Constitutional and Civilistic Bases for Public Relations Differentiation into Organizational and Property Relations. Reflections on the Margins of Oleg E. Kutafin Doctoral Dissertation, 1979, “Planned Activities of the Soviet State: A State-Legal Aspect”

Abstract

It is proposed to form the constitutional and civilistic foundations of the general legal theory of organizational and property relations. Oleg E. Kutafin was a forrunner of the formation of such foundations. Organizational and property relations are gathered into a uniform binary paradigm. Immanent (inalienable) rights by their nature include only certain legal organizational rights (the right to judicial protection, the right to relief in court, etc.). The presence of subjective inalienable rights in a number of organizational relations once again emphasizes that within the framework of the universal binary paradigm “the organizational — the property”, the property relations possess special ontological continuation of organizational relations. The organizational and property criteria should be taken as two opposite functional manifestations of organization as an essential characteristic of social relations. These two incarnations do not compromise the integrity because their difference does not go into the denial of the essence of any of the social relations. Property, as a phenomenon of a specific nature, overcomes the manifestation of the organization as a phenomenon of a general nature. However, property acts as a legal description of certain legal rights, responsibilities, relationships similar to organization, publicity, etc. The definition of the property relation as the relation regarding material, physical object has introductory-anticipatory value rather than root or essential one. Alienability of legal rights can be of two types: 1) ability to be withdrawn (the ability to be alienated to someone else by force, without discretion or right-holder’s consent); 2) transferability (the ability to be transfered to someone else at the discretion of the right-holder). A negotiable legal right and (or) obligation of at least one of the participants in the relationship indicates that this social relationship is a property relationship, not organizational one. All other signs of the property relation (compensatory nature, etc.) are auxiliary and do not play an attributive role in qualifying the relation as a property relation.