LEGAL PROBLEMS OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM

IN BASHKORTOSTAN

(Право в современном мире: Материалы конференции / Отв. ред. В.И. Хайруллин / Изд. Башгосуниверситета. Уфа, 2001)

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law". This is stipulated in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for Human Rights signed in Paris on the 20th of March, 1952.

The Protocol on Russia joining the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR) was signed in Strasbourg in 1996. Simultaneously Russia joined the other additional Protocols which constituted the ECHR Appendix. However, it was only Protocol 6 (Abolition of death penalty) to which Russia declared its phased joining. As regards the other provisions of the Convention and the Protocols to it, they were adopted without any reservations.

Private property on land is established in the overwhelming majority of states, including those of the European Union. It clearly signifies that any land-owning citizen is entitled to an unimpeded use of land in his or her ownership aiming at deriving benefits from it, provided he or she does not cause any harm to the society and the environment.

A particular emphasis is to be laid on the second provision of the Protocol which envisages that no one shall be deprived of his/her property. Incidentally, there are two conditions specified in the Protocol that presuppose exceptions from the above principle. Firstly, an exception may occur when interests of the society are infringed and, secondly, when there exist conditions stipulated by national law and general principles of international law. Thereupon, the Convention text scrutiny enables one to effectuate an assumption that the two conditions of exception should take place simultaneously. If we are to contemplate the events of the 1917 October Revolution both from the standpoints of the pre-revolutionary national law and from those of contemporary international law, all expropriation and all disfranchisement of private proprietorship to land vis-a-vis legitimate land-owners are to be considered illegal and, consequently, void.

No doubt, revolutions are the locomotives of history. They, in their essence, embody civilizational advancement, yet their negative background must be taken into account as well. It has, for instance, been proved that transformations in the Russian agrarian sector, viz. abolition of such social stratum as land-owners, could be hardly said to have produced beneficial effect on the state economy. Contemporary international experience enables us to make painless and smooth corrections and introduce overall right to private property on land, which is already guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

It is widely acknowledged that private proprietorial rights of a person represent ones of his fundamental rights. Actually, if we are to speak of human rights it is appropriate to conceive the following maxim: "when a person is not possessed of his proprietary right, all contemplations about human rights remain a mere fiction".

The origin of proprietorship dates back to Roman law. The republican Rome defined the concept of proprietorship via the term dominum", which theoretically and from the standpoints of general principles of economy implicated "ownership", whereas from the standpoints of juridical science it presupposed legal domination of a person over a substance. Hegel in his famous treatise "Legal Philosophy" propounded the following as justification of the universality of this concept: "There is a will with the reference to ownership which it is linked to appropriation of a substance and to proprietorial domination of a person possessing this substance, i.e. the proprietor". The French Civil Code by Napoleon envisaged that "Proprietorship is a right of a person to utilize and to manage a substance to his or her best advantage."

The peasantry, constituting the majority of the former USSR population during the so-called period of historical delusion, was virtually deprived of its fundamental right to land ownership. The absence of the civilizational triad: to possess, to utilize and to manage eventuated in the decay of the peasantry as a social stratum.

Nowadays, the priorities of the state development are targeted at the market economy, while its versatility has .been recognized constitutionally. The Russian Federation is regarded as one of the countries where market relations are still in their embryo, i.e. national economy still remains in its making, for it is yet inconceivable without the private proprietorship on land.

In contrast to the administrative method of management, which aims at preservation of the one proprietorial form whereupon applying those legal norms permeated with the so-called "bans", the economic method of management implies the legal basis dominated by "permissions". The market, becoming the main regulator, determines socially conditioned qualitative, consumptive peculiarities of commodity development and its production expenditures.

The private proprietorship, being the constructive principle of economic development, is recognized by the legislation of the Russian Federation and that of the Republic of Bashkortostan. Thus, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Russian Constitution, lands and other natural resources shall be held in private, state, municipal and other forms of property.

The Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan per se failing to recognize the right to private property on land stipulates that "all forms of property shall be recognized and equally protected" (Article 9). As to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its Article 8 provides "equal recognition of private, municipal, state and other forms of property". It appears indubitable that institution of land proprietorship acquires a particular significance for the period of transition to market economy in the Russian Federation. Incidentally, the fact that currently established legal relations in the Republic of Bashkortostan have not undergone any substantive deviations should as well be highlighted. Even though Article 9 of the Bashkir Constitution accentuates the equality of all forms of proprietorship, Article 10, however, provides an exception from the general rule. It, in particular, refers all land management, utilization and ownership issues to the sphere of the republican legislation, providing that the land shall neither be an object of private proprietorship nor an object of commercial transactions.

