Проблемы собственности: от перестройки до передела
This article examines V. V. Bibikhin‘s recently published series of lectures, “Property. Philosophy of the self,” which he delivered at Moscow’s Lomonosov University in 1993–1994. In it, he creatively develops Heidegger’s project of “phenomenological destruction”: a critical analysis of the traditional arsenal of classical ontology and modern European philosophy (substantialism and subjectivism) guided by the question of being and working through a new reading of classical thought (Alcibiades I). The command “Know thyself” demands we address the question of one’s own, that which is proper to the self, selfhood—a direct a priori given of human existence. In Bibikhin’s definition of “one’s own,” primary importance is allotted not to the “private self” (with its engagement with innerworldly things), but to the relationship with the whole world, out of which relationship the emergence of the subject is for the first time made possible. The article analyzes the original interpretations of such concepts as “property,” “world,” and “capture” put forth in Bibikhin’s philosophy.
The Working Paper examines the peculiarities of the Russian model of corporate governance and control in the banking sector. The study relies upon theoretical as well as applied research of corporate governance in Russian commercial banks featuring different forms of ownership. We focus on real interests of all stakeholders, namely bank and stock market regulators, bank owners, investors, top managers and other insiders. The Anglo-American concept of corporate governance, based on agency theory and implying outside investors’ control over banks through stock market, is found to bear limited relevance. We suggest some ways of overcoming the gap between formal institutions of governance and the real life.
Th e author criticizes a widespread doctrinal position that money on current accounts are not the clients’ property and could not be the object of vindication from the bank or from the third parties illegally holding this money. Modern meaning of the term “irregular custody” (depositum irregulare) is diff erent as compared with that in Roman law because in the Medieval times the custody contract was changed. Th e elements of Roman law contracts of regular custody and irregular custody (“old irregular custody”) were joined to the new legal construction, that is “new irregular custody”. Commercial bank is a kind of a warehouse. Th e current account contracts are not a special type of civil law contracts. Th ey are more akin to warehouse storage contracts. Proper money regime on current account should be as the storage in a warehouse (new irregular custody). Th e reform of general legal regime of bank accounts is necessary to divide them into a) current accounts in the custody regime with general ban for the banks to use this money and pay interest to clients, b) deposit accounts in the loan regime with prohibition of their pre-schedule withdrawing by clients. Both the vindication lawsuit and breach of contract lawsuit are able to protect the rights of parties of the current account contract. It appears that there is “individual mixed property” between all owners of money on current accounts in a certain bank. It is suggested that the classifi cation of civil contracts should be based upon economic (sometimes moral) fi nal expected eff ects, and upon technical aspects of their performance, as well as public law obligations of their parties etc.
An article offers a survey of the state of art in the field of property analysis in modern economic theory. Central place is devoted to the approach of new institutional economic theory which contributed to the revival of interest in property issues among mainstream economists. Marxist economics, Neo-Austrian Economics, Traditional Institutionalism and Property Economics are regarded as alternatives