Ekaterina Pravilova
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- October 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780691159058
- eISBN:
- 9781400850266
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691159058.001.0001
- Subject:
- History, Russian and Former Soviet Union History
“Property rights” and “Russia” do not usually belong in the same sentence. Rather, our general image of the nation is of insecurity of private ownership and defenselessness in the face of the state. ...
More
“Property rights” and “Russia” do not usually belong in the same sentence. Rather, our general image of the nation is of insecurity of private ownership and defenselessness in the face of the state. Many scholars have attributed Russia's long-term development problems to a failure to advance property rights for the modern age and blamed Russian intellectuals for their indifference to the issues of ownership. This book refutes this widely shared conventional wisdom and analyzes the emergence of Russian property regimes from the time of Catherine the Great through World War I and the revolutions of 1917. Most importantly, the book shows the emergence of the new practices of owning “public things” in imperial Russia and the attempts of Russian intellectuals to reconcile the security of property with the ideals of the common good. The book analyzes how the belief that certain objects—rivers, forests, minerals, historical monuments, icons, and Russian literary classics—should accede to some kind of public status developed in Russia in the mid-nineteenth century. Professional experts and liberal politicians advocated for a property reform that aimed at exempting public things from private ownership, while the tsars and the imperial government employed the rhetoric of protecting the sanctity of private property and resisted attempts at its limitation. Exploring the Russian ways of thinking about property, the book looks at problems of state reform and the formation of civil society, which, as the book argues, should be rethought as a process of constructing “the public” through the reform of property rights.Less
“Property rights” and “Russia” do not usually belong in the same sentence. Rather, our general image of the nation is of insecurity of private ownership and defenselessness in the face of the state. Many scholars have attributed Russia's long-term development problems to a failure to advance property rights for the modern age and blamed Russian intellectuals for their indifference to the issues of ownership. This book refutes this widely shared conventional wisdom and analyzes the emergence of Russian property regimes from the time of Catherine the Great through World War I and the revolutions of 1917. Most importantly, the book shows the emergence of the new practices of owning “public things” in imperial Russia and the attempts of Russian intellectuals to reconcile the security of property with the ideals of the common good. The book analyzes how the belief that certain objects—rivers, forests, minerals, historical monuments, icons, and Russian literary classics—should accede to some kind of public status developed in Russia in the mid-nineteenth century. Professional experts and liberal politicians advocated for a property reform that aimed at exempting public things from private ownership, while the tsars and the imperial government employed the rhetoric of protecting the sanctity of private property and resisted attempts at its limitation. Exploring the Russian ways of thinking about property, the book looks at problems of state reform and the formation of civil society, which, as the book argues, should be rethought as a process of constructing “the public” through the reform of property rights.
Norman Doe
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- September 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199604005
- eISBN:
- 9780191729331
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604005.003.0005
- Subject:
- Law, EU Law, Comparative Law
This chapter explores religious freedom in the context of both the general freedom of association and the specific right in some States of religious association. It then examines the legal categories ...
More
This chapter explores religious freedom in the context of both the general freedom of association and the specific right in some States of religious association. It then examines the legal categories of religious organization across the States of Europe, particularly those with legal personality — the terminology employed for their designation, their recognition, their regulation, and their public and private law status. It considers the conferral of legal personality on religious organizations by means of, variously, the enactment of legislation, the conclusion of covenants, and the registration of religious organizations. The chapter ends with a section on the exercise of legal personality, and the benefits which this brings. National laws on the legal position of religious organizations necessitate a high degree of cooperation between States and religion in this field but this area of law raises serious questions about equality of treatment between different religious traditions.Less
This chapter explores religious freedom in the context of both the general freedom of association and the specific right in some States of religious association. It then examines the legal categories of religious organization across the States of Europe, particularly those with legal personality — the terminology employed for their designation, their recognition, their regulation, and their public and private law status. It considers the conferral of legal personality on religious organizations by means of, variously, the enactment of legislation, the conclusion of covenants, and the registration of religious organizations. The chapter ends with a section on the exercise of legal personality, and the benefits which this brings. National laws on the legal position of religious organizations necessitate a high degree of cooperation between States and religion in this field but this area of law raises serious questions about equality of treatment between different religious traditions.
