The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
53
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
53-59
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue06-10
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
25 April 2025
ACCEPTED
21 May 2025
PUBLISHED
23 June 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue06 2025
CITATION
Abdukhakimov Murodullo Togaevich. (2025). The state of prosecutorial
control over execution of land legislation in foreign countries. The
American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology, 7(06), 53
–
59.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue06-10
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
The state of prosecutorial
control over execution of
land legislation in foreign
countries
Abdukhakimov Murodullo Togaevich
Prosecutor of Andijan region, Independent Researcher of Law
Enforcement Academy, Doctor of Philosophy in Legal Sciences (PhD),
Uzbekistan
Abstract:
This article examines the distribution of land
resources in foreign countries, general issues of state
regulation of land relations in certain developed
countries and CIS states, as well as different approaches
to monitoring compliance with land legislation in the
United States, Europe, and the CIS. It explores the role
of prosecutor’s offices in overseeing land law
enforcement abroad, the organizational structures of
prosecutorial bodies established for land oversight, and
their respective functions and responsibilities. The
article also presents relevant statistical data, analyzes
the classification of foreign prosecutor’s offices into
those responsible for criminal prosecution and those
tasked with legal oversight, and highlights theoretical
aspects of the topic. Scientific perspectives, expert
opinions, and ongoing scholarly debates are also
considered. Furthermore, the article includes proposals
for improving the legislation of the Republic of
Uzbekistan based on advanced international practices in
the state regulation of land relations, along with the
author’s personal conclusions related to the topic
.
Keywords:
P
rosecutor’s
of
f
ice,
prosecutorial
supervision, land, land reform, agricultural land,
irrigated land, foreign countries, civil relations, illegal
and unauthorized use of land, liability.
Introduction:
Traditionally, land has been regarded as
one of the most critical factors of production, serving as
a foundation for infrastructure development and the
provision of various public services. The effective
utilization of land resources has a significant impact on
the socio-economic development of any nation,
influencing levels of hunger, poverty, and the overall
well-being of the population.
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
54
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
The structure of the global land fund is constantly
changing under the influence of two opposing
processe
s. The first process reflects humanity’s efforts
to expand the area of land suitable for habitation and
agricultural activities by enhancing soil fertility,
implementing land reclamation, drainage, irrigation,
and developing coastal zones. The second process
involves the withdrawal of land from agricultural use
as a result of erosion, desertification, industrial and
transport
development,
open-pit
mining,
waterlogging, and soil salinization. Notably, the second
process is developing at a faster rate. Consequently,
the primary challenge facing the global land fund today
is the degradation of agricultural land, leading to a
significant reduction in arable land area per capita [1,
pp. 88
–
92].
It is well known that the total area of the global land
fund is approximately 13.4 billion hectares. On
average, each person accounts for 1.7 hectares of land.
However, the distribution of land resources across
regions and countries is highly uneven.
The largest shares of land resources are concentrated
in Africa (30.3 million km²) and Asia (27.7 million km²).
Meanwhile, the greatest per capita land area is found
in Australia and Oceania
—
averaging 33 hectares per
person.
Currently, the countries with the largest land areas are
Russia (17.1 million km²), Canada (10 million km²),
China (9.6 million km²), the United States (9.5 million
km²), Brazil (8.5 million km²), and Australia (7.7 million
km²).
An analysis of the global land fund structure reveals
that 37% of its total area is allocated for agricultural
use, with only 11% consisting of arable land, while the
remaining 26% comprises natural pastures and
meadows. Lands not used for agricultural purposes
constitute 63% of the global land fund, with the
majority represented by forests (32%) and barren
territories (28%), including deserts and rocky areas [2,
p. 1].
Additionally, according to data from the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
the combined value of land and buildings in member
countries totals USD 249 trillion. The gradual increase
in land value worldwide has contributed to the
development of corruption schemes aimed at
acquiring land ownership rights and exploiting land for
personal gain [3, pp. 1
–
2]. This situation underscores
the necessity of enhancing the activities of government
authorities to ensure the rule of law in land
governance, prevent violations, and strengthen the
legal order.
In the current context, the analysis of international
experience in the rational and targeted use of land
resources, as well as the incorporation of its advanced
practices into national legislation and prosecutorial
oversight activities, is acquiring particular relevance.
It should be noted that in the majority of foreign
countries, especially in developed nations, the state and
society view the creation of favorable conditions for the
rational and targeted use of land, along with the
protection of land users' rights and interests, as one of
their most important objectives.
