lexrussicaLex russicaLex Russica1729-59202686-7869MSAL10.17803/1729-5920.2017.126.5.205-216lexrussica-340Research ArticleЗАРУБЕЖНОЕ ПРАВОFOREIGN LAWОсобенности защиты и меры юридической ответственности за нарушение прав собственников недвижимого имущества в СШАThe Peculiarities of Protection and Measures of Legal Liability for Violations of the Rights of Real Estate Owners in the United StatesТягайЕ. Д.TyagayE. D.e.tyagay@gmail.comМосковский государственный юридический университет имени О.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА)Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)20170105201705205218Copyright © Тягай Е.Д., 20172017Тягай Е.Д.Tyagay E.D.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://lexrussica.msal.ru/jour/article/view/340

В статье анализируются специфика защиты, а также основания и порядок применения мер юридической ответственности за нарушение прав собственников недвижимого имущества в США. Механизмы предотвращения правонарушений и способы обеспечения интересов собственников рассматриваются в контексте особенностей американской системы сложноструктурных моделей права собственности. Отдельное внимание уделяется ключевым концепциям, лежащим в основе регулирования имущественных отношений в США: экономической теории собственности Познера, теории основных правовых связей Хохфельда, а также теории о «связке прутьев», допускающей расщепление права собственности на потенциально бесконечное число правомочий, нарушение каждого из которых влечет применение специфических мер ответственности. Делается акцент на том, что меры ответственности за нарушение прав собственников недвижимости определяются с учетом двух основных факторов: формы нарушения и применимого способа защиты. Исследуются деликтно-правовые конструкции nuisance (создание для собственника недвижимости неудобств) и trespass (вторжение в границы объекта недвижимости), посредством которых защищаются пользовательские и владельческие правомочия собственников. Отмечается тенденция к размыванию границ между данными видами деликтов, что затрудняет применение адекватных мер ответственности. Обозначаются ключевые требования, предъявляемые к порядку содержания недвижимого имущества и расположенных на нем объектов в целях предотвращения возможных нарушений прав. Раскрываются случаи освобождения от ответственности за нарушение владельческих правомочий собственника, когда вторжение в границы объекта недвижимости не может быть квалифицировано как произвольное. Изучаются средства защиты, предоставляемые в соответствии с нормами о защите собственности, о применении ответственности и о признании неотчуждаемости права. Приводятся примеры последствий предъявления исков из nuisance и trespass с требованиями о наложении судебного запрета, возмещении вреда и признании неотчуждаемости права. В качестве способа защиты владельческих правомочий рассматривается возможность самостоятельного устранения нарушителя из границ объекта недвижимости. В контексте исследуемых проблем затрагиваются процедурные и процессуальные вопросы, включая течение сроков исковой давности.

This article analyzes the specificity of protection, as well as the grounds and procedure for the application of measures of legal liability for violations of the rights of real estate owners in the United States. Delinquency prevention mechanisms and ways of ensuring the interests of owners are reviewed in the context of the characteristics of the American system of treatment of structured models of ownership. Special attention is given to the key concepts underpinning the regulation of property relations in the United States: the Posner's Economic Theory of Property Rights, the Hohfeld's Theory of Legal Relations, as well as theories on "a bundle of rods", allowing splitting ownership of the potentially infinite number of powers, the breach whereof entails specific liability measures. № 5 (126) май 2017 lex даж 215 LEX RUSSIICA ЗАРУБЕЖНОЕ ПРАВО The article focuses on the fact that penalties for violations of the rights of real estate owners are determined on the basis of two main factors: type of violation and applicable method of protection. The author explores the tort concept "nuisance" (creation of a nuisance for the property owner), and "trespass" (invasion of property boundaries), through which the ownership powers are protected. There is a tendency to blur the boundaries between these kinds of torts, which complicates the application of appropriate penalties. The author indicates the key requirements for the order of the real estate maintenance and objects located on it in order to prevent possible violations of rights. The article reveals the exemptions from liability for violation of ownership powers, when the invasion of property boundaries cannot be characterized as arbitrary. The remedies granted in accordance with the rules on the protection of the property, on the application of liability and the recognition of inalienable rights are studied. The author provides examples of consequences of claims for nuisance and trespass with the demand to impose an injunction, damages and the recognition of inalienable rights. As a way to protect their entitlements, the possibility to clear the property from any violators on your own is being considered. In the context of the studied problems the author deals with procedural matters, including the Statute of limitations.

