Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:12:32.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporary Soviet General Theory of International Law: Reflections on the Tunkin Era

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Edward McWhinney
Edward McWhinney*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 25 , 1988 , pp. 187 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See the present author’s “Soviet and Western International Law and the Cold War in the Era of Bipolarity: Inter-Bloc Law in a Nuclear Age,” (1963) 1 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 40, and the literature, Soviet and Western, therein cited.

2 See the successive public debates and also Reports of the Committee on Juridical Aspects of Peaceful Coexistence, in International Law Association, Report of the Forty-Seventh Conference 17 et seq. (Dubrovnik, 1956); Ibid., Forty-Eighth Conference 417 et seq. (New York, 1958); ibid., Forty-Ninth Conference 332 et seq. (Hamburg, i960) ; ibid., Fiftieth Conference 260 et seq. (Brussels, 1962) ; ibid., Fifty-First Conference 777 et seq. (Tokyo, 1964).

3 The co-existence debate was initiated, on the Soviet legal side, with Professor Tunkin’s, article, “Sorok Let Sosyshchestvovania i Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo,” (1958) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik Mezhdunarodnogo Prava 15.Google Scholar And see also Tunkin, , “Coexistence and International Law,” (1958) 95 Recueil des Cours 1.Google Scholar On the Soviet political side, see Premier Khrushchev’s celebrated address, An Account to the Party and the People: Report of the Central Committee, Communist Party of the Soviet Union, to the 22nd Congress of the Party, October 17, 1961 (1961).

4 Tunkin, , Letter to The Times (London), Feb. 25, 1963.Google Scholar In his own recent historical retrospective, Tunkin credits the Second World War with having “led to the completion of forming the basics of a new historical type of international law — international law of the period of coexistence of states with two opposite socio-economic systems. This is international law of peace, peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, law of freedom and independence of nations” : Tunkin, , “40 Let Velikoi Pobedie i Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo,” (1984) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik … 12.Google Scholar

5 See Hazard, , “Coexistence Codification Reconsidered,” (1963) 57 Am. J. Int’l L. 88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Sixth Committee and New Law,” ibid., 604; “New Personalities to Create New Law,” (1964) 58 Am. J. Int’l L. 952.

6 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Natons, U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), Oct. 24, 1970. And see, generally, Rosenstock, , “The Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations,” (1971) 65 Am. J. Int’l L. 713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See, for example, the efforts of Yugoslav jurists on behalf of a new concept of active peaceful co-existence : Bartos, , “Quelques observations sur la coexistence pacifique active,” (1960) 7 Jugoslovenska Revija za Medunarodno Pravo 216 Google Scholar; Sahovic, , “The Conceptions of the Contemporary Theory of International Law on Coexistence,” (1961) 12 New Yugoslav Law 73 Google Scholar; Radojkovic, , “La Coexistence,” (1960) 7 Jugoslovenska Revija za Medunarodno Pravo 205.Google Scholar And see, generally, The Legal Principles Governing Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in the Spirit of the United Nations Charter, Pelt, ed. (1966).

8 McWhinney, , The International Law of Détente: Arms Control, European Security, and East-West Cooperation (1978).Google Scholar

9 Schwarzenberger, , “Detente and International Law,” (1981) Year Book of World Affairs 266.Google Scholar

10 Kimminich, , Der Moskauer Vertrag vom 12 August 1970; vol. 1, Eine völkerrechtliche Analyse (1973)Google Scholar; vol. 3, Der Moskauer Vertrag nach der Ratifizierung von der Gemeinsamen Entschliessung (1973). And see also Steinberger, “Völkerrechtliche Aspekte des deutsch-sowjetischen Vertragswerk vom 12 August 1970,” (1971) 31 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 63 Google Scholar; Colard, , “Considérations sur les ‘traités de normalisation’ signés par la R.F.A. avec l’U.R.S.S. et la Pologne,” [1971] Revue Générale de Droit International Public 333.Google Scholar

11 Treaty of Dec. 21, 1972, discussed in Kimminich, , Der Grundvertrag (1975).Google Scholar. The Grundvertrag survived a legal challenge, on constitutional law grounds, in the highest West German courts, Decision of July 31, 1973, 36 BVerfGE ι. And see also Wengler, , Die Vereinbarkeit der Zustimmungsgesetze zu den Ostverträgen mit dem Grundgesetz (1972).Google Scholar

12 See, generally, The International Law of Détente 70 et seq. (1978).

13 See, for example, Certain Expenses of the United Nations: Advisory Opinion, [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 151, at 268 (Dissenting Opinion, Koretsky, J. (Soviet Union)) ; ibid., 230 (Dissenting Opinion of Winiarski, J.P. (Poland)).

14 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 377 A(V), Nov. 3, 1950.

