No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Validity of Treaties in the Municipal Law of the “Socialist” States*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
Extract
The great majority of legal experts in the U.S.S.R. and associate countries, the constitutional order of which is closely patterned on the Soviet model, would fully subscribe to the principle enunciated by one of their Russian colleagues to the effect that:
International treaties directly impose obligations upon States which conclude them or which adhere to them. But … every international treaty which is generally published by a State becomes a law binding upon its citizens.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1965
Footnotes
*
For the purposes of this study, the category of “Socialist” states is taken to include the U.S.S.R., Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Albania, Mongolia, North Korea, Communist China and North Vietnam. The legislative process in each of these states is described in the light of the provisions of the latest constitutional document enacted there, as amended to date. For North Vietnam, that means the constitution adopted in 1959 and for Czechoslovakia and Mongolia, their 1960 constitutions.
References
1 F. I. Kozhevnikov, in F. I. Kozhevnikov (ed.), International Law 276 (Tr. from the Russian by Dennis Ogden, Moscow, 1957).
2 D. B. Levin, “Chto skryvaetsya za teoriei ‘primata’ mezhdunarodnogo prava nad vnntrigosudarstvennym pravom” [What Hides Behind the Theory of the “Primacy“ of International Law over Internal State Law], 7 Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo 116 (1955). In the same vein, I. P. Blishchenko, “Teoriya primata mezhdunarodnogo prava v praktike SShA” [The Theory of the Primacy of International Law in the Practice of the U. S. A.], in E. A. Korovin (ed.), “Voprosy mezhdunarodnogo prava v teorii i praktike SShA [Questions of International Law in the Theory and Practice of the U. S. A.] 173-195 (Moscow, 1957).
3 A. Ya. Vyshinsky, “Mezhdunarodnoe pravo i mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya“ [International Law and International Organization], 1 Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo 22 (1948).
4 E.g., F. I. Kozhevnikov, Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i mezhdunarodnoe pravo, 1917-1947 gg. [The Soviet State and International Law, 1917-1947] 237 (Moscow, 1948); E. A. Korovin, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo [International Law] 9-10 (Moscow, 1951).
5 This is also quite evident from the way several Soviet scholars treated Vyshinsky's statement before it became fashionable in the U.S.S.E. to denounce him for introducing the “cult of the personality” into Soviet legal science. See, for instance, V. M. Shurshalov, Osnovnye voprosy teorii mezhdunarodnogo dogovora [Basic Questions of the Theory of International Treaties] 316-317 (Moscow, 1959). Originally, Levin﹛loo. tit. 119) took the same tone, but recently he too has joined the chorus of those denouncing Vyshinsky's misdoings.Cf. D. B. Levin, “Problem sootnosheniya mezhdunarodnogo i vnutrigosudarstvennogo prava” [The Problem of the Correlation of International and Internal State Law], 7 Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo 87, note 4 (1964).
6 Thus, it is interesting to note one occasion where, when Korovin(loo. tit.) had either deliberately attempted to go beyond the bounds set by Vyshinsky in his statement or had inadvertently broadened its textual meaning, he incurred considerable criticism from his colleagues for having distorted the real sense of Vyshinsky's idea. See the comments by L. A. Modzhoryan, A. S. Bakhov, and A. M. Ladyzhensky concerning the 1951 international law textbook edited by Korovin, made at a special conference convened by the chair of international law of the Academy of Social Sciences of the Central Committee of the CPSTI(b) and the section of international law of the Institute of Law of the U.S.S.B. Academy of Sciences to discuss the work, and reported by D. A. Gaidukov, in 7 Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo 67-77, at 70 (1952).
7 F. I. Kozhevnikov, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 50-51 (Moscow, 1964).
8 D. B. Levin, Osnovnye problemy Bovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava [Fundamental Problems of Contemporary International Law] 114-115 (Moscow, 1958).