СШАответственностьсобственностьправо собственностинарушение правзащита правспособы защитыправоотношениеправомочиевещьимуществоделиктнедвижимостьграницы объекта недвижимостиземельный участоксудебный запретвозмещение вредапризнание неотчуждаемости праваущербвредкомпенсацияnuisancetrespassUnited Statesliabilitypropertyownershipviolation of rightsprotection of rightsways of protectionlegal authoritythingpropertytortreal estateproperty boundarieslandinjunctive reliefcompensationrecognition of inalienable rightsinjuryharmcompensationnuisancetrespassReferencesPosner R. A. Op. cit. P. 13-39.Posner R. A. Op. cit. P. 13-39.Restatement of Property. Introductory Note. P. 3 (1936).Restatement of Property. Introductory Note. P. 3 (1936).Waldron J. What Is Private Property? // Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 1985. № 5. P. 313, 318.Waldron J. What Is Private Property? // Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 1985. № 5. P. 313, 318.Скловский К. И. Собственность в гражданском праве. М., 2008. С. 156-157Скловский К. И. Собственность в гражданском праве. М., 2008. С. 156-157Hohfeld W N. Fundamental Legal Conceptions. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923. P. 23-124.Hohfeld W N. Fundamental Legal Conceptions. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923. P. 23-124.Маттеи У., Суханов Е.А. Основные положения права собственности. М., 1999. С. 114-118.Маттеи У., Суханов Е.А. Основные положения права собственности. М., 1999. С. 114-118.Stoebuck W B., Whitman D. A. The Law of Property. St. Paul: West Group, 2002. P. 4-6.Stoebuck W B., Whitman D. A. The Law of Property. St. Paul: West Group, 2002. P. 4-6.Kocourek A. The Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts // Illinois Law Review. 1920. № 15. P. 24Kocourek A. The Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts // Illinois Law Review. 1920. № 15. P. 24Singer J. W. The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld // Wisconsin Law Review. 1982. P. 975Singer J. W. The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld // Wisconsin Law Review. 1982. P. 975Vatiero M. From W. N. Hohfeld to J. R. Commons, and Beyond? A «Law and Economics» Enquiry on Jural Relations // American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 2010. Vol. 69. P. 840-866Vatiero M. From W. N. Hohfeld to J. R. Commons, and Beyond? A «Law and Economics» Enquiry on Jural Relations // American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 2010. Vol. 69. P. 840-866Restatement of Property. § 1-10 (1936). См. также: Perry T. D. A Paradigm of Philosophy: Hohfeld on Legal Rights // American Philosophical Quarterly. 1977. № 14. P. 41-50Restatement of Property. § 1-10 (1936). См. также: Perry T. D. A Paradigm of Philosophy: Hohfeld on Legal Rights // American Philosophical Quarterly. 1977. № 14. P. 41-50States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 377-38 (1945).States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 377-38 (1945).Bogart D. B., Makdisi J. Inside Property Law: What Matters and Why. P. 1-4.Bogart D. B., Makdisi J. Inside Property Law: What Matters and Why. P. 1-4.Mayland v. Flitner, 28 P.3d 838, 848 (Woy.2001)Mayland v. Flitner, 28 P.3d 838, 848 (Woy.2001)Menell P. S., Dwyer J. P. Reunifying Property // St. Louis University Law Journal. 2002. Vol. 46. № 3. P. 599Menell P. S., Dwyer J. P. Reunifying Property // St. Louis University Law Journal. 2002. Vol. 46. № 3. P. 599Sherwin E. Two- and Three-Dimensional Property Rights // Arizona State Law Journal. 1997. Vol. 29. P. 1075-1076Sherwin E. Two- and Three-Dimensional Property Rights // Arizona State Law Journal. 