METHODS
In the process of managing, utilizing, and protecting land
resources,
both
economically
developed
and
developing countries prioritize agricultural land, with a
particular emphasis on fertile agricultural areas. It is
impossible to examine the international experience of
prosecutorial oversight in this field without briefly
addressing the characteristics of land relations
development and the legal foundations governing them
in foreign countries.
It should be noted that in our country, the issues of
prosecutorial oversight over the enforcement of land
legislation abroad have not yet been comprehensively
and systematically studied from a scientific perspective.
The works of Uzbek scholars such as B.Pulatov,
F.Rakhimov, Z.Ibragimov, T.Mirzaev, O.Madaliev,
T.Umarov, I.Juraev, A.Komilov, A.A.Makhmudov, and
F.Samigjonov have touched upon only certain general
aspects of prosecutorial oversight over the enforcement
of legislation in several foreign states. The studies
conducted by Y.Juraev, A.Nigmatov, M.Usmanov,
N.Skripnikov,
Sh.Faiziev,
Zh.Kholmuminov,
O.Narzullaev,
B.Kalonov,
U.Ayubov,
Kh.Isanov,
R.Ikramov, Kh.Khaitov, and U.Saidakhmedov have been
mainly devoted to issues of land and environmental law.
Additionally, certain aspects of prosecutorial oversight
over the enforcement of land legislation in the CIS
countries have been examined in the scientific works of
researchers such as Ya.G.Chervyakova, T.B.Ashitkova,
O.V.Kalugina,
A.D.Berenzon,
V.G.Bessarabov,
A.A.Chyortov, V.I.Baskov, I.S.Viktorov, A.Yu.Vinokurov,
K.Yu.Vinokurov, A.Kh.Kazarin, S.V.Maslov, and others.
At the same time, despite the significant contributions
of Ya.G.Chervyakova [4, p. 221], T.B.Ashitkova [5, p.
222], and O.V.Kalugina [6, p. 274] to the study of this
topic, issues related to ensuring prosecutorial oversight
over the enforcement of land legislation in foreign
countries have not been specifically addressed in their
works.
It should be emphasized that in the CIS countries,
prosecutorial oversight over the enforcement of land
legislation is considered one of the areas of general
prosecutorial supervision, which determines its
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
55
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
generalized treatment. As for foreign scholars such as
J.A.McKenzie, B.MacFarlane, M.Dixon, Yu.Cook, and
others, their scientific works have covered certain
theoretical aspects related to land rights, land use, and
land protection. However, comprehensive studies
devoted specifically to the exercise of prosecutorial
oversight in this field have not been conducted by
them.
In view of the above, the present study employed
methods such as systemic-structural and comparative-
legal analysis of the land legislation of foreign countries
and the practice of its enforcement, logical analysis,
specific
sociological
research,
comprehensive
examination of scientific sources, analysis of empirical
data
and
statistical
information,
scientific
interpretation of normative acts, as well as the study
of their application practices.
A comparative analysis was conducted, along with a
review of the works of the aforementioned scholars
and online sources containing land legislation of
foreign countries, including nearly all CIS states,
developed countries such as the United States, Japan,
China, and the Republic of Korea, as well as all
European nations.
RESULTS
Currently, based on the specific features of the
development of land law in foreign countries, these
states can be conditionally divided into two groups:
–
countries with developed market economies, where
a stable system of legal regulation of land relations has
been established;
–
developed countries in which land reform processes
are still ongoing [7, pp. 40
–
41].
The group of countries with developed market
economies and stable systems of land regulation
includes the United States, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, and other
highly developed nations. In these countries, the
principal institution of land law is the institution of
property rights, which exerts a significant influence on
the development of other institutions of land law and
accordingly occupies a central position both in the land
legislation and in the land law scholarship of these
countries.
Developed countries where land reforms are ongoing
can, in turn, be classified into four groups based on the
nature of the transformations being undertaken.
In Eastern European countries
—
such as Bulgaria,
Hungary, Germany, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, the
Czech Republic, and Yugoslavia
—
the main directions
of land reforms include:
–
the withdrawal of land from
state ownership and its privatization;
–
the
reorganization of state and cooperative agricultural
enterprises;
–
the creation of peasant (family) farms.
The reform of land and agrarian relations in China and
other Southeast Asian countries has its own distinct
features. In particular, during the implementation of the
people's commune system in China
—
based on the
principles of complete equalization
—
a system of family
contract farming emerged. This system involved
transferring land use rights to peasant households,
thereby ensuring employment for millions of rural
workers and contributing significantly to the growth of
industrial production in the so-called "rural industry,"
which subsequently gained wide recognition.