9 As far as can be judged, that seems to be the attitude, for example, of N. P. Kolchanovsky, 3 Istoriya diplomatii [History of Diplomacy] 812 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1945); 8. Krylov, “Les Notions Principales du Droit des Gens (La doctrine sovifitique du droit international),” 70 Hague Academy Recueil des Course 445 (1947, I ) ; 0. Berezowski, Zagadnienia Zwierzchnictwa Terytorialnego [Problems of Territorial Sovereignty], Ch. 11(3): “Correlation of International and Internal State Law“ (Warsaw, 1957);idem, Nekotorye problemy territorialnogo verkhovenstva [Some Problems of Territorial Sovereignty] 59-63 [Tr. from the Polish by V. L. Kon; rev. ed., Moscow, 1961); M. Muszkat (ed.), 1 Zarys prawa miedzynarodowego publicznego [Outline of Public International Law] 33-34 (Warsaw, 1956).
10 In particular, A. M. Ladyzhensky, in V. I. Lisovsky, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 247 (Kiev, 1955);idem, “ K voprosu o vzaimootnoshenii vnutrigosudarstvennykh i mezhdunarodnopravovykh norm” [On the Question of the Interrelationship of Internal State and International Legal Norms], 68 Uchenye zapiski (Bostovskii-na-Donu gosudarstvennyi universitet) 53-68 (1957, 4).
11 J. F. Triska and E. M. Slusser, The Theory, Law and Policy of Soviet Treaties 111 (Stanford, 1962). In taking this viewpoint, the authors echo the conclusions first expressed by E. Margolis, “Soviet “Views on the ^Relationship Between National and International Law,” 4 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 116-128 (1955).
12 V. M. Shurshalov,op. cit. 311.
13 Ibid. 313-317; D. B. Levin,op. cit. (note 8) 114-115; G. I. Tunkin, Osnovy sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava [Bases of Contemporary International Law] 8-11 (Moscow, 1956); E. A. Korovin, in F. I. Kozhevnikov (ed.), Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 10-11 (Moscow, 1957); E. Vanicek, “Voprosy transformatsii mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov s tochki zreniya chekhoslovatskogo pravoporyadka” [Questions of Transformation of International Treaties from the Standpoint of the Czechoslovak Legal System], 3 Byulleten Chekhoslovatskogo Prava 211-221 (1955), and the comments on that report by J. Zourek and V. Kopal; G. Hajdfi, Nemzetkozi jog [International Law], Ch. Ill (Budapest, 1954); 1 Mezinarodni pravo verejnfi [Public International Law] 15-16 (Prague, 1953). It is interesting to note that Soviet authors themselves proudly volunteer the information that certain pre-Revolutionary Russian lawyers had already recognized the “interaction” of the two legal spheres. Among those mentioned in this connection are M. N. Kapustin, Obozrenie predmetov mezhdunarodnogo prava [Survey of the Aims of International Law] 44 (Moscow, 1859); I. A. Ivanovsky, Opredelenie, osnovnye nachala, zadachi i znachenie mezhdunarodnogo prava [Definition, Basic Principles, Tasks and Meaning of International Law] 11-12 (Odessa, 1884); and P. E. Kazansky, Vvedenie v kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava [Introduction to a Course of International Law] 254-284 (Odessa, 1901). For brief comments on these authors and their work, see V. E. Grabar, Materialy k istorii literatury mezhdunarodnogo prava v Rossii (1647-1917) [Materials for the History of the Literature on International Law in Russia, 1647-1917] 285-291, 297-299, 339-342 (Moscow, 1958).
14 E.g., A. Ta. Vyshinsky, Voprosy mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnoi politiki [Questions of International Law and International Politics] 476-481 (Moscow, 1949); D. B. Levin,loo. tit. (note 5) 87-91;idem, op. tit. (note 8) 120-121; I. P. Blishchenko, Mezhdunarodnoe i vnutrigosudarstvennoe pravo [International and Internal State Law] 198-199 (Moscow, 1960); “V. M. Shurshalov,op. tit. 316-317, 326-344.