1997. Vol. 29. P. 1075-1076КоноваловА. В. Владение и владельческая защита в гражданском праве. СПб., 2004. С. 148КоноваловА. В. Владение и владельческая защита в гражданском праве. СПб., 2004. С. 148Радченко С. Д. Злоупотребление правом в гражданском праве России. М., 2010. С. 110-112Радченко С. Д. Злоупотребление правом в гражданском праве России. М., 2010. С. 110-112Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 309 N.Y.S.2d 312 (N.Y. 1970)Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 309 N.Y.S.2d 312 (N.Y. 1970)Estancias Dallas Corp. v. Schultz, 500 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1973)Estancias Dallas Corp. v. Schultz, 500 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1973)Spur Indus., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. Co., 495 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972)Spur Indus., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. Co., 495 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972)Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service Dist., 965 P.2d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 1998)Penland v. Redwood Sanitary Sewer Service Dist., 965 P.2d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 1998)Parchomovsky G., Stein A. Reconceptualizing Trespass // Northwestern University Law Review. 2009. Vol. 103. P. 1823.Parchomovsky G., Stein A. Reconceptualizing Trespass // Northwestern University Law Review. 2009. Vol. 103. P. 1823.Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 602 N.W.2d 215 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).Adams v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., 602 N.W.2d 215 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).Brockman v. Barton Brands, LTD., 2009 U.S. Dist. (3:06CV-332-H) (W.D. Ky. Nov. 25, 2009).Brockman v. Barton Brands, LTD., 2009 U.S. Dist. (3:06CV-332-H) (W.D. Ky. Nov. 25, 2009).Stevenson v. E. F. Dupont de Nemours, 327 F.3d 400 (5th Cr. 2003); Gill v. LDI, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (W.D. Wash. 1998); Hoery v. United States, 64 P.3d 214 (Colo. 2003)Stevenson v. E. F. Dupont de Nemours, 327 F.3d 400 (5th Cr. 2003); Gill v. LDI, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (W.D. Wash. 1998); Hoery v. United States, 64 P.3d 214 (Colo. 2003)Whitesell v. Houlton, 2 Hawaii App. 365, 632 P.2d 1077 (1981)Whitesell v. Houlton, 2 Hawaii App. 365, 632 P.2d 1077 (1981)Doskow E., Guillen L. Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries and Noise. Berkeley: Nolo Law, 2014. 424 PDoskow E., Guillen L. Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries and Noise. Berkeley: Nolo Law, 2014. 424 PT & E Indus. v. Safety Light Corp., 587 A.2d 1249 (N.J. 1991)T & E Indus. v. Safety Light Corp., 587 A.2d 1249 (N.J. 1991)State v. Ventron Corp., 468 A.2d 150 (N.J. 1983)State v. Ventron Corp., 468 A.2d 150 (N.J. 1983)Lew v. Superior Court, 25 Cal. Rptr. 2d 42 (Ct. App. 1993); Kellner v. Capilini, 516 N.Y.S.2d 827 (Civ.Ct.1986).Lew v. Superior Court, 25 Cal. Rptr. 2d 42 (Ct. App. 1993); Kellner v. Capilini, 516 N.Y.S.2d 827 (Civ.Ct.1986).Безбах В.В., Пучинский В. К. Основы российского гражданского права. М., 1995. С. 59-60.Безбах В.В., Пучинский В. К. Основы российского гражданского права. М., 1995. С. 59-60.Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979)Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979)Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 716, 107, S.Ct. 2076, 2083, 95 L.Ed.2d 668 (1987)Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 716, 107, S.Ct. 2076, 2083, 95 L.Ed.2d 668 (1987)Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3176, 73 L.Ed. 2d 868 (1982)Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3176, 73 L.Ed. 2d 868 (1982)Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1270, 1277 (9th Cir. 1986)Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 1270, 1277 (9th Cir. 1986)Callies D. L., Breemer J. D. The Right to Exclude Other from Private Property: A Fundamental Constitutional Right // Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. 2000. № 3. P. 39Callies D. L., Breemer J. D. The Right to Exclude Other from Private Property: A Fundamental Constitutional Right // Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. 