court or state administration.
Fourthly, such property cannot be confiscated; it can not be the article of bail and guarantee; cannot be leased; or alienated without the proper replacement.
Fifthly, the state carries out the increased legal and organizational guard of such property.
Sixthly, the state is obligated to create conditions for acquisition of property by a person. The methods given by the state to the citizens for acquisition of the noted property, are: compensation to the young married couple of the prepaid taxes, which were purposefully directed on the purchase of these things or redemption of percents on the credits of commercial banks they were bought for [18, p. 118-119].
As the conclusion we must say that private property as an inalienable natural human’s and citizen’s right is an inviolable, definited by society and recognized by the state on the basis of international standards, property and costs providing the normal necessities of existence to a man, in some historical, socio-economic conditions.
Literature:
1. Lock D. Selected philosophical works : in 2 t. – : Izd-vo sotsialno-åconomicheskaya literatura, 1972. – T. 2. – 532 s.
2. Ìîâè÷ú Ë. Ïðàâà ÷åëîâåêà è ãðàæäàíèíà. – Ñ.-Ïá : Êíèãà èçäàíèå «Ãîëîñú» [ì³æ 1905-1913], – 47 ñ.
3. Øåâ÷åíêî Ò.Ã. Êîáçàð. – Ê. : Äí³ïðî, 1987. – 639 ñ.
4. Ñêàêóí Î.Ô. Òåîð³ÿ äåðæàâè ³ ïðàâà : ï³äðó÷íèê – Õàðê³â : Êîíñóì, 2001. – 656 ñ.
5. Ô³ëîñîô³ÿ Ãðèãîð³ÿ Ñêîâîðîäè – Ê. : «Íàóêîâà äóìêà», 1972 – 309 ñ.
7. Ïîïóëÿðíà þðèäè÷íà åíöèêëîïåä³ÿ / êîë. àâò. : Â.Ê. Ãiæåâñüêèé, Â.Â.Ãîëîñí³÷åíêî [òà ³í.] Â.Ñ. Êîâàëüñüêèé (êåð.) òà ií. – Ê. : Þðiêîì iíòåð, 2003. – 528 ñ.
8. Áà÷èí³í Â.À., Æóðàâñüêèé Â.Ñ., Ïàíîâ Ì.². Ô³ëîñîô³ÿ ïðàâà : ñëîâíèê. – Ê. : Êîíöåðí «Âèäàâíè÷èé Ä³ì «²í Þðå», 2003. – 408 ñ.
9. Ñîâåòñêèé ýíöèêëîïåäè÷åñêèé ñëîâàðü / ãë. ðåä. À.Ì. Ïðîõîðîâ. – Ì. : Ñîâ. ýíöèêëîïåäèÿ, 1990. – 1632 ñ.
10. Þð³é Ì.Ô. Ñîö³îêóëüòóðíèé ñâ³ò Óêðà¿íè : ìîíîãðàô³ÿ. – Ê., Êîíäîð, 2004. – 738 ñ.
11. General declaration on human rights from 10 ãðóäíÿ 1948 ð. // Dîc. ÎÎÍ / PES/ 217 A.
12. Øåâ÷óê Ñ. Ñóäîâèé çàõèñò ïðàâ ëþäèíè : Ïðàêòèêà ªâðîïåéñüêîãî Ñóäó ç ïðàâ ëþäèíè ó êîíòåêñò³ çàõ³äíî¿ ïðàâîâî¿ äîêòðèíè. – Âèä. 2-ãå, âèïð. ³ äîï. - Ê. : Ðåôåðàò, 2007. – 848 ñ.
13. International pact about Civil and Political Laws from December, 16 1966 // Dock. UNO A/RES/2200 And (XXI).
14. International Pact about Economic, Social and Cultural Rights from December, 16 1966 // Dock. UNO A/RES/2200 And (XXI).
15. Decree of Presidium of Supreme Soviet of Ukrainian SSR «About Ratification of the International Pact about Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Pact about Civil and Political Laws» // Normative acts of Ukraine. Computer legal system. On the state on February 2008
16. Constitution of Ukraine // Information Of Supreme Soviet of Ukraine. – 1996. – ¹ 30. – S. 141.
17. Ïðèâàòíå æèòòÿ ³ ïîë³ö³ÿ, Êîíöåïòóàëüí³ ï³äõîäè. Òåîð³ÿ òà ïðàêòèêà / àâò. êîë.; â³äï. ðåä. Þ.².Ðèìàðåíêî. – Ê. : ÊÍÒ, 2006. – 2006. – 740 ñ.
18. Ãàëóíüêî Â.Â. Îõîðîíà ïðàâà âëàñíîñò³: Àäì³í³ñòðàòèâíî-ïðàâîâ³ àñïåêòè : ìîíîãðàô³ÿ / çà çàã. Ðåä. Â.Ê. Øêàðóïè. – Õåðñîí : ÕÌÒ, 2008. – 348 ñ.
Öÿ ðîáîòà ë³öåíçóºòüñÿ â³äïîâ³äíî äî Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Çíàéøëè ïîìèëêó? Âèä³ë³òü ïîìèëêîâèé òåêñò ³ íàòèñí³òü Ctrl + Enter