15 See McDougal, and Gardner, , “The Veto and the Charter: An Interpretation for Survival,” (1951) 60 Yale L.J. 258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar: and compare Gross, , “Voting in the Security Council: Abstention from Voting and Absence from Meetings,” ibid., 209.Google Scholar Compare a contemporary Soviet approach to principles of interpretation, Lukashuk, O.I., “Zadachi i Printsipie Tolkovaniaia Norm Sovre-mennogo Mezhdunarodnogo Prava,” (1984) Sovietskii Ezhegodnik … 146.Google Scholar

16 Cleveland, , “Crisis Diplomacy,” (1963) 41 Foreign Affairs 638, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Tunkin, , (1958) 95 Recueil des Cours 1, 26Google Scholar; Yanovskii, , “Sovetskaia Nauka o Iuridicheskoi Sile Rezoliutsii Generalnoi Assemblei O.O.N.,” (1964–65) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik Mezdunarodnogo Prava 111, 119–20Google Scholar; Lukashuk, , Istochniki Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (1966), 81 Google Scholar et seq. And see also the Czechoslovak jurist, Pechota, , “Vaine shromazdeni OSN a projednavani pravnich zasad miroveho sovziti,” (1963) 7 Casopis pro mezinarodni pravo 97.Google Scholar

18 Status of Eastern Carelia. Advisory Opinion of 23 July 1923, P.C.I.J. Series B, No. 5, at 7.

19 See, for example, Certain Expenses of the United Nations: Advisory Opinion, [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 151, at 268 (Dissenting Opinion, Koretsky, J.): South West Africa: Second Phase. Judgment, [1966] I.C.J. Rep. 6, at 237 (Special (concurring) Opinion, Koretsky, J.).

20 Compare, for example, his celebrated Dissenting Opinion in Sherrer v. Sherrer, (1948) 334 U.S. 343, 365–66. And see, generally, Of Law and Men: Papers and Addresses of Felix Frankfurter 1939–1956, Elman, , ed. (1956).Google Scholar

21 Vyshinsky, , The Law of the Soviet State (1938)Google Scholar (English translation, Babb, 1954).

22 Ibid., 241.

23 [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 151.

24 [1966] I.C.J. Rep. 6.

25 “The concept that international custom constitutes a primary and the most important means of creating norms of international law was certainly correct for the 19th century, but … it no longer reflects the present day situation in international law. In contemporary conditions the principal means of creating norms of international law is a treaty. This is the point of view held by the great majority, if not all, of the Soviet authors who have treated this subject”: Tunkin, , (1958) 95 Recueil des Cours &1, 23Google Scholar; Tunkin, , (1958) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik Mezhdunarodnogo Prava 15, 15–22Google Scholar; Lukashuk, , “SSSR i Mezhdunarodnie Dogovori,” (1959) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik Mezhdunarodnogo Prava 16 Google Scholar; International Law 12, 247 et seq. (Kozhevnikov, ed., 1957).

26 See generally, Shurshalov, , “Iuridicheskoe Soderzhanie Printsipa Pacta sunt servanda i ego Realizatsiaia v Mezhdunarodnikh Otnosheniaiakh,” [1958] Sovetskii Ezhegodnik … 150 Google Scholar; Talalayev, , “Prekrashchenie Mezhdunarodnikh Dogovorov v Istorii i Praktike Sovetskogo Gosudarstva,” (1959) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik … 144 Google Scholar; Lukashuk, op. cit., (1959) Sovietskii Ezhegodnik … 16. And see also Krylov, , “Les notions principales du droit des gens (la doctrine soviétique du droit international),” (1947) 70 Recueil des Cours 407, 433–34.Google Scholar For a more nuanced approach to the effect of changed circumstances on treaties, in accord with Art. 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, see Lukashuk, supra note 15, at 146.

27 “International custom has surrendered its place as the principal source of international law to international treaty” : Tunkin, , “International Law in the International System,” (1975) 147 Recueil des Cours 1, 41Google Scholar; “The Soviet doctrine of international law has always considered the treaty as the principal source of international law,” ibid., 132.

28 Danilenko, , “Sootnoshenie i Vzaimodeistvie Mezhdunarodnogo Dogovora i Mezhdunarodnogo Obichaia,” (1983) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik … 12.Google Scholar And see also Likhachev, , “O Vzaimodiestvii Dogovornikh i Obichnikh Norm Mezhdunarodnogo Prava v Protsesse Vospolnenia ego Probelov,” (1984) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik … 269.Google Scholar

29 Tunkin, , “Soviet theory of Sources of International Law,” in Völkerrecht und Rechtsphilosophie: Internationale Festschrift für Stephan Verosta zum 70. Geburtstag 67, 69 (Fischer, , Köck, , Verdross, , eds., 1981).Google Scholar

30 Ibid. And see also Movchan, , “Organizatsiaia Obedinennikh Natsii i Mezhdu-narodniei Pravoporiadok (K 40-letiou OON),” (1985) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik … 11.Google Scholar On the “reception” or interface between national law and international law positions, see Chernichenko, , “Objektivnie Granitsie Mezhdunarodnogo Prava i Sootnoshenie Mezhdunarodnogo i Vnutrigosudarstvennogo Prava,” (1984) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik … 81.Google Scholar

31 Tunkin, , “Remarks on the Juridical Nature of Customary Norms of International Law,” (1961) 49 California L. Rev. 428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tunkin, op. cit. (1958) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik … 15; Tunkin, (1958) 95 Recueil des Cours 23.

