Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
Whether or not we agree with the statement that international law is nothing but “international public morality” or, what amounts to the same thing, that international law is “primitive law” as compared with its municipal counterpart, we are more likely to agree on the question that Soviet doctrinal international law1 is nothing but a mirror reflection of official Soviet governmental and party policies. It is essentially a “fighting international law” 2 which has often proved a valuable weapon in the armory of Soviet foreign policy-makers. The zig-zag development of the Soviet doctrinal approach to the question of international personality in general, and in particular to the international legal status of international organizations, vividly demonstrates this fact. We propose to examine in greater detail just one aspect of the Soviet doctrine of international law—the concept of secondary subjects of international law.
1 By “doctrinal Soviet international law” we mean the exposition of the theoretical foundations of contEmporary international law by Soviet legal scholars based on the theory of Marxism-Leninism. In this article, however, it is not our intention to exhaust all available Soviet sources, such as the positions taken by Soviet lawyers in the International Law Commission, in the International Court of Justice, and in other international bodies. We shall subsequently base our study principally on the writings of some of the most authoritative contEmporary Soviet jurists.
2 This notion runs through all the works by one of the Soviet Union's most authoritative exponents of this doctrine—Professor G. I. Tunkin. See Ideologicheskaia Bor'ba i Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo (Moskva, 1967); “Sorok let sosushchestvovaniia i mezhdunarodnoe pravo” in Sovetskii Ezhegodnik Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (Semp) (1958); Teoriia Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (Moskva, 1970).
3 Tunkin, G. I., Osnovy Sovremennogo Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (Moskva, 1956)Google Scholar.
4 Ibid, at pp. 17-18. The translations from the Russian here and elsewhere are those of the author.
5 See G. I. Morozov, Organizatsiia Ob'edinennykh Natsii at p. 198 (Moskva, 1962).
6 See Bobrov, R. L., Osnovnye problemy teorii mezhdunarodnogo prava (Moskva, 1968)Google Scholar; also his “Iuridicheskaia priroda Organizatsii Ob'edinennykh Natsii,” in Semp, 1959.
7 See E. A. Shibaeva, Spetsializirovannye Uchrezhdeniia Oon at p. 32 (Moskva, 1966).
8 In the twilight days of the evolution of Soviet international legal doctrine Eugene B. Pashukanis and Eugene A. Korovin were engaged in a highly ideological debate over the nature, sources, and subjects of international law, with E. A. Korovin alternately holding the position that international organizations were and were not subjects of international law on the basis of reasons which were more political than legal. We do not consider it appropriate to recall the basic positions in these early debates, as they do not seem to make any significant contribution to our present analysis. However, for a textual documentation of these debates, see Hans Kelsen, , The Communist Theory of Law (London, 1955)Google Scholar; see also Hazard, John N., “Cleansing Soviet International Law of Anti-Marxist Theories,” 32 A.J.I.L. 244-252 (1938)Google Scholar.
9 V. N. Durdenevskii and S. B. Krylov, Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo—Uchebnik, vypusk I at 31 (Moskva, 1946).
10 S. B. Krylov served as the first Soviet judge on the I.C.J, from 1946 to 1952 and was briefly succeeded by S. A. Golunskii (1952—53). The latter died in office and was replaced by Professor F. I. Kozhevnikov from 1953 to 1961.
11 F. I. Kozhevnikov, , Uchebnik Publichnogo Mezhdunarodnogo Prava Iurizdat at 54 (Moskva, 1947)Google Scholar.
12 As of December, 1967, when he celebrated his 60th birthday, he had published over 120 scientific works on various aspects of international law, such as the responsibility of states for aggression and war crimes, problems of war and peace, the law of international organizations, the problems of diplomatic immunity. See “Personalia” on D. B. Levin in Semp, 1968, at 336-337.
13 See D. B. Levin, “O poniatii i sisteme sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava” in Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo (SGP), 1947, No. 5 at pp. 11-12. For a current restatement of this view see his Osnovnye problemy teorii mezhdunarodnogo prava at 85 (Moskva, 1958).