2000. № 3. P. 39BalganeshS. Demystifying the Right to Exclude: Of Property, Inviolability, and Automatic Injunctions // Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 2008. Vol. 31. P. 593-597BalganeshS. Demystifying the Right to Exclude: Of Property, Inviolability, and Automatic Injunctions // Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 2008. Vol. 31. P. 593-597Sawers B. The Right to Exclude from Unimproved Land // Temple Law Review. Vol. 83, 2011. P. 665-696Sawers B. The Right to Exclude from Unimproved Land // Temple Law Review. Vol. 83, 2011. P. 665-696Blackstone W. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book the Second: The Rights of Things. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1766. P. 2Blackstone W. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book the Second: The Rights of Things. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1766. P. 2Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 1991).Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 1991).Stoebuck W. B., Whitman D. A. Op. cit. P. 411-412. См. также: Edwards v. Sims, 232 Ky. 791, 24 S.W.2d 619 (1929); Marengo Cave Co. v. Ross, 212 Ind. 624, 10 N.E.2d 917 (1937).Stoebuck W. B., Whitman D. A. Op. cit. P. 411-412. См. также: Edwards v. Sims, 232 Ky. 791, 24 S.W.2d 619 (1929); Marengo Cave Co. v. Ross, 212 Ind. 624, 10 N.E.2d 917 (1937).The Restatement (Second) of Torts. § 167-215 (1965)The Restatement (Second) of Torts. § 167-215 (1965)Частноправовое регулирование имущественного оборота в разносистемных правопорядках / под ред. В.В. Безбаха, В.П. Серегина, Т. П. Данько. М., 2009. С. 97-100Частноправовое регулирование имущественного оборота в разносистемных правопорядках / под ред. В.В. Безбаха, В.П. Серегина, Т. П. Данько. М., 2009. С. 97-100Sigmon M. R. Hunting and Posting on Private Land in America // Duke Law Journal. 2004. Vol. 54. P. 549-550Sigmon M. R. Hunting and Posting on Private Land in America // Duke Law Journal. 2004. Vol. 54. P. 549-550Calabresi G., Melamed A. D. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral // Harvard Law Review. 1972. Vol. 85. P. 1089-1094.Calabresi G., Melamed A. D. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral // Harvard Law Review. 1972. Vol. 85. P. 1089-1094.Ayres I. Protecting Property with Puts // Valparaiso University Law Review. 1988. Vol. 32. P. 793-795.Ayres I. Protecting Property with Puts // Valparaiso University Law Review. 1988. Vol. 32. P. 793-795.Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987)Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987)The Restatement (Second) of Torts. § 826 (1979).The Restatement (Second) of Torts. § 826 (1979).Singer J. W. Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices. P. 272-273.Singer J. W. Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices. P. 272-273.Alexander G.S. Commodity and Property: Competing Visions of Property in American Legal Thought, 1776- 1970. - Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.Alexander G.S. Commodity and Property: Competing Visions of Property in American Legal Thought, 1776- 1970. - Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.Arnold C.A. The Reconstitution of Property: Property as a Web of Interests // Harvard Environmental Law Review. - 2002. - Vol. 26. - № 2.Arnold C.A. The Reconstitution of Property: Property as a Web of Interests // Harvard Environmental Law Review. - 2002. - Vol. 26. - № 2.Ayres I. Protecting Property with Puts // Valparaiso University Law Review. - 1988. - Vol. 32.Ayres I. Protecting Property with Puts // Valparaiso University Law Review. - 1988. - Vol. 32.Peters v. Archambault, 278 N.E.2d 729 (Mass. 1972); Goulding v. Cook, 661 N.E.2d 1322 (Mass. 1996).Peters v. Archambault, 278 N.E.2d 729 (Mass. 1972); Goulding v. Cook, 661 N.E.2d 1322 (Mass. 1996).Hardy v. Burroughs, 232 N.W. 200 (Mich. 1930)Hardy v. Burroughs, 232 N.W. 200 (Mich. 1930)Madrid v. Spears, 250 F.2d 51 (10 Cir. 1957)Madrid v. Spears, 250 F.2d 51 (10 Cir. 1957)Singer J. W. Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. P. 56-94Singer J. W. Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. P. 56-94Balganesh S. Demystifying the Right to Exclude: Of Property, Inviolability, and Automatic Injunctions // Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. - 2008. - Vol. 31.Balganesh S. Demystifying the Right to Exclude: Of Property, Inviolability, and Automatic Injunctions // Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. - 2008. - Vol. 31.Blackstone W. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book the Second: The Rights of Things. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1766.Blackstone W. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Book the Second: The Rights of Things. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1766.Bogart D.B., Makdisi J. Inside Property Law: What Matters and Why. - N. Y: Aspen Publishers, 2009.Bogart D.B., Makdisi J. Inside Property Law: What Matters and Why. - N. Y: Aspen Publishers, 2009.Calabresi G., Melamed A.D. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral // Harvard Law Review. - 1972. - Vol. 85.Calabresi G., Melamed A.D. Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral // Harvard Law Review. - 1972. - Vol. 85.Callies D.L., Breemer J.D. The Right to Exclude Other from Private Property: A Fundamental Constitutional Right // Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. - 2000. - № 3.Callies D.L., Breemer J.D. The Right to Exclude Other from Private Property: A Fundamental Constitutional Right // Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. - 2000. - № 3.Claeys E. R. Property 101: Is Property a Thing or a Bundle? // Seattle University Law Review. - 2009. - Vol. 32. - № 3.Claeys E. R. Property 101: Is Property a Thing or a Bundle? // Seattle University Law Review. - 2009. - Vol. 32. - № 3.Cole D.H., Grossman P.Z. The Meaning of Property Rights: Law versus Economics? // Land Economics. - 2002. - Vol. 78. - № 3.Cole D.H., Grossman P.Z. The Meaning of Property Rights: Law versus Economics? // Land Economics. - 2002. - Vol. 78. - № 3.Demsetz H. Toward a Theory of Property Rights // American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings. - 1967. - № 57.Demsetz H. Toward a Theory of Property Rights // American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings. - 1967. - № 57.Doskow E., Guillen L. Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries and Noise. - Berkeley: Nolo Law, 2014.Doskow E., Guillen L. Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries and Noise. - Berkeley: Nolo Law, 2014.Hohfeld W.N. Fundamental Legal Conceptions. - New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923.Hohfeld W.N. Fundamental Legal Conceptions. - New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923.Kocourek A. The Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts // Illinois Law Review. - 1920. - № 15.Kocourek A. The Hohfeld System of Fundamental Legal Concepts // Illinois Law Review. - 1920. - № 15.Menell P.S., Dwyer J.P. Reunifying Property // St. Louis University Law Journal. - 2002. - Vol. 46. - № 3.Menell P.S., Dwyer J.P. Reunifying Property // St. Louis University Law Journal. - 2002. - Vol. 46. - № 3.Mossoff A. What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together // Arizona Law Reviw. - 2003. - Vol. 45.Mossoff A. What Is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together // Arizona Law Reviw. - 2003. - Vol. 45.Parchomovsky G., Stein A. Reconceptualizing Trespass // Northwestern University Law Review. - 2009. - Vol. 103.Parchomovsky G., Stein A. Reconceptualizing Trespass // Northwestern University Law Review. - 2009. - Vol. 103.Perry T.D. A Paradigm of Philosophy: Hohfeld on Legal Rights // American Philosophical Quarterly. - 1977. - № 14.Perry T.D. A Paradigm of Philosophy: Hohfeld on Legal Rights // American