32 See, generally, Tunkin, , (1975) 147 Recueil des Cours 1, 124 et seq.Google Scholar; Tunkin, op. cit., in Völkerrecht und Rechtsphilosophie 67, 69–70 (Fischer, Köck, Verdross, eds. ).

33 See, for example, Tunkin’s attack on the McDougal-Lasswell approach, ( 1975) 147 Recueil des Cours 1, at 78; and in Völkerrecht und Rechtsphilosophie 67, at 70.

34 See, for example, Korovin, , “Soviet Treaties and International Law,” (1928) 22 Am. J. Int’l L. 753, 763CrossRefGoogle Scholar; International Law 281 (Kozhevnikov, ed., 1957); Shurshalov, , Osnovania Deistvitelnosti Mezhdunarodnikh Dogovorov 94 et seq. (1957).Google Scholar And see also Bracht, , “Die Auslegung Internationaler Verträge in der Sowjetischen Völkerrechtslehre,” (1961) 7 Osteuropa-Recht 66,71.Google Scholar

35 Northrop, , “Naturalistic and Cultural Foundations for a More Effective International Law,” (1950) 59 Yale L.J. 1430; “Contemporary Jurisprudence and International Law,” ( 1952) 61 Yale L.J. 623; The Meeting of East and West: An Inquiry Concerning World Understanding (1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Dorsey, , “Toward World Perspectives of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy,” (1979) 1 Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie, Supplementa 3.Google Scholar

37 Lasswell, and Kaplan, , Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry 117 (1950)Google Scholar. And see also Lasswell, , The World Revolution of Our Time: A Framework for Basic Policy Research (1951).Google Scholar

38 See, in this regard, de Sola Pool (with Lasswell, Lerner et al.), Symbols of Internationalism (1951); Symbols of Democracy (1952). For a contemporary Soviet critique, citing “human nature,” “human dignity,” as examples of a “narrow-utilitarian technical tool” in “bourgeois positivism and especially normativism,” see Mingazov, , “Sotsialnaia Tsennost Mezhdunarodnogo Prava kak Faktor Ego Effektivnosti,” (1984) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik … 64.Google Scholar

39 (1962) Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo 3.

40 Ibid. Compare McDougaPs then contemporary campaign, in the United States, against what he saw as American lawyers’ failure to achieve “com-prehensive description of the techniques of policy formulation and application in the World Power Process,” and also their “over-emphasis on technical rules unrelated to policies, as factors in guiding and shaping decisions: McDougal, , “International Law, Power and Policy: A Contemporary Conception,” (1953) 82 Recueil des Cours 137, 143.Google Scholar

41 For an historical development, consult generally Soviet Legal Philosophy (transi. Babb; introd. Hazard, 1951); Schlesinger, , Soviet Legal Theory (2nd ed., 1951))Google Scholar; Kulski, , “The Soviet Interpretation of International Law,” (1955) 49 Am. J. Int’l L. 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Pashukanis was ultimately rehabilitated, posthumously, by the Soviet Academy, in one of the first concrete applications of the Khrushchev-directed de-Stalinization campaign of the mid- and late 1950’s: see Hazard, , “Pashukanis is No Traitor,” (1957) 51 Am. J. Int’l L. 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Korovin, , in International Law 7 (Kozhevnikov, , ed., 1957).Google Scholar

44 Tunkin, , (1958) 95 Recueil des Cours 1, 60.Google Scholar

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid., 59.

47 The concept itself, and the legal term-of-art, are Schwarzenberger’s. See Schwarzenberger, , “Hegemonial Intervention,” (1959) Year Book of World Affairs 236.Google Scholar

48 See, in this regard, Ashavskii, , “K Voprosu o Mezhdunarodnom Ekono-micheskom Prave,” (1984) Sovetskii Ezhegodnik … 29.Google Scholar

49 Discussed in Singh, Nagendra and McWhinney, , Nuclear Weapons and Contemporary International Law, Part 12, ch. 47 (1988).Google Scholar

50 Ibid., ch. 48.

51 News release, TASS (Moscow), September 16, 1987, published in Prauda and Izvestiya (Moscow), September 17, 1987.

52 Ibid.

53 Gorbachev, , “Perestroika”: New Thinking for Our Country and the World (English translation, 1987).Google Scholar