14 R. L. Bobrov, “Iuridicheskaia priroda Organizatsii Ob'edinennykh Natsii,” in Semp, 1959, at 233-234. R. L. Bobrov, however, concedes that credit for introducing this new element of “derived and limited personality” for international organizations goes to Professor D. B. Levin, who first made this distinction in his book, Osnovnye problemy sovremennogo Mezhdunarodnogo prava at 85 (Moskva, 1958). In 1955 Professor V. N. Durdenevsky, in a Preface to the Russian edition of Labeyrie-Menahem's Des Institutions Specialisées—Problèmes Juridiques et Diplomatiques de rAdministration Internationale (Paris, 1953), briefly stated that the specialized agencies of the U.N. “cannot lay claims to equal status with states as sovereign subjects of international law.” See p. 5 of the Russian edition of this book published in Moscow in 1955 by Izdatel'stvo “Innostrannaia Literatura.“
15 R. L. Bobrov, “Iuridicheskaia priroda Oon,” in Semp, 1959, at 239-240.
16 The attribute of international personality is partially granted to what is vaguely referred to as “belligerent nations” and also to national liberation fronts. See L. A. Modzhorian, , Sub'ekty mezhdunarodnogo prava (Moskva, 1958)Google Scholar.
17 L. A., Modzhorian, Sub'ekty Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (Moskva, 1958)Google Scholar.
18 Ibid, at 17.
19 Ibid, at 8; see also, by the same author, “O sub'ektakh mezhdunarodnogo prava” in SGP, 1956, No. 6 at 95-97.
20 See Shurshalov, V. M., Osnovnye voprosy teorii mezhdunarodnogo dogovora (Moskva, 1959)Google Scholar. Similarly, Professor G. P. Zadorozhnyi maintains that whereas only “sovereign entities,” an expression which he uses to mean only states and nations, “are subjects of international law, such entities like international organizations, juridical persons and physical persons are, at best, only subjects of international legal relations and not of international law.” See Semp, 1968, at 364-365.
21 See Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo—Uchebnik (Imo, Moskva, 1964); see also the revised edition of the same textbook issued in 1966, Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo—Uchebnik dlia Iuridicheskikh Vuzov, published by Izdatel'stva “Iuridicheskaia Literatura” (Moskva, 1964).
22 Vol. 1 of this six-volume Kurs Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (Moskva, 1967), at p. 159, openly grants international personality to “all legally existing international organizations“— a concept which if accepted would convey, except for the interjection of the word “legally,” the same meaning as does the theory of objective international personality which is strongly condemned by Soviet doctrine. However, an interview with Professor G. I. Tunkin, himself a member of the Editorial Committee which was appointed to edit this treatise, reveals some poor co-ordination among the Committee members. He specifically mentioned that the Committee did not edit this particular section of the treatise before it was sent out to the publishers and, consequently, it is not representative of Soviet doctrine on the issue raised. Professor N. A. Ushakov, the present Soviet member of the U.N. International Law Commission and Head of the International Law Section of the Institute of State and Law of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, is supposed to be the author of the controversial passage from the treatise.
23 Uchebnik Mezhdunarodnogo Prava at 450 (edited by F. I. Kozhevnikov) (Moskva, Imo, 1964). This point of view is repeated in the 1966 edition of the same textbook at 438-440.
24 Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo—Uchebnik dlia Iuridicheskikh Vuzov at 292 (edited by D. B. Levin et al.) (Moskva, Iuridicheskaia Literature, 1964).
25 1 Kurs Mezhdunarodnogo Prava 159 (Izdatel'stvo Nauka, Moskva, 1967).
26 See G. I. Morozov, , Mezhdunarodnye Organizatsii at 110 et seq. (Moskva, 1969)Google Scholar.
27 Ibid, at 110.
28 See Shibaeva, E. A., Avtoreferat doktorskoi dissertatsii on “Iuridicheskaia priroda i pravovoe polozhenie spetsializirovannykh uchrezhdenii Oon” at 16 (Moskva, 1969)Google Scholar.
29 Cf. the concept of jus cogens in general international law.
30 See Shibaeva, E. A., Spetsializirovannye Uchrezhdeniia Oon (Moskva, 1962)Google Scholar; see also, by the same author, Spetsializirovannye Uchrezhdeniia Oon (revised and enlarged edition, Moskva, 1966).
31 At the “publichnaia zashchita” of this dissertation at the Faculty of Laws of Moscow State University this formula was violently attacked by Professor L. A. Modzhorian and Professor V. M. Shurshalov, who both tried to read into it a meaning which, from their point of view, “was alien to the Soviet doctrine of international law” and only intended by the author, knowingly or unknowingly, “to grant support to the dominant bourgeois concept” on the question. See Stenograficheskii Otchet of the proceedings of the publichnaia zashchita of the dissertation, Moskva, Iuridicheskii Fakul'tet MGU, December, 1969.
32 Tunkin, G. I., Teoriia Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (Moskva, 1970)Google Scholar.
33 Ibid, at 124-125.
34 Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, , “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: International Organizations and Tribunals,” 29 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. Law at 21 (1952).Google Scholar
35 Tunkin, G. I., “The Legal Nature of the United Nations,” 119 Hague Academy, Recueil des Cours 31, 32 (1966, III).Google Scholar
36 See above, p. 502, for a presentation of the basic concepts of the two rival schools of thought.
37 See Modzhorian, L. A., O Sub'ektakh Mezhdunarodnogo Prava at 13-14 (Moskva, 1948).Google Scholar
38 Modzhorian, L. A., Sub'ekty Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (Moskva, 1958).Google Scholar
39 Ibid, at 33.
40 Ibid, at 33-34.
41 Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo—Uchebnik dlia Iuridicheskikh Vuzov at 327 (Moskva, 1966).
42 L. A. Modzhorian, “Sub'ekty Mezhdunarodno—pravovoi Otvetstvennosti,” in SGP. No. 12 (1969), pp. 122, 124.
43 G. I. Tunkin, 119 Hague Recueil (1966, III).
44 Morozov, G. I., Mezhdunarodnye Organizatsii at 70 (Moskva, 1969)Google Scholar. Attention should, however, be drawn to the enumeration of “international organizations without permanent organs” cited at the bottom of p. 62, ibid.
45 For example, the Anztjs. See also G. I. Morozov, Mezhdunarodnye Organizatsii at 62.
46 Cf. The Bank for International Settlements.
47 I. I. Lukashuk, “Mezhdunarodnaia Organizatsiia leak storona v mezhdunarodnykh dogovorakh,” in Semp, 1960, at 148.
48 E. A. Shibaeva does not seem to distinguish between the “inter-state” and the “intergovernmental” criteria in the classification of international organizations. This free interchange of the terms “inter-state” and “intergovernmental” is also to be noticed in the writings of many other Soviet authors. Cf. G. I. Tunkin, “The Legal Nature of the United Nations,” 119 Hague Recueil at 1 and 22 (1966, III); Morozov, G. I., Mezhdunarodnye Organizatsii, Ch.3 (Moskva, 1969).Google Scholar
49 E. A. Shibaeva, , Spetsializirovannye Uchrezhdeniia Oon at 32 (Moskva, 1966).Google Scholar
50 Except, of course, those who deny any measure of international personality to international organizations as a whole. See above.
51 See also Art. 1, par. 3 of the Constitution of the ITU.
52 See Art. 8 of the WHO Constitution.
53 See 494 TJ. N. Treaty Series at 220. On the regional level we have the example of four international organizations teaming up with the Inter-American Development Bank to create a new “corpus separatum“—the Inter-American Committee on Agricultural Development. For fuller details see Morozov, G. I., Mezhdunarodnye Organizatsii 65 (Moskva, 1969).Google Scholar
54 Tunkin, G. I., Teoriia Mezhdunarodnogo Prava at 410-411 (Moskva, 1970)Google Scholar. The reference to “a majority of the U.N. Specialised Agencies” in this passage obviously means those specialized agencies of the U.N. of which the Soviet Union and/or at least some of her East European allies are members—a fact which leads one to wonderif the author intends direct Soviet participation as one of the requirements for granting international personality to such universal international organizations. Unfortunately, the scantiness of available Soviet literature on the legal nature of those specialized agencies in which the Soviet Union does not participate, e.g., the financial institutions of Bretton Woods, makes it difficult for us to reach any firm conclusion on this question. This prevalent academic disinterestedness of Soviet scholars in the international organizations in which the Soviet Union does not participate is demonstrated not only by the scanty references to these organizations in major Soviet works devoted to international organizations (see Spetsializirovannye Uchrezhdeniia Oon, edited by G. I. Morozov, Moskva, 1967; E. A. Shibaeva, Spetsializirovannye Uchrezhdeniia Oon, Moskva, 1966), but also most vividly by the fact that courses in international organizations in Soviet law schools almost completely omit the League of Nations, the Permanent Court of International Justice, the Bretton Woods institutions, etc. See Programma po Mezhdunarodnomu Pravy dlia Iuridicheskikh Vuzov issued by the Ministerstvo Vysshego i Srednogo Spetsial'nogo Obrazovaniia SSSR (Moskva, 1967).
55 G. I. Tunkin, “Remarks on the normative function of Specialised Agencies,” Instituto Francisco de Vitoria de Derecho Internacional 11 (Madrid, 1969).
56 See hibaeva, E. A., Spetsializirovannye Uchrezhdeniia Oon (Moskva, 1966)Google Scholar; see also I. I. Lukashuk, “Mezhdunarodnaia Organizatsiia kak storona v mezhdunarodnykh dogovorakh,” Semp, 1960.
57 It is interesting to note, however, that G. I. Morozov in his definition of an international organization relegates to a secondary position the question of having a constituent instrument or not. See Morozov, G. I., Mezhdunarodnye Organizatsii at 62 (Moskva, 1969)Google Scholar. The fact that the Comecon, a Socialist international organization which was founded in January, 1949, at the Moscow Economic Conference of East European states, existed for eleven years (until Dec, 1959) without a formally concluded constituent instrument lends support to this thesis. Cf. also the Pan American Union, which existed prior to the adoption of the Bogota Charter in 1948 that formally set up the O.A.S.
58 See Tunkin, G. I., Ideologicheskaia BorTja i Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo (Moskva, 1967)Google Scholar; also by the same author, Teoriia Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (Moskva, 1970);
59 Tunkin, G. I., “The Legal Nature of the United Nations.” 119 Hague Recueil 7 (1966, III).Google Scholar; Levin, D. B., Osnovnye problemy sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava (Moskva, 1958).Google Scholar
60 Talalaev, A. N., Iuridicheskaia Priroda Mezhdunarodnogo Dogovora (Moskva, 1963).Google Scholar
61 G. I. Tunkin, 119 Hague Recueil 22 (1966, III).
62 Ibid, at 30-31.
63 Ibid. 23, 25.
64 With the insignificant exception of the Modzhorian-Shurshalov school of thought which denies to all international organizations, including even the U.N. and its specialized agencies, any degree of international personality.
65 Shibaeva, E. A., Spetsializirovannye Uchrezhdeniia Oon (Moskva, 1966)Google Scholar; see also Bobrov R. L., “ Oiuridicheskoi prirode Oon” in Semp, 1959; Morozov, G. I., Mezhdunarodnye Organizatsii (Moskva, 1969).Google Scholar
66 Tunkin, G. I., Voprosy Teorii Mezhdunarodnogo Prava at 82 (Moskva, 1962)Google Scholar; see also by the same author, Teoriia Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (Moskva, 1970).
67 As a matter of fact, this position eventually prevailed in the International Law Commission and at the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties. See Art. 1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties adopted at the Vienna Conference on May 23, 1969.
68 See Kazimierz Grzybowski, Soviet Public International Law—Doctrines and Diplomatic Practice at 363 (Leiden, 1970).
69 See above.
70 See 119 Hague Academy, Recueil des Cours (1966, III).
71 See Tunkin, G. I., Teoriia Mezhdunarodnogo Prava (Moskva, 1970).Google Scholar
72 G. I. Tunkin, “The Legal Nature of the United Nations,” 119 Hague Academy, Recueil des Cours 18-19 (1966, III).
