Suchergebnisse

Not only Russian, but also foreign modern legal science bypasses the issue of the legal nature of the state's right to expropriate private property. Its limits and limitations are unclear, as are the guarantees of the right to private property. In most cases, the right to expropriate is perceived as a given and the prerogative of the state. However, it is quite obvious that the principle of the certainty of law presupposes the normative clarity of the regimes and types of expropriation, the conditions for its implementation in relation to other restrictions and methods for the forced termination of the right to private property. In conditions of high turbulence in international relations, the question of the correlation between the norms of international, private international and national (domestic) law in determining the mechanism and legal regime of expropriation is especially relevant. Discussions on the relationship between the legal mechanisms of expropriation and nationalization, on the denition of criteria and the very legal nature of the compensation due to a private owner during expropriation do not leave the agenda. Particularly acute is the question of the grounds and forms of international responsibility of states exercising the right to expropriation, both in violation of the general norms and principles of international law, and special in relation to expropriation in relation to the interests and rights of private owners. The attention of the author is focused on this issue in connection with the emerging negative trends in the development of lawmaking in this area, not only at the national, but also at the international level.