Taking into account the ongoing democratic transformations in our country, the decentralization reform deserves special attention, which is aimed at ensuring broad independence of territorial communities in solving their own socio-economic problems of a particular region. One of the key issues of such a reform is the formation of capable administrative-territorial units, endowed with full power not only in terms of administrative management but as full owners of the relevant resource base grounded on land. Unfortunately, the transformations carried out in Ukraine through privatization in general and privatization of land and legislative consolidation of new forms of land ownership have led to uncertainty about the object composition of communal land ownership, failed to ensure social harmony, creating crisis phenomena of demographic and socio-economic nature, especially in rural areas. As a result, the legal model of state regulation of land relations remains incomplete, in which the balance of private and public interests in land use within territorial communities would be ensured by law, which determined the content of the study. The work analyses the theoretical and normative principles of land ownership, in particular, the conclusion that the form of land ownership due to its functional purpose and special subject-object composition, determines the mechanism of formation and termination of ownership. Scientific conclusions and recommendations are formulated, on which it is expedient to build a modern state policy on the formation and establishment in society of the concept of communal ownership of land as a basis for the effective development of territorial communities. According to the results of the study, the need to change the administrative-territorial division by regulating the community at the constitutional level as the primary administrative-territorial unit, which is the basis for the formation of communal land ownership. Amendments to the Land Code of Ukraine are proposed in order to determine the right of communal ownership of land within territorial communities.

No abstract

The article studies the concept of «public policy», presents doctrinal definitions of public policy, as well as definitions used in judicial practice, in particular in the decisions of the Supreme Court. It is established that the Ukrainian legislation does not contain a definition of «public policy», but from the analysis of case law it can be concluded that the public policy of any country includes the fundamental principles and principles of justice, morality, state system, political system and economic security, which the state wishes to protect, which means «public policy» is a broad and abstract concept. At the same time, such a position of the legislator, given the case law cited in the article, is justified and reasoned. It is analyzed that the Civil Code of Ukraine lists the grounds on which the transaction can be considered as violating public policy, at the same time, the analysis of case law shows that the category of public policy does not apply to any legal relationship in the state, but only on the essential foundations of law and order. The article also analyzes that the recognition or enforcement of the decisions of an international commercial arbitral tribunal may be denied if the court finds that the recognition and enforcement of this arbitral award is contrary to public policy of Ukraine, as an example listed court cases in which the enforcement of arbitral awards was refused due to a violation of public policy. In view of the above, it is proved in the article that the definition and understanding of the category of public policy is important in recognizing and bringing to the enforcement of international commercial arbitration courts decisions, as well as recognition of transactions as such that violates the public policy, which leads to insignificance of such transactions. It is summarized that today in Ukraine there is no normative definition of the concept of «public policy», and from the analysis of judicial practice we can conclude that judges interpret the concept of «public policy» quite broadly and abstractly. However, given that quite often cases of recognition of a transaction as contrary to public policy (invalid transaction), as well as the recognition and enforcement of international commercial arbitration and foreign courts judgments are «technical» cases brought in order to avoid the liability of a party against whom the decision was made, such an interpretation of the concept of «public policy» gives judges the opportunity to fully investigate, whether transactions or decisions in force violates public policy or the fundamental principles of justice and fairness of the state, without a statutory restriction on the concept of «public policy».