The admissibility of control over the cutting of greenery on private land plots — existing problems and prospects for regulation

  • Alexey V. Basharin Legal management of the Committee on Urban Planning and Architecture, 2, pl. Lomonosovа, St. Petersburg, 191023, Russian Federation
  • Andrey A. Petunov Investment Committee of St. Petersburg, 20, lit. A, Novgorodskaya ul., St. Petersburg, 191144, Russian Federation

Abstract

This article examines the mechanisms for controlling the cutting of greenery on privately owned land plots. The authors begin the study by determining the status of green spaces, elements of their private law and public law regime. According to the authors, the current Russian legislation does not have a universal mechanism for controlling the cutting of greenery located on land plots that allows for the preservation of separate categories of greenery. The authors explore how the possibility of regulating the control of cutting green spaces on privately owned land plots was influenced by the “evolution of property rights,” including under the influence of the concept of sustainable development. According to the authors, the possibility of introducing such control at the legislative level requires the balancing of two human rights: property rights and the right to a favorable environment. The authors pay special attention to regulating the control of cutting greenery on private lands that exist in the United States, which, on the one hand, is due to the concept of the United States as a stronghold of “classical liberalism,” and on the other hand, the existence of a developed land management system in the US. The authors investigate the existing control mechanisms for felling green spaces located on privately owned land plots in the US: local cutting regulations, zoning institute, and the special institute “conservation easements.” The authors demonstrate that in the United States, regulation of control over the cutting of green spaces located on privately owned land plots differs substantially between states, and leads to widespread public debate, the existence of which is caused by different opinions in answering the fundamental question: does land belong to the current generation or is it in trusted management for future generations. The authors explore the public trust doctrine in the United States, suggesting that the government should be seen as a trustee for managing natural resources, with fiduciary responsibilities in regards to the public. In conclusion, possible options for amending the current legislation are given to introduce the necessary control over the cutting of green spaces located on land plots in private ownership. 

Keywords:

green spaces, ownership, felling of green spaces, sustainable development, fiduciary duties, public trust

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Akkermans, Bram. 2018. A Comparative Overview of European, US and South African Constitutional Property Law. European Property Law Journal 7 (1): 108–143. https://doi.org/10.1515/eplj-2018-0002.

Alexander, Gregory. 2006. The Global Debate over Constitutional Property Lessons for American Takings Jurisprudence. University of Chicago Press.

Berger, Anastasia. 2014. Comparative legal analysis of the effect of constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen in the private law of Germany and Russia. Sravnitel’noe konstitucionnoe obozrenie 1: 100–119. (In Russian)

Bevzenko, Roman S.2016. Commentary on the Definition of the Judicial Panel on Economic Dis- putes of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of 02.06.2016 No. 306-ЭС15-20155. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiia 7: 4–10. (In Russian)

Boyd, David. 2014. The Status of Constitutional Protection for the Environment in Other Nations. David Suzuki Foundation.

Cheever, Federico, McLaughlin, Nancy A.2015. An Introduction to Conservation Easements in the United States: A Simple Concept and a Complicated Mosaic of Law. Journal of Law, Property, and Society 1: 107–186.

Cherednychenko, Olha. 2007. A Relationship of Subordination or Complementarity? Utrecht Law Review 3 (2): 108–143. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.45.

Colinvaux, Roger. 2012. The Conservation Easement Tax Expenditure: In Search of Conservation Value. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 37 (1): 1–61.

Collins, Lynda. 2007. Are We There Yet? The Right to Environment in International and European Law. McGill International Journal Sustainable Development Law & Policy 2: 119–153.

Crawford, Colin, Juergensmeyer, Julian Conrad, Sześciło, Dawid. 2016. Social Function and Value Capture: Do They or Should They Have a Role to Play in Polish Land Development Regulation. Studia Iuridica 63: 97–113.

Duguit, Leon. 1919. Obshhie preobrazovaniya grazhdanskogo prava so vremeni Kodeksa Napoleona. Rus. ed. Moscow, State publishing house.

Eagle, Steven. 2014. The Four-Factor Penn Central Regulatory Takings Test. Penn State Law Review 118 (3): 1–51.

Gadzhiev, Gadis А. 2006. The Constitutional Foundations of Modern Property Rights. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava 12: 30–41. (In Russian)

Gallegati, Mauro. 2016. If nature were a Commons would the homo economicus be a rational agent dropped in an evolutionary trap or an ignorant pedantic? A Note on Ecology of Law. Toward a Legal System in Tune with Nature and Community, by F. Capra and U. Mattei, 2015. Accounting, Economics, and Law 7 (3). https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2016-0015.

Herstein, Ori. 2009. The Identity and (Legal) Rights of Future Generations (August 26, 2009). The George Washington Law Review 77: 1173.

Krassov, Oleg I.2014. Land ownership in Europe: monograph. Moscow, Norma, Infra-M Publ. (In Russian)

Mattei, Ugo. 2011. The State, the Market, and some Preliminary Question about the Commons. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/iuc/rpaper/1-11.html (accessed: 05.08.2019).

Panesar, Sukhninder. 2000. Theories of private property in modern property law. Denning Law Journal 15: 113–138.

Percival, Robert. 2017. Murr v. Wisconsin and the Supreme Court’s Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence. Presentation at the Fall Meeting of the ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, Baltimore, Maryland, 2017: 1–18.

Rose, Сarol. 1998. Joseph Sax and the Idea of the Public Trust. Ecology Law Quarterly 25: 351–362.

Rybalov, Andrei O. 2017. Ownership (Commentary on art. 209 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Moscow, M-Logos Publ. (In Russian)

Saurin, Alexander A. 2014. Ownership in the Russian Federation: Constitutional and Legal Limits of Implementation and Restrictions. Moscow, Statute Publ. (In Russian)

Strasser, Kurt. 2017. Visions of “Eco-Law”: A Comment on Capra and Mattei, The Ecology of Law: Toward a Legal System in Tune with Nature and Community, 2015. Accounting, Economics, and Law 7 (3): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2016-0058.

Takacs, David. 2008. The Public Trust Doctrine, Environmental Human Rights, and the Future of Private Property (June 28, 2008). New York University Environmental Law Journal 16: 711–765.

Williams, Serena. 2002. Sustaining Urban Green Spaces: Can Public Parks Be Protected Under the Public Trust Doctrine? South Carolina Environmental Law Journal 10: 23–52.

Zor’kin, Valerii D.2011. The legal future of Russia. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava 10: 7–16. (In Russian)

Published
2020-01-21
How to Cite
Basharin, A. V., & Petunov, A. A. (2020). The admissibility of control over the cutting of greenery on private land plots — existing problems and prospects for regulation . Pravovedenie, 62(4), 589-605. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2018.401
Section
Articles