Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T21:09:28.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Coöperation of the U.S.S.R. in Legal Matters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

T. A. Taracouzio
T. A. Taracouzio*
Affiliation:
Harvard Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term “judicial assistance,” as used in international law, involves some still unanswered questions. Should it be used to embrace all the elements germane to the expedition of the business of courts of law, including not only procedural matters, but the execution of judgments and extradition; or relate exclusively to judicial assistance in civil proceedings? To avoid creating confusion by the use of a term suggestive of several meanings, in the following examination of the Soviet practice in this regard, the expression “cooperation in legal matters” is resorted to as an all-inclusive term.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 1937 , pp. 55 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1937

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 Sobr. Zak. i Rasp. S.S.S.R.,, I, 1924, p. 384.

2 From local Soviet courts.

3 Ezhenedel’nik Sovetskoi Iustitsii, No. 45, 1924, p. 1091. Cf., Circular No. 92 of 1923, infra. Another circular of the same date stipulates that the requests for extradition must be accompanied only by most essential documents, and that these must be duly verified by the proper authorities. The failure to comply with this carries disciplinary punishment for those violating the rule. (Ibid., p. 1091.) requests for extradition must be accompanied only by most essential documents, and that these must be duly verified by the proper authorities. The failure to comply with this carries disciplinary punishment for those violating the rule. (Ibid., p. 1091.)requests for extradition must be accompanied only by most essential documents, and that these must be duly verified by the proper authorities. The failure to comply with this carries disciplinary punishment for those violating the rule. (Ibid., p. 1091.)requests for extradition must be accompanied only by most essential documents, and that these must be duly verified by the proper authorities. The failure to comply with this carries disciplinary punishment for those violating the rule. (Ibid., p. 1091.)

4 Sobr. Zak. i Rasp. S.S.S.R., I, 1924, pp. 383–384.

05 Executive Agreement Series, No. 83.

6 It may be well argued that execution of sentences or judgments falls within the scope of the administrative authorities, and that therefore the term “judicial” is not applicable, particularly if the case is considered as judicially closed, when the sentence is pronounced or judgment decreed, i.e., when the court terminates its function in a particular case by applying the law. Yet the fact that the execution of judgment actually is nothing but what may be called “materialization of the applied law,” to be effected by duly delegated authority other than the judiciary, warrants the suggestion that the execution of judgments in this sense may be included in the “judicial cooperation.”

7 Cf. Taracouzio, T. A., The Soviet Union and International Law, Ch. VI, pp. 123–164 Google Scholar.

8 Under the old Constitution of the Soviet Union the existing codes were those of the Union Republics, and not of the Union as a whole. The new Soviet Constitution of 1936 provides for promulgation of Union Civil and Criminal Codes, as well as for a Union Code on Civil and Criminal Procedure (Art. 14). Since, however, no such Union codes have been promulgated yet, those of the Union Republics continue to remain in force.

9 Sobr. Kodeksov R.S.F.S.R, p. 882.

10 Cf. The Hague Convention of June 15,1905, relating to Civil Procedure, Art. 8 (Br. & For. State Papers, 1905-1906, XCIX, p. 994). For the numerous bipartite agreements, see League of Nations Treaty Series.

11 Sobr. Kodeksov B.S.F.S.R., p. 890.

12 Ezhenedel'nik Sovetskoi Iustitsii, No. 20, 1923, p. 477. Circular No. 10 of 1922 (Ibid., No. 8, 1922, p. 15) refers to the Soviet Decree of Sept. 9, 1920, stating that the Soviet authorities may communicate with foreign authorities only through the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs (Sobr. Uzak. i Rasp. R.S.F.S.R., 1920, p. 396).

13 Ibid. The substance of this circular was confirmed in the later Circular No. 85 of 1924 (ibid., 1924, p. 570). Cf. also Circular of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs No. 124 of Aug. 31, 1923 (11909/E1), in Egor’ev i dr. Zakonodaterstvo i Mezhdunarodnye dogovory Soiuza S.S.R. i Soiusnykh respublik o pravovom polozhenii inostrannykh ftzicheskikh i iuridieheskikh lits, pp. 409–410.

14 Egor’ev, , op. cit., pp. 411–412 Google Scholar.

15 Ezhenedel'nik Sovelskoi Iustitsii, No. 12, 1925, p. 318.

16 Ibid., Nos. 48–49, 1925, pp. 1516–1517. Cf. also Circular of the People’s Commissariat of Justice No. 140 of 1923 (lust.Ezh. Soy., No. 27, 1923, pp. 621–622), prescribing that the Soviet judicial organs will consider valid only those documents issued by the foreign authorities which have the vises either of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs or of the Soviet representations abroad. In regard to this rule, attention must be called to Art. 58 of the Soviet Consular Code of 1929, which gives to the Soviet courts the right to accept, in separate instances, foreign documents without the vises of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs or its organs, in which cases the acknowledgment of their validity is left entirely to the organs accepting them (Sobr. Zak. i Rasp. S.S.S.R., I, 1929, § 567, pp. 1202–1203).

17 Ezhenedel’nik Sovetskoi Iustitsii, No. 212, 1925, p. 1406. The last two circulars relate to judicial cooperation in criminal cases. (Ibid., No. 20, 1923, p. 477, and No. 45, 1924, p. 1091, respectively. Cf. supra.)

18 See infra.

19 Ezhenededel'nik Sovetskoi Iustitsii, No. 29, 1929, p. 688.

20 Cf. Cl. 1 of Art. 1 of the Decree of Aug. 27, 1926: “Communications of the state organs and officials of the Union of S.S.R. and of the Union Republics with the foreign state organs and officials are carried out through the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs (Sobr. Zak. i Rasp. S.S.S.R., I, 1926, p. 1018). Also: Earlier Decree of Sept. 9, 1920, to the same effect (Sobr. Uzak. i Rasp. R.S.F.S.R., 1920, p. 386) and Circular of the People's Commissariat of Justice No. 10 of 1922, prescribing this rule for strict observation by the courts(Ezhenedel'nik Sovetskoi lustitsii, No. 8, 1922, p. 15).

21 Br. & For. State Papers, 1905-1906, XCIX, p. 994.

22 Sborn. Deisto. Dogov., II, 1925, p. 32; IV, 1928, p. 31; and VI, 1931, p. 16, respectively,

23 Cl. 2 of Circular of the People’s Commissariat of Justice of the R.S.F.S.R. No. 94 of 1929, states that no fees are charged from Austria (supra, note 19).

24 Executive Agreement Series, No. 83, pp. 4–5.

25 See Note 1.

26 Cf. several agreements of the non-communist states, found in the League of Nations Treaty Series.

27 Sobr. Kodeksov R.S.F.S.R., p. 915; cf. also Circular of the People’s Commissariat of Justice No. 64 of 1925 (supra, note 15).

28 For list of them by countries, see Taracouzio, T. A., The Soviet Union and International Law, Appendix XXIV.Google Scholar

29 Sborn. Deistv. Dogo, I, 1922 (2nd ed.), p. 214, and III, 1922, p. 180, respectively.

30 Ibid., IV, 1928, pp. 185–186.

31 The text of this convention being not available in the Soviet collections of treaties thus far published, the exact date of signing the same cannot be given.

32 Presumably these letters connote “Avtonomnykh Soveiskikh Sotaialisticheskikh Respublik,” which means Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republics.

33 Ezhenedel'nik Sovetskoi Iustitsii, No. 14, 1931, p. 31.

34 Ibid., No. 49, 1923, pp. 1149–1150.