СВОЈИНСКИ И НЕСВОЈИНСКИ КАРАКТЕР ДРУШТВЕНЕ СВОЈИНЕ
PROPERTY AND NON-PROPERTY CHARACTERS OF SOCIAL OWNERSHIPS

Summary/Abstract: Until the enacting of the 1963 Constitution there existed a certain unity of the Yugoslav legal and economic theories in the treatment of social ownership, wherefrom the existence of rather consistent categorisations which related the social ownership with various sub-systems of the socio-economic system. The split was created with the 1963 Constitution and it culminated by the enactment of the 1974 Constitution, when legal theory opted for the non-property conception of social ownership, while the economic theory — for the property law character. The Constitution and other subsequent documents and statutes accept and integrate into their articles this dichotomy, which practically meant the emergence of significant difficulties, ending up in the eighties into a real socio-economic crisis in the sphere of reproduction of social ownership. The author in a concise way review the research into the phenomenon of ownership in terms of law and economy, concluding that social ownership can be only a specific historical form of ownership and not of non- -ownership. Its historical particularity is determined by the nature of economic subjectivity, of the type of appropriating, of the commodity and market and planning methods of economic activity, etc. Therefore legal superstructure and the form of ownership could not be founded on the non-property conception. Also, the property conception could not be abandoned in order to be substituted with other concepts. While analyzing main substituting concepts, as contrasted to the social ownership one, namely the concept of the »right to work with socially- -owned means« and of the »right of disposal«, the author concludes that they too are economic substances covered by a legal form, in terms of appropriating and disposal. Naturally, of a specific type, both in terms of criteria of appropriation and of subjects and contents of property law functions. This too is considered by the author as a logical inconsistency between the legal non-property and the economic property categories of social ownership. He therefore proposes that social ownership be vested again with its unique logical-historical significance by abolishing the existing split and dichotomy. Necessary prerequisites lor Che above solution is the theoretical interdisciplinary study and work of jurists economists and political scientists.

• Details
• Contents