15 I. P. Blishchenko, “Sootnoshenie mezhdunarodnogo i natsionalnogo prava” [Correlation of International and National Law], in Sbornik statei po filosofii, istorii, pravu [Collection of Articles on Philosophy, History, Law] 104 (Moscow, 1957).
16 N. M. Minasyan, Istochniki sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava [Sources of Contemporary International Law] 135 (Eostov-na-Donu, 1960); P. I. Kozhevnikov, ITchebnoe posobie po mezhdunarodnomu publichnomu pravu (ocherki) [Study Aid on International Public Law, Essays] 33 (Moscow, 1947); D. B. Levin, Diplomatieheskii immunitet [Diplomatic Immunity] 137-138 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1949); V. I. Lisovsky,op. cit. (note 10) 28. S. B. Krylov, in V. N. Durdenevsky and 8. B. Krylov (eds.), Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 25-26 (Moscow, 1947), andidem, loo. cit. (note 9) 444, likewise includes internal law among the sources of international law, but occupies a strange position in that at the same time he seems to lean toward the dualist approach. Thus, it is somewhat uncertain as to exactly where he stands. The above, of course, is another reason why most Communist lawyers reject the dualist theory with its strict separation of the two legal spheres. If the domestic law of the “Socialist” states is to serve as a source of international law or even if it is only to have “great influence on the development of international law,” a radically different doctrine becomes necessary, since orthodox dualism does not allow for any such interpretation. The view that internal law should be counted among the formal sources of international legal rules, it should be noted, is not universally shared by Communist lawyers and is explicitly dismissed,inter alii, by P. I. Lukin, Istochniki mezhdunarodnogo prava [Sources of International Law] 125-127 (Moscow, 1960); E. A. Korovin, in P. I. Kozhevnikov (ed.),op. cit. (note 13) 8-9; G. Hajdu, in L. Buza and G. Hajdu, Nemzetközi jog [International Law] 19 (Budapest, 1961); G. P. Genov, 1 Uchebnik po mezhdudrzhavno pravo [Textbook on Interstate Law] 58 (Sofia, 1947); M. Genovski, 1 Osnovi na mezhdunarodnoto pravo [Fundamentals of International Law] 27 (Sofia, 1956). Now Kozhevnikov and Levin also subscribe to this view. See P. I. Kozhevnikov,op. cit. (note 7) 43-44; D. B. Levin,loc. cit. (note 5) 90-91. G. I. Tunkin, Voprosy teorii mezhdunarodnogo prava [Questions of the Theory of International Law] 144 (Moscow, 1962), seems to take an intermediate position. Without naming domestic law as a formal source of international law, he concedes that the norms of municipal legislation “may be part of the process of emergence of a customary norm of international law.“
17 One such example is V. P. Meshera, “O mezhdunarodnom dogovore kak istochnike sovetskogo prava” [Concerning the International Treaty as a Source of Soviet Law], 1 Pravovedenie 124-126 (1963). A similar thought was apparently expressed by M. S. Strogovich and S. A. Golunsky, Teoriya gosudarstva i prava [Theory of State and Law] Moscow, 1940), cited by I. P. Blishchenko,op. cit. (note 14) 192, note 1.
18 N. P. Kolchanovsky,op. cit. (note 9).
19 A. M. Ladyzhensky, in V. I. Lisovsky,op. cit. (note 10) 247.
20 The following analysis is closely patterned on the line of reasoning developed by K. Skubiszewski, “The Validity of Treaties in Polish Municipal Law,” in Rapports Polonais Présentés au Sixième Congrès International de Droit Comparé109-123 (Warsaw, 1962), although the conclusions reached here are diametrically opposed to those offered in that paper.
