COMPARATIVE-LAW ASPECT OF LAW REGULATION OF CRIMEAN TATARS AND BEYS OWNERSHIP IN CRIMEAN KHANATE IN XV – XVIII CENTURES AND RUSSIAN LANDLORDS OWNERSHIP IN TAURIDE PROVINCE IN XVIII – XIX CENTURES

Abstract

In the article we comparise the law standing of crimean tatar beys and mirzes in Crimean Khanate and russian landlords in Taurian province in the law ownership relations. The law standing of crimean tatar beys and mirzes in Crimean Khanate in the law ownership relations was realized on the principles of islamic law. The law standing of russian landlords in Taurian province in the law ownership relations was realized on the principles of continental law. The comparison was helped to research the changes, which was occurred in Crimea during the time of existence Crimean Khanate, annexation Crimean Khanate by Russian Imperium on 8 april 1783 year and creation Taurian province in the law regulations of ownership relations. We explored, that content of law powers in ownership relations of crimean tatar beys and mirzes in Crimean Khanate was more compared to the similar content of russian landlords. It was founded on principles of justice, reasonableness and rational using of natural resources. Sources of their creation was: crimean customs, khan’s labels and civil transactions on land. The ownership of Russian landlords was based on principles of deception, hoarding, profit from land, in despite of their destruction. Sources of this creation was: russian legislation, taurian governor warrants and civil transactions on land. Fixation of ownership of Russian landlords in Taurian province was accompanied violation of the rights of Crimean tatars, which was deprived of their lands, was forced to emigrate on Turkey. Concentration a lot of lands in the hands of landlords was led for appearance in Crimea phenomenons serfdom, which wasn’t known to crimean tatars. Redistribution of land ownership was negative at all for crimean tatrs. It also didn’t bring the happiness for russians, because they didn’t knew what did with land. Russian law, which was regulated the land relationships between citizens, was alien and incomprehensible for crimean tatars. Russian power well-nigh didn’t using crimean law mechanisms of regulation land relationship, such as mevat, vaquf and others. This redistribution was destroyed the unique law tradition in Crimea.