Agricultural and land reforms in Latin American
countries also present considerable interest, as these
reforms have prioritized the transition from collective
(communal) ownership to a system of private
ownership.
A distinctive feature of land relations regulation in
African countries lies in the fact that for a long time
these nations were under colonial dependency on
developed states, resulting in a legal framework that
closely intertwined with local land use customs. At
present, the privatization of land plots is also being
actively pursued in the majority of African countries.
In the United States of America, land ownership [8, pp.
1
–
3] constitutes one of the key sectors of the American
legal system. Its foundations lie in common law, rooted
in England’s feudal legal traditions and subsequently
adapted to American conditions. In the United States,
the majority of land
—
specifically, 98% of arable land
intended for agricultural use
—
is held in private
ownership. Although the federal government controls
significant
land
areas,
these
territories
are
predominantly located in desert and tundra zones, as
well as in sparsely populated regions of the western
United States and Alaska, including pastures and forest
lands.
In the U.S., land ownership represents a complex system
of interrelated rights, part of which is exercised by the
landowner, while another part remains vested in the
state, which grants the right of ownership. The
government refrains from interfering in the economic
activities of landowners, limiting its role primarily to the
collection of taxes. Property taxes are considered an
effective tool for influencing land use, employing
specific methods of taxation and tax rate adjustments.
The rights to subsoil use and the extraction of natural
resources remain under federal jurisdiction. Meanwhile,
federal authorities are increasingly seeking to
strengthen their influence over land use practices.
Under legislation passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives, landowners have been granted the
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
56
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
right to appeal directly to federal courts, bypassing
state-level trial and appellate courts [9, p. 162].
Distinctive features of land law can also be observed in
Eastern European countries. Despite widespread
privatization of agricultural lands in the region, the sale
of such land to foreign citizens remains prohibited.
For instance, under Bulgaria’s Land Act of 1992,
particular emphasis was placed on the free formation
of a land market. This law stipulated the restitution of
50% of agricultural land to former owners [10, pp. 11
–
33].
According to Romania’s Land Fund Act of 1991, each
rural family was entitled to receive a land plot free of
charge, with an area of up to 10 hectares (at least 0.5
hectares per individual), but not exceeding 100
hectares per family overall [11, pp. 1
–
3].
The modern land use system in Italy emerged under
the influence of land reforms initiated in the 1950s.
These reforms aimed to establish new peasant farms,
overcome the socio-economic crisis, strengthen the
bond between producers and land, and foster a sense
of ownership. Italy’s land reforms were implemented
in two stages. The first stage involved the
expropriation (forced seizure) of privately owned land
from individual owners.
At the second stage, agricultural plots were transferred
to users based on special agreements. Under the terms
of land sales, the purchase price was to be paid in
annual installments over a period of 30 years, and
purchasers were prohibited from selling the land
within that same period [12, pp. 108
–
127].
The foundations of the contemporary land use system
in France trace back to agrarian reforms of 1945.
Amendments introduced to land legislation in 1946
guaranteed land users the right to stable, long-term
possession of land plots, autonomy in farm
management, and protection of their rights in case of
disputes
with
landowners.
Currently,
France
recognizes collective, individual (private), and mixed
forms of land ownership. Agricultural lands are granted
exclusively to citizens historically residing in the
relevant regions [13, pp. 65
–
74].
In Germany, despite the existence of all forms of land
ownership, more than 90% of land is privately owned.
According to German land legislation, the turnover of
agricultural and forest lands is strictly regulated:
fragmentation and changes in land use designation are
prohibited. Primary attention is given to the rational
use of land, the prevention of excessive restrictions on
land turnover, and the enforcement of land users' legal
obligations, including the payment of taxes. To support
these objectives, Germany has established specialized
agricultural courts [14, p. 1].
Oversight in this area is also coordinated by the Federal
Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation,
Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection [15, p. 1].
In the United Kingdom, a system of state agencies exists
with powers over environmental protection and natural
resource management, coordinated by the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Ministry
primarily performs coordination functions and provides
general political leadership [16, pp. 120
–
131].
