The article is devoted to the legal analysis of mechanisms for the forced termination of property rights at the initiative of the state, including nationalization, expropriation, and confiscation. In modern conditions, especially in light of geopolitical changes, seizure of private and corporate property hasgained particular significance. The study examines the theoretical foundations of these legal institutions, their regulatory 15 №1 ( - ) 2025. framework in Russian legislation, and their compliance with international standards. Special attention is given to the practice of nationalizing the property of foreign companies and individuals, particularly in the context of economic sanctions and political decisions. Author analyzes existing gaps in legislation, such as the lack of clear definitions of expropriation and procedural mechanisms for nationalization. Various regulatory models in foreign countries, including the United States, European Union states, Venezuela, and Germany, are explored. The legal consequences of forced property seizure and possible directions for improving Russian legislation to enhance itspredictability and protect property owners’ interests are also considered. The study employs a comparative legal method to identify keydifferences between nationalization, expropriation, and confiscation. Historical, formal-legal, and doctrinal research methods are also used. The article’s scientific novelty lies in the systematization of concepts, identification of legal characteristics and distinctions among these institutions. The author argues for the necessity of defining expropriation in Russian law and developing a special nationalization law to ensure procedural clarity and property rights protection. The study demonstrates that nationalization is recognized in international practice as a legitimate state policy tool, provided fair compensation is ensured. The analysis of foreign experience, particularly in the U.S. and EUcountries, confirms the importance of a legislatively established compensation mechanism for forced property seizure. Based on the research findings, recommendations are proposed to improve Russian legislation, eliminate legal uncertainty, and establish balanced regulation of these institutions.

The article is devoted to the legal analysis of mechanisms for the forced termination of property rights at the initiative of the state, including nationalization, expropriation, and confiscation. In modern conditions, especially in light of geopolitical changes, seizure of private and corporate property hasgained particular significance. The study examines the theoretical foundations of these legal institutions, their regulatory 15 №1 ( - ) 2025. framework in Russian legislation, and their compliance with international standards. Special attention is given to the practice of nationalizing the property of foreign companies and individuals, particularly in the context of economic sanctions and political decisions. Author analyzes existing gaps in legislation, such as the lack of clear definitions of expropriation and procedural mechanisms for nationalization. Various regulatory models in foreign countries, including the United States, European Union states, Venezuela, and Germany, are explored. The legal consequences of forced property seizure and possible directions for improving Russian legislation to enhance itspredictability and protect property owners’ interests are also considered. The study employs a comparative legal method to identify keydifferences between nationalization, expropriation, and confiscation. Historical, formal-legal, and doctrinal research methods are also used. The article’s scientific novelty lies in the systematization of concepts, identification of legal characteristics and distinctions among these institutions. The author argues for the necessity of defining expropriation in Russian law and developing a special nationalization law to ensure procedural clarity and property rights protection. The study demonstrates that nationalization is recognized in international practice as a legitimate state policy tool, provided fair compensation is ensured. The analysis of foreign experience, particularly in the U.S. and EUcountries, confirms the importance of a legislatively established compensation mechanism for forced property seizure. Based on the research findings, recommendations are proposed to improve Russian legislation, eliminate legal uncertainty, and establish balanced regulation of these institutions.