Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2018. Issue 4 (42)

E. G. Komissarova, Perm State University

O. A. Kuznetsova, Perm State University

Introduction: the modern problematics relating to the co-existence of civil legislation and entrepreneurial (commercial, trade, economic) legislation are primarily investigated with respect to the dualism of private law. It would not be exaggeration to say that this problem has been chronically “burdening” civil law, starting from the point of clarifying its correlation with trade law. Modern approaches to the problem of dualism are often one-sided due to the insufficient study of the historical background of the issue, originating from the views of scholars and the legislator on the correlation between civil and trade law, and also because of the simple copying of the experience of foreign countries that followed the path of the private law dualism due to the specificity of their national development. The traces of the simplified approach to this problem cause numerous theoretical inconsistencies both in the aspects of the trade, economic and entrepreneurial legislation continuity and in understanding the place of trade law in its current history. Studying pre-revolutionary sources, the authors research the real legal contours of trade norms in the legislation and in the doctrinal analyses of the past, the true meaning of these norms in the post-Soviet history of regulating property relations, and their influence on modern property relations. Alongside with the private law dualism and monism aspects, the authors turn to the analysis of the commercialization of civil legislation and differentiation of civil law norms as evolutionary processes in the development of civil law. According to the authors, this approach allows for understanding the true essence of modern civil legislation, providing the possibility to actualize the objective views of the private law monism supporters being in line with the legislator’s position. The purpose of the article is to analyze the doctrinal achievements with regard to the legal format of private law and legislation. Methods: the methodological framework of the research is based on the general scientific (dialectical) method of cognition of the private law scientific concepts; specific methods of scientific cognition were also used (formal juridical method, historical legal method, method of comparative study of law). Results: the authors’ conclusions are focused on the correction of the widely accepted and somewhat one-sided view of the correlation between the civil, trade, economic and entrepreneurial law in their historical inter-connection. The issue of the correlation between these types of law was and continues to be the question of the branch-specific structure of civil law, or the question of the internal structure of private law. As for entrepreneurial (economic, commercial) law in its current legislative and doctrinal form, the authors think that this is not a question of the correlation between civil law and entrepreneurial law but of the external surroundings of the private law system, the environment which is in contact with private law and which is opposed to it.