21 K. Skubiszewski,loo. cit. 112, 115, points out, for instance, that the Seym in Poland ratified the Warsaw Pact of 1955. See, too, the comments on that score of 8. Rozmaryn, “Le Kegime d ‘Assembled,”ibid. 105. For evidence of such practice in the U.S.S.E., V. N. Durdenevsky, in V. N. Durdenevsky and 8. B. Krylov (eds.),op. cit. 286; O. E. Polents, Ratifikatsiya mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov [Ratification of International Treaties] 34 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950).
22 In Czechoslovakia the situation under the 1960 Constitution is even more clear-cut. The ratification of treaties is entrusted to the President of the Republic who does not, however, have the right to issue edicts and decrees. That right is vested in the interim between sessions of the legislature in the Presidium of the National Assembly. Under these conditions, one cannot at all speak of ratified treaties as a source of Czechoslovak municipal law, since the President, who has the power to ratify them, has no status as a domestic “lawmaker” and the Presidium, which does have that status, does not participate in any way in the process of ratification.
23 K. Skubiszewski, loo.cit. 115.
24 Ibid. 116;idem, “Poland's Constitution and the Conclusion of Treaties,” 7 Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht 227 (1956).
25 Ibid. 117.
26 This may take one of two forms. Either a particular treaty may be cited by the domestic legislation or the domestic statute may lay down certain principles, subject to such exceptions as may arise from the subsequent conclusion of a pertinent agreement.
27 As regards, for instance, the question of diplomatic immunity from prosecution, to which the criminal codes of all the “ Socialist “ states refer.
28 Skubiszewski,loo. cit. (note 20).
29 I. P. Blishchenko,op. cit. (note 14) 199-200.
30 See V. M. Shurshalov,op. cit. 357-361; E. Vanicek,loo. cit. 211-221;i\ I. Kozhevnikov,op. cit. (note 7) 346.
31 F . I. Kozhevnikov, “Nekotorye voprosy teorii i praktiki mezhdunarodnogo dogovora“ [Some Questions of the Theory and Practice of International Treaties], 2 Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo 74 (1954). The author has made identical statements in V. N. Durdenevsky and S. B. Krylov (eds.),op. cit. 392; E. A. Korovin (ed.),op. cit. (note 4) 417; and F. I. Kozhevnikov (ed.),op. cit. (note 13) 270-271.
32 I. P. Blishchenko,op. cit. (note 14) 200.
33 E.g., K. Skubiszewski,loc. cit. 122-123.
34 A. M. Ladyzhensky, in V. I. Lisovsky,op. tit. 247.
35 G. Hajdú, in L. Búiza and G. Hajdú,op. tit. 20; M. Muszkat (ed.),op. tit. 33-34; B. Vanicek,loc. cit. 211-221; 1 Mezinárodní právo verejné 15-16; V. M. Shurshalov,op. cit. 323, 357; F. I. Kozhevnikov,op. cit. (note 7) 346.
36 E.g., D. B. Levin,loo. cit (note 5) 95.
37 V. I. Lisovsky, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo 296 (2nd ed., Moscow, 1961).
38 “View expressed by V. N. Durdenevsky in 1950, summarized by I. P. Blishchenko,op. cit. (note 14) 191. V. N. Durdenevsky first developed that theme in his article “Der Vorrang des völkerrechtlichen Verträges oder des inneren Gesetzes im Räterecht,“ 8-9 Zeitsohrift fur östrecht 793-799 (1930), which is discussed at some length by Blishchenko (p. 190).
39 I. P. Blishchenko,loo. cit. (note 15) 105-106.
40 D. B. Levin,loc. tit. (note 5) 95.
41 K. Skubiszewski,loo. tit. 116, note 22, mentions, for instance, that in prewar Poland J. Makowski, O zawieraniu umów miedzynarodowych [Concerning the Conclusion of International Agreements] 150, 158-159 (Warsaw, 1937), had developed a thesis to explain the rôle of the President in Poland in the ratification of treaties and the position of ratified treaties in the Polish municipal law system, which the theories here analyzed closely resemble on a number of points.