In many foreign countries, land redistribution is
conducted through restitution (from the Latin
restitutio
—
restoration). In the global practice of land
law, restitution refers to the complete or partial return
of land plots to individuals and legal entities from whom
they were previously expropriated or seized. This
process was particularly prominent after World War II,
when land occupied by Nazi Germany was returned to
its rightful owners. Examples of countries where
restitution became the primary method of land reform
include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, East
Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia,
Montenegro, and Macedonia.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s,
privatization of agricultural lands began in Russia,
Ukraine, Moldova, and Azerbaijan. In a number of
Eastern European countries such as Armenia, Georgia,
Azerbaijan,
Moldova,
and
Ukraine,
complete
privatization of agricultural land was accomplished by
the late 1990s to early 2000s through the distribution of
small land plots [17, pp. 92
–
96].
Currently, in most CIS countries, despite full or partial
privatization of land, there are still states where land
remains entirely under public ownership. For example,
Article 13 of the Constitution of Tajikistan recognizes
land and other natural resources as the exclusive
property of the state [18, p. 2].
At present, in many foreign countries where land is
privately owned, the concept of state control over land
use and protection does not formally exist. In the United
States and most European countries, disputes regarding
the unlawful use of land plots are adjudicated by the
courts based on complaints submitted by local
government authorities.
Meanwhile, in several CIS countries, prosecutors have
been entrusted with supervising compliance with laws,
including land legislation. Therefore, prosecutorial
oversight of compliance with land use laws is explicitly
addressed in the relevant normative legal acts of these
states.
It is worth noting that the tasks of prosecution bodies in
the area of land use and protection are determined
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
57
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
based on the legal status of the prosecution service in
each particular country.
An analysis of legal scholarship reveals a range of
perspectives among legal scholars and practitioners
regarding this issue. For instance, H.Zaytun [19, pp. 75
–
81] advocates for the necessity of ensuring
prosecutorial
independence
and
objectivity,
emphasizing that incorporating prosecution bodies
into the structure of the executive branch could hinder
their impartiality. We fully support this view.
The directions and functions of prosecutorial bodies
are closely linked to their role within the system of
state institutions. In particular, A.Allamuratov classifies
states according to the legal status of their prosecution
services into four groups: where the prosecution
service is incorporated into the executive, judicial, or
justice branches of government, or functions as an
independent div not affiliated with any branch of
power [20, pp. 8
–
9]. A similar classification is also
proposed by Z.Ibragimov [21, pp. 66
–
76] and
D.Khamdamova [22, pp. 42
–
43].
In our view, under modern conditions, incorporating
prosecutorial bodies into any branch of state power,
especially the executive, is inappropriate. It is well
known that international practice today distinguishes
two models for the organization of prosecution
services, based on the directions of their activities and
functional tasks.
The classification of a prosecution service under one
model or another depends on the legal system and
governmental structure of the respective country.
Under the first model, the prosecution service
primarily functions as a div responsible for criminal
prosecution and accusation; under the second model,
it acts as a div exercising oversight over the
observance of legislation.
For example, the activities of the U.S. prosecution
service are primarily oriented towards combating
crime and preventing criminal offenses. The main task
of American prosecutors (attorneys) is to represent the
prosecution in court [23, pp. 216
–
223].
In France, the prosecution service is part of the
Ministry of Justice, and its senior officials are classified
according to the level of judicial proceedings: Attorney
General in courts of cassation, prosecutors of the
republic, and prosecutors of various jurisdictions.
In Germany, the prosecution service is also part of the
Ministry of Justice and is considered an element of the
executive branch. The main functions of German
prosecutors are the conduct of criminal prosecutions
and participation in court proceedings.
In the United Kingdom, the Crown Prosecution Service
operates with the primary responsibility of maintaining
the state's prosecution in court regarding criminal cases
investigated by the police.
In Japanese law, prosecutors are empowered to initiate
or terminate criminal proceedings, conduct preliminary
investigations, demand enforcement of relevant laws in
court, and oversee and control the execution of court
decisions [24, p. 34].
In this regard, many scholars have put forward their
scientific perspectives. For example, according to
Yu.Knyazeva, in Western countries, prosecution services
primarily function as accusatory bodies and do not
exercise "general oversight"; moreover, in most
countries, they are not independent systems but rather
constitute components of the judiciary or executive
authorities [25, pp. 98
–
101].
Similar positions are expressed by S.Abdrakhmanova
and A.Kanatov [26, pp. 26
–
31], who emphasize that
prosecutorial bodies operate within the framework of
the executive branch (e.g., in the United States, Estonia,
and other countries) or the judicial branch (e.g., in
Spain, Latvia, Georgia, and others).