Philosophical Quarterly. - 1977. - № 14.Posner R.A. Economic Analysis of Law. - Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1972.Posner R.A. Economic Analysis of Law. - Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1972.Sawers B. The Right to Exclude from Unimproved Land // Temple Law Review - 2011. - Vol. 83.Sawers B. The Right to Exclude from Unimproved Land // Temple Law Review - 2011. - Vol. 83.Sherwin E. Two- and Three-Dimensional Property Rights // Arizona State Law Journal. - 1997. - Vol. 29.Sherwin E. Two- and Three-Dimensional Property Rights // Arizona State Law Journal. - 1997. - Vol. 29.Sigmon M.R. Hunting and Posting on Private Land in America // Duke Law Journal. - 2004. - Vol. 54.Sigmon M.R. Hunting and Posting on Private Land in America // Duke Law Journal. - 2004. - Vol. 54.Singer J.W. Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property. - New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.Singer J.W. Entitlement: The Paradoxes of Property. - New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.Singer J.W. Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices. - N. Y.: Aspen Publishers, 2006.Singer J.W. Property Law: Rules, Policies, and Practices. - N. Y.: Aspen Publishers, 2006.Singer J.W. The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld // Wisconsin Law Review. - 1982.Singer J.W. The Legal Rights Debate in Analytical Jurisprudence from Bentham to Hohfeld // Wisconsin Law Review. - 1982.Sprankling J.G. Understanding Property Law. - Newark: LexisNexis, 2008.Sprankling J.G. Understanding Property Law. - Newark: LexisNexis, 2008.Stoebuck W.B., Whitman D.A. The Law of Property. - St. Paul: West Group, 2002.Stoebuck W.B., Whitman D.A. The Law of Property. - St. Paul: West Group, 2002.Vatiero M. From W.N. Hohfeld to J.R. Commons, and Beyond? A «Law and Economics» Enquiry on Jural Relations // American Journal of Economics and Sociology. - 2010. - Vol. 69.Vatiero M. From W.N. Hohfeld to J.R. Commons, and Beyond? A «Law and Economics» Enquiry on Jural Relations // American Journal of Economics and Sociology. - 2010. - Vol. 69.Waldron J. What Is Private Property? // Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. - 1985. - № 5.Waldron J. What Is Private Property? // Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. - 1985. - № 5.Шкредов В.П. Метод исследования собственности в «Капитале» К. Маркса. М., 1973. С. 59, 256Шкредов В.П. Метод исследования собственности в «Капитале» К. Маркса. М., 1973. С. 59, 256Братусь С.Н. О соотношении социалистической собственности и права оперативного управления // Советское государство и право. 1986. № 3. С. 21Братусь С.Н. О соотношении социалистической собственности и права оперативного управления // Советское государство и право. 1986. № 3. С. 21Posner R. A. Economic Analysis of Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1972. P. 10-13Posner R. A. Economic Analysis of Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1972. P. 10-13Cole D. H., Grossman P. Z. The Meaning of Property Rights: Law versus Economics? // Land Economics. 2002. Vol. 78. № 3. P. 319-325Cole D. H., Grossman P. Z. The Meaning of Property Rights: Law versus Economics? // Land Economics. 2002. Vol. 78. № 3. P. 319-325Alexander G. S. Commodity and Property: Competing Visions of Property in American Legal Thought, 1776- 1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. P. 21-60, 91-96, 243-248, 305-359Alexander G. S. Commodity and Property: Competing Visions of Property in American Legal Thought, 1776- 1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. P. 21-60, 91-96, 243-248, 305-359Demsetz H. Toward a Theory of Property Rights // American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings. 1967. № 57. P. 347Demsetz H. Toward a Theory of Property Rights // American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings. 1967. № 57. P. 347

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.