Hence, the Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan tends to be at variance with the Fundamental law of the state, i.e. with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, whereupon the issue of private proprietorship on land is clearly stipulated in Article 9 of the federal Constitution and shall not even be subject to parliamentary review, which otherwise shall require the adoption of a new federal Constitution.

Market economy in the Russian Federation necessitates the unity of economic space, free movement of commodities, services, finances, freedom of entrepreneurship and circulational involvement of all productive means. Incidentally, it is indispensable to remove all constitutional inconsistencies between the federal center and the Republic of Bashkortostan and to invalidate all existing restraints and prohibitions vis-a-vis land proprietorship, which is most likely to effectively contribute to stable development of the agrarian sector of the Russian Federation.

It proves true that the Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan cannot and must not fully reproduce that of the Russian Federation, since it threatens to eventuate in most serious consequences for the Federation in general and for the republic in particular as the republican legislation, for instance, is assumed to possibly reflect all soaial, cultural and national peculiarities of the region.

In our view, effective implementation of such fundamental constitutional principles of legal relations in the agrarian sector (e.g. the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation "Regulation of legal relations in the agrarian sector of economy and development of the agrarian reform in the Russian Federation", signed on the 27th of ()ctober, 1993) will be observed provided that there are no limitations for their sound functioning. As to other provisions in the agrarian legislation, especially those related to farm management in the Russian Federation, they also require appropriate legislative adjustments vis-a-vis deviations between the legislation of the Republic of Bashkortostan and that of the Russian Federation.

In some specific cases the republican legislative bodies may adopt provisions directed to ensure the effectiveness of operational peculiarities of a federal statute within the territory of the Republic of Bashkortostan. Yet, such legislative measures are to be conditioned and substantiated both theoretically and practically.

Nowadays distinctions between the federal and republican legislations in land management issues are still believed substantial, albeit they are soon expected to be gradually removed. The most salient contradistinction in the Republic of Bashkortostan remains the possibility of farm management based only on life-long inheritable ownership. The established normative stipulation has proved extremely substantive and to a certain extent it appeared as a major factor intended to curb overall development of farm management in the region.

It is obvious that in the Republic of Bashkortostan there soon will be adopted legislative measures that would enable farmers to own land on the basis of proprietorial equality. The decrees of the President of Bashkortostan "Transference of land plots to citizens' management" signed on the 7^th of December, 1995 and "Measures to ensure effective development of farm and private management in the Republic of Bashkortostan" signed on the 26th of January, 1998 are the most prominent examples on this score. The two presidential decrees have been given highest estimation both on the federal and republican level, which is considered as the legislative breakthrough in the direction of approximation of the two legislative levels. This fact enables one to effectuate an inference that construction of the unified legal and economic space is more a necessity than a mere formality.

It can be hardly doubted that the adopted presidential decrees, on the one hand, represent a most essential commencement designed to initiate amendment procedure to Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of the Bashkortostan. On the other hand, the principle of federal and republican law continuity vis-a-vis enfranchisement of farmers with the land proprietorship constitutes the legitimate basis for the private proprietorship recognition in Bashkortostan, since Article 16 of the Bashkir Constitution envisages that generally acknowledged principles of international law shall constitute an integral part of the republican legislation.

In view of the aforementioned it is possible to conclude that contemporary international law including law of the Council of Europe and Article 1 Protocol 1 to the European Convention for Human Rights in particular positively contribute to implementation of the agrarian reform and to transference of land plots to farmers' private ownership.

In the end of the article we should conclude that Bashkortostan has entered the 21^st century having the Constitution which provides in Article 10 the pluralism of the forms of land property: "land and other natural resources may be possessed as private, state and municipal and other forms of property". Thus, the legislation of Bashkortostan, conformed to international legal standards and the legislation of the Russian Federation, will allow to give a new impetus to the agrarian reform and will boost food supply in the country.

О РОЛИ ГОСУДАРСТВА ПРИ ВСТУПЛЕНИИ В ВТО:

АГРАРНО-ПРАВОВОЙ АСПЕКТ

(Развитие регионов и предприятий в условиях вступления России в ВТО: Сборник докладов. / Отв. ред. д.э.н., профессор Муфтиев Г.Г. Уфа: УИ РГТЭУ, 2003)

Противники вступления России в ВТО в качестве основного аргумента используют следующее положение: рынок России заполнится дешевым импортным сельскохозяйственным товаром — отечественные товары будут вытеснены с рынка — большинство сельхозпредприятий обанкротится — снизится уровень жизни сельского населения — возрастет зависимость России от импорта продовольствия.