F.Malikov and B.Boymatov also note that in the United
States, France, Germany, and Italy, the primary function
of prosecutorial bodies is to conduct criminal
prosecution [27, p. 50].
Under the second model, the primary function of the
prosecution service is the supervision of law
enforcement.
In particular, in most CIS countries (Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and
others), prosecutors exercise oversight over the
enforcement of laws. Nevertheless, after gaining
independence, some CIS countries abandoned the
function of "general oversight" when reorganizing the
tasks and functions of their prosecutorial bodies.
Thus, in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova, the
"general oversight" function was excluded from the
activities of prosecution bodies, and consequently, their
prosecution services are currently classified under the
first model.
According to legal scholar M.Zaprudskaya, "the first
model implies the cessation of the 'general oversight'
function (i.e., supervision of the enforcement of
legislation) by prosecutorial bodies. Since in the
prosecution services of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan,
and
Turkmenistan,
the
supervision of the enforcement of legislation remains a
primary task, these institutions correspond to the
second model of prosecution services" [28, pp. 135
–
139].
According to Spain’s Law No. 50/1981 "On the
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
58
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
Prosecution Service" dated December 30, 1981, the
structure of the Office of the Attorney General of Spain
provides for the creation of special prosecutors for
matters related to land use, the protection of historical
heritage, the fight against economic crimes, and forest
fires. The primary tasks of these prosecutors include
conducting inspections related to offenses in the areas
of land use, the protection of historical sites, nature,
and the environment, safeguarding flora, fauna, and
domestic animals, as well as participating in judicial
proceedings concerning these matters [29, pp. 1
–
10].
Thus, although the Spanish prosecution service is
formally classified under the first model
—
with its main
emphasis on criminal prosecution and maintaining
charges in court
—
the introduction of a special
supervisory function in specific areas of law suggests
that categorizing it exclusively under a single model
would be methodologically incorrect.
Analysis of Research Results
Overall, based on the tasks and functions of
prosecution authorities in developed foreign
countries, it appears appropriate to classify their
activities into three models:
The first model includes states where the primary
function of prosecutors is to maintain public
prosecution in court, such as the United States, France,
and the United Kingdom;
The second model encompasses states where the
prosecution authorities not only conduct criminal
prosecution at both the preliminary investigation and
trial stages but also participate in civil and
administrative proceedings, and perform supervisory
functions over judicial processes, as seen in Germany,
Italy, Denmark, and Japan;
The third model refers to states where one of the main
functions of the prosecution authorities is the
supervision of the enforcement of legislation, including
Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan.
An analysis of international experience demonstrates
that, during the gradual privatization of land plots in
most countries, the degree of state control over the
targeted and rational use of land was significantly
reduced, and related issues began to be resolved
within the framework of civil legal relations.
In our opinion, resolving land disputes exclusively
through judicial procedures, along with predominantly
applying financial sanctions for violations of the law,
are appropriate measures. Undoubtedly, the reforms
currently underway in our country may eventually lead
to the introduction of similar processes in our Republic.
It should be noted that prosecutorial supervision over
the enforcement of land legislation is a relatively new
phenomenon for the majority of foreign countries. As
mentioned above, in countries where the prosecution
authorities are tasked with supervising the enforcement
of legislation (such as Russia, Belarus, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan), the
supervision of compliance with land legislation is
conducted within the framework of general
prosecutorial supervision, alongside the enforcement of
other normative acts.
However, in the Republic of Tajikistan, prosecutorial
supervision over the enforcement of land legislation has
been singled out as a separate area. In particular,
pursuant to the Decree of the President of the Republic
of Tajikistan No. 1172 dated January 4, 2019, the Main
Department for Supervision of the Enforcement of Land
Legislation and its territorial divisions were established
within the General Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of
Tajikistan. These structures are directly responsible for
supervising compliance with legislation in the sphere of
land relations.
A similar practice has been introduced into the
legislation of our Republic as well. Thus, by Presidential
Decree of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. PQ
–
138 dated
February 21, 2022, "On Measures to Improve the
Efficiency of State Control in the Field of Land Use," and
in order to ensure the effective implementation of
additional tasks assigned to prosecution bodies, the
Main Department for the Prevention of Land Resource
Misappropriation was established within the structure
of the General Prosecutor’s Office, comprising 8 staff
units, along with similar subdivisions within the
Prosecutor’s Offices of the Republic of Karakalpakstan,
regions, and the city of Tashkent, with a total of 56 staff
units.
