Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Property rights in martial law
View through CrossRef
The article is devoted to the study of property rights in martial law, the definition of «forced alienation of property» and «seizure of property», reveals their characteristics.
The analysis of the essence of the property right in the conditions of martial law is carried out, it is defined as there is a compulsory alienation and confiscation of property.
It is established that during martial law there is a possibility:
–forcible alienation of property, ie deprivation of the owner of the right to ownership of individually identified property in private or communal ownership and which becomes the property of the state for use under martial law or state of emergency subject to prior or subsequent full reimbursement;
–confiscation of property, ie deprivation of state-owned enterprises, state economic associations of the right of economic management or operational management of individually determined state property for the purpose of its transfer for the needs of the state under martial law or state of emergency.
It is important that an act is drawn up on the forced alienation or confiscation of property.
It is determined that in the modern legal literature there is no clear scientific study that would address the issue of property rights in martial law. Therefore, it is necessary to more clearly analyze the provisions of the legislation of Ukraine on property relations that exist under martial law.
According to the results of the study, it was concluded that in martial law only the procedure of forced alienation of private property and communal property with subsequent compensation of value can be applied, and seizure occurs exclusively at the expense of state property and without reimbursement of such property.
The decision to forcibly expropriate property may be taken only by the military command in agreement with the local self-government body, depending on the conduct of hostilities in the territory.
It should be noted that the police, the Territorial Defense Forces, and individual servicemen cannot forcibly confiscate the private property of citizens without a proper decision of the Military Command and without proper documentation.
Uzhhorod National University
Title: Property rights in martial law
Description:
The article is devoted to the study of property rights in martial law, the definition of «forced alienation of property» and «seizure of property», reveals their characteristics.
The analysis of the essence of the property right in the conditions of martial law is carried out, it is defined as there is a compulsory alienation and confiscation of property.
It is established that during martial law there is a possibility:
–forcible alienation of property, ie deprivation of the owner of the right to ownership of individually identified property in private or communal ownership and which becomes the property of the state for use under martial law or state of emergency subject to prior or subsequent full reimbursement;
–confiscation of property, ie deprivation of state-owned enterprises, state economic associations of the right of economic management or operational management of individually determined state property for the purpose of its transfer for the needs of the state under martial law or state of emergency.
It is important that an act is drawn up on the forced alienation or confiscation of property.
It is determined that in the modern legal literature there is no clear scientific study that would address the issue of property rights in martial law.
Therefore, it is necessary to more clearly analyze the provisions of the legislation of Ukraine on property relations that exist under martial law.
According to the results of the study, it was concluded that in martial law only the procedure of forced alienation of private property and communal property with subsequent compensation of value can be applied, and seizure occurs exclusively at the expense of state property and without reimbursement of such property.
The decision to forcibly expropriate property may be taken only by the military command in agreement with the local self-government body, depending on the conduct of hostilities in the territory.
It should be noted that the police, the Territorial Defense Forces, and individual servicemen cannot forcibly confiscate the private property of citizens without a proper decision of the Military Command and without proper documentation.
Related Results
On the Status of Rights
On the Status of Rights
Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
In cases where the law conflicts with bioethics, the status of rights must be determined to resolve some of the tensions. ...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Abstract
This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Re Application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland); Reference by Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland Pursuant to Paragraph 33 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Abortion) (Northern Ireland)
Re Application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland); Reference by Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland Pursuant to Paragraph 33 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Abortion) (Northern Ireland)
531Human rights — Rights of women in Northern Ireland — Pregnant women and girls — Autonomy and bodily integrity — Right to respect for private and family life — Rights of persons ...
Implications Of Legal Protection Of Intellectual Property Rights For Obtaining Economic Benefits
Implications Of Legal Protection Of Intellectual Property Rights For Obtaining Economic Benefits
Intellectual property rights are an implication of the development of international trade, especially in industrial countries. In developing countries, the understanding and protec...
Bioethics-CSR Divide
Bioethics-CSR Divide
Photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) were born out of similar concerns, such as the reaction to scandal and the restraint ...
Property rights in martial law
Property rights in martial law
The right to property is one of the fundamental human rights, guaranteed by both national legislation and international regulatory legal acts. In conditions of martial law or a sta...
Regina (Keyu) and Others v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another
Regina (Keyu) and Others v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another
Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Effect in municipal law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 2 of Convention — Human Rights Act 19...
Non-Martial and Martial Methods to an Ultimate Political Goal of the Tiger Movement in Sri Lanka
Non-Martial and Martial Methods to an Ultimate Political Goal of the Tiger Movement in Sri Lanka
The Tiger Movement had one ultimate political goal, and two main alternating methods to reach this goal, which was to obtain recognition by world community for the right of self-de...

