The Russian Concept of International Law as Imperial Legacy
While during the Soviet period differences in Russia’s concept of international law compared to the West were explained by Marxism-Leninism, in the post-Soviet period and at least during the later Putin era, civilizational differences have been referred t
- PDF / 260,287 Bytes
- 17 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 18 Downloads / 228 Views
1 Introduction Probably no other feature has been more characteristic of the Russian concept of international law than the country’s imperial legacy. Throughout recent centuries, Russia has transformed considerably inside—from the Tsarist Empire to the USSR to the post-Soviet Russian Federation—which has also noticeably diminished its borders. However, certain imperial or at least great-power features in predominant international legal thinking have remained intact. The post-Soviet Russian Federation as still the largest territorial state in the world, with 11 time zones, enjoys historical and international legal continuity with the Tsarist Russian Empire. Beyond this, the Empire is primarily a mindset that sees Russia as a great power, sometimes even with a unique spiritual-political mission in the world, and interprets international law primarily through the particular lens of raison d’état (russe). The Russian imperial mindset worries about the fate of the country’s unparalleled territorial possessions and natural resources so that it becomes one of the main driving forces for its concept of international law as well. The imperial tradition also has implications for international law as a scholarly intellectual tradition, besides its practice by the government. In Russia, outstanding experts of international law are encouraged to work along the lines of governmental policy or at the very least not against it. Russia’s leading international lawyers of the Tsarist Empire—Friedrich (Feodor Feodorovich) Martens—and of the Soviet period—Grigory Tunkin—also had significant work experience with the Tsarist
Research for this chapter was supported by a grant from the Estonian Research Council PRG969. L. Mälksoo (*) University of Tartu School of Law, Tartu, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 P. Hilpold (ed.), European International Law Traditions, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52028-1_9
261
262
L. Mälksoo
Russian and Soviet diplomatic services, respectively.1 It can even be observed that the names that have stuck in the Western imagination are the international law scholar-diplomats from Russia but seldom “pure” scholars-theoreticians (to the extent that they exist at all). Oleg Khlestov, an experienced diplomat and international law professor in Moscow, has recently written that the call and mission of the Russian doctrine of international law, both during the Soviet period and afterward, is to support the government in its foreign policy with legal arguments.2 Khlestov’s understanding of the role of the international law profession in Russia may be shocking for some in the West who appreciate the intellectual autonomy of international lawyers, at least university professors. At the same time, we should still appreciate the frankness in Khlestov’s analysis as it does not try to make the expertise of international law what it is often not—a neutral “science” striving for objectivity and impartiality,
Data Loading...