Considering the current transitional stage, as well as the
limited size of land resources in our country, especially
agricultural lands, it seems appropriate to maintain
prosecutorial supervision in this area through
specialized structural subdivisions until the complete
zoning organization of land plots and the establishment
of their real owners is achieved, following the example
of the United States and European countries.
However, based on the study of certain aspects of
international experience, it should be noted that in
cases of violations of land legislation, particularly in the
allocation, use, or withdrawal of land plots into the state
reserve, such matters should be resolved through
judicial proceedings by filing the appropriate legal
claims.
In the long term, as the full privatization of land plots,
especially agricultural lands, is completed, state control,
including prosecutorial supervision in this area, will
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
59
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
gradually give way to the regulation of relations
through civil law mechanisms.
CONCLUSION
First
, the analysis of international practice regarding
the enforcement of land legislation reveals that in
Western countries, the activities of prosecution bodies
are primarily focused on ensuring prosecutorial
participation in judicial proceedings and implementing
state policy in the field of criminal law. At the same
time, the function of prosecutorial supervision over
the enforcement of legislation remains a leading task
in most CIS member states.
Second
, in economically developed countries (such as
the United States, Germany, France, Italy, and
England), prosecution authorities do not exercise
functions related to the supervision of the
enforcement of laws. The absence of a need for
prosecutorial supervision in these countries is
explained by their longstanding traditions of statehood
and legal systems, a high level of respect for the law,
strong public trust in the judiciary, the existence of a
robust institution of advocacy and legal services, and
the
effective operation
of
public
oversight
mechanisms.
Third
, in certain economically developed countries, the
need for prosecutorial supervision arises in matters
related to environmental protection and land use,
which has led to the establishment of specialized
prosecution bodies. For instance, according to Spain's
Law No. 50/1981 "On the Prosecution Service," dated
December 30, 1981, special prosecutors for land use,
the protection of historical heritage, economic crimes,
and forest fires have been established within the
structure of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Spain.
However, the role of these prosecution bodies is not to
supervise the enforcement of legislation per se, but
rather to oversee the investigation of crimes in these
specific areas and to maintain public prosecution in
courts.
Fourth
, in countries such as the United States, England,
the Netherlands, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, and
other developed states, sustainable systems of legal
regulation of land relations have been formed under
conditions of a developed market economy. Since land
has historically been an object of private ownership in
these countries, land disputes are currently resolved
predominantly through civil judicial proceedings. In
this regard, it appears advisable in the future to
consider the possibility of transferring land into private
ownership and addressing cases of unlawful or
inappropriate land use primarily through the
application of financial and tax sanctions.
REFERENCES
Pulatov, B., Rakhimov, F., Ibragimov, Z., Mirzaev, T.,
Madaliev, O., Umarov, T., Juraev, I., Komilov, A.,
Makhmudov, A. A., & Samigjonov, F. (n.d.). General
aspects of prosecutorial oversight over the
enforcement of legislation. [In Uzbek/Russian].
Juraev, Y., Nigmatov, A., Usmanov, M., Skripnikov,
N., Faiziev, Sh., Kholmuminov, Zh., Narzullaev, O.,
Kalonov, B., Ayubov, U., Isanov, Kh., Ikramov, R.,
Khaitov, Kh., & Saidakhmedov, U. (n.d.). Research
on land and environmental law in Uzbekistan. [In
Uzbek/Russian].
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). (n.d.). Land and property
value
statistics.
Retrieved
from
Chervyakova, Ya. G. (n.d.). Issues of prosecutorial
oversight in CIS countries. [In Russian].
Ashitkova, T. B. (n.d.). General prosecutorial
supervision in land legislation enforcement. [In
Russian].
Kalugina, O. V. (n.d.). Studies on environmental law
and prosecutorial functions. [In Russian].
Berenzon, A. D., Bessarabov, V. G., Chyortov, A. A.,
Baskov, V. I., Viktorov, I. S., Vinokurov, A. Yu.,
Vinokurov, K. Yu., Kazarin, A. Kh., & Maslov, S. V.
(n.d.). Selected works on prosecutorial and legal
oversight in the CIS. [In Russian].
McKenzie, J. A., MacFarlane, B., Dixon, M., & Cook,
Y. (n.d.). Theoretical foundations of land use, land
rights, and land protection. [International legal
sources].
FAO. (n.d.). The state of the world’s land a
nd water
resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW). Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Retrieved from
UNCCD. (n.d.). Land degradation neutrality: A
sustainable development goal. United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification. Retrieved
from