Надо признать, такая опасность существует, но это будет зависеть не от вступления ВТО, а от отсутствия надлежащей аграрной политики самого государства.

Таким образом, для России выгодно следующее:

1) само участие в международной торговле;

2) со вступлением в ВТО страна получает доступ к более дешевым технологиям (отраслевым, коммуникационным и т.д.), а население – более дешевые товары и услуги;

3) будучи членом ВТО, российские экспортеры на внешних рынках будут защищены, т.к. правила этой организации содержат ряд положений, обеспечивающих равенство прав иностранных инвесторов и защиту авторских прав;

4) со вступлением России в ВТО экономика всех стран-участниц этой организации становится взаимозависимой, т.к. идет процесс интеграции.

В подготовительный период страна должна мобилизоваться, провести полную инвентаризацию своих ресурсов, решительно отказаться от дорогостоящих, второстепенных вопросов, т.к. реализация неактуальных программ поглощает огромные средства и уменьшает финансовые ресурсы страны. На наш взгляд, к числу необходимых мер можно отнести сокращение номенклатуры, упразднение региональных институтов и др.

На страны-участницы ВТО приходится 92% мировой торговли товарами и услугами, чтобы вступить в ВТО, России надо будет отказаться от квотирования импорта и субсидирования экспорта. В связи с этим наша страна разрабатывает принципы, которые бы защитили национальные интересы при вступлении в ВТО. Надо сказать, в AПК России вступление в ВТО приведет к прозрачности продовольственных рынков и жесткой конкуренции с импортерами. В условиях незначительной поддержки сельского хозяйства, вызванного системным экономическим кризисом в стране, диспаритета цен, неэквивалентного обмена товаров в сельском хозяйстве и промышленности из-за больших энергозатрат для производства сельскохозяйственной продукции в наиболее суровых климатических условиях России большинство сельскохозяйственных товаропроизводителей нашей страны не способно выдерживать конкуренцию с импортерами в будущем на международном рынке продовольствия, что приведет к свертыванию производства многих из них со всеми вытекающими отсюда последствиями (безработица, рост импорта, большой зависимости от зарубежных поставок и т.д.). В целях развертывания новой аграрной политики государства Министерством сельского хозяйства России разработаны основные положения проекта закона «О развитии сельского хозяйства», где оговариваются условия, предохраняющие отечественных сельхозпроизводителей от банкротства. Только в этом случае вступление в ВТО будет отвечать общенациональным интересам страны.

Однако в процессе интеграции в различные мировые форумы ВТО, Россия должна отстаивать свои национальные интересы и сотрудничать в указанных структурах не в качестве сырьевого придатка, а в статусе полноправного партнера, имеющего современные научно-емкие технологии товаров, отвечающих стандартам развитых рыночных стран. Только тогда возможно взаимовыгодное сотрудничество, партнерские отношения с другими странами.

Мировой опыт показывает, что без эффективной аграрной политики государства невозможно устойчивое развитие аграрного сектора экономики. Только путем создания сильной конкурентоспособной сельскохозяйственной экономики можно достичь защиты общенациональных интересов России, как на внешних, так и на внутренних рынках. Таким образом, интегрирование национальной экономики России в мировое хозяйство объективно требует повышения роли государства в оздоровлении аграрного сектора. Основываясь на наши исследования, можно сделать следующие выводы:

1) Россия – часть мировой цивилизации. Будучи страной переходной экономики (от командно-административной к рыночной), она объективно включена в процессы глобализации и интеграции. Задача России – успешно реализовать стратегии экономического развития. Достичь этой цели без вступления в ВТО не представляется возможным;

2) Российскому государству необходимо мобилизовать интеллектуальный ресурсный потенциал страны и, став субъектом ВТО, достичь мирового уровня по выпуску конкурентоспособной продукции;

3) Политическое руководство России обладает правом продолжить курс на укрепление государства, вертикали исполнительной власти и в случае объективной обусловленности освободиться от старых стереотипов (идеологии), политических конструкций и перенаправить их на качественные изменения социальной жизни своих граждан.

Активная интеграция России в мировое сообщество не должна быть предметом дискуссий. Вместе с тем следует признать, что условием вступления нашей страны в международные аграрные и торговые организации должен быть установлен адаптационный период (например, пятилетний), в течение которого должно быть сохранено право России на разумные протекционистские меры. В качестве универсального критерия государственной политики в этой сфере является степень ее способствования эффективному функционированию агропромышленного комплекса, поскольку от этого зависит обеспечение продовольственной безопасности, которая, в свою очередь, является основой национальной безопасности России. Активное участие государства в отстаивании национальных интересов России при вступлении в ВТО является объективной необходимостью.

Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском по сайту: