Russian Law Journal

Advanced search
Vol 7, No 4 (2019)
View or download the full issue PDF


4-29 1111

Несмотря на общий запрет на вмешательство в дела других государств, военные вмешательства, предпринимаемые с согласия принимающего государства, считаются допустимыми. Это подтверждается как в государственной практике, так и в международно-правовой доктрине. Однако для того, чтобы такие вмешательства были разрешены в определенных ситуациях, должны быть выполнены определенные требования. Согласие должно быть дано надлежащим органом, оно не должно быть искажено, оно должно предшествовать вмешательству, и оно должно быть дано четко и ясно. В данной статье рассматривается значение каждого из этих требований и рассматривается их применение в государственной практике. Кроме того, рассматривается возможность вмешательства в гражданские войны. Представлено в заключении статьи

30-72 813

The end of the Cold War triggered the spread of multiparty politics across the global south and the former Soviet Union. The western democracies argued this form of governance would ensure the rule of law, human rights and constitutionalism. However, in the recent past a worrisome trend has emerged where these global powers support opposition leaders in order to oust legitimate but antagonistic elected leaders in foreign. More often than not, this political change is engineered in wanton disregard of the country’s constitution and the relevant provisions of international law. This geopolitical conundrum is portrayed by the purported ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine in 2014 and most recently President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. Despite being the duly elected leaders of their respective countries, they were illegitimately ousted opposition leaders supported by western powers. In the same vein, these political changes usually initiated using force contrary to the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter and other relevant principles of international law. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has established a concrete body of jurisprudence on this subject matter though the same is yet to be codified in international law. Broadly speaking, this paper argues this practice is unequivocally illegal and equivalent to infringement upon the sovereignty and territorial integrity of these countries.

73-98 829

As is known, military intervention by the U.S.-led coalition was commenced in September 2014 in Syria. The justification invoked by some participants of the coalition was that the Syrian government was “unwilling or unable” to deal with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an international terrorist group. The “unwilling or unable” test gives rise to various debates among international scholars and practitioners. Some international publicists argue that military intervention on the basis of the “unwilling or unable” test is an emerging rule of customary international law, while others are rather opposed to it. The U.S. announced its intention to withdraw its troops from Syria on 19 December 2018. This, however, does not mean an immediate cessation of operations of the U.S.-led
coalition in Syria. It is expressed in the statement made on 6 February 2019 by Mike Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State, in which he articulated that the arms cut in Syria is not a shift in mission but a strategic turn in essence. What can be inferred is that it seems unlikely that the military intervention of the U.S.-led coalition in Syria will be terminated in the near future. In fact, it arouses deep concern of humanity that the military intervention in Syria justified by the “unwilling or unable” test might recur in other regions or states. In this respect, the present article argues the compatibility of military intervention based on the “unwilling or unable” test proposed by some states, including the U.S., and some international publicists under universal principles of customary international law formation and international conventions.

99-124 1189

Constitutional identity has recently emerged as a relevant concept in the theory of constitutional law. It first appeared in constitutional decision reasoning in the second half of the 20th century, particularly in cases concerning the process of European integration. Constitutional courts all over Europe have started to use this notion as a legal counterargument against the growing influence of the European Court of Justice on the national legal systems of member states. At the theoretical level, the use of this new concept caused a lot of criticism by law scholars, due, in their opinion, to its non-legal unscientific character. At the same time, there are also many supporters of this concept, mainly the representatives of the civilizational and sociocultural approaches to law. One way or another, it is fair to say that this concept has captured the attention of constitutional lawyers who, nevertheless, have not come yet to a common understanding of this notion. Some of them suggest defining constitutional identity as a method of legal argumentation, but there are still no comprehensive studies of this concept using achievements of the theory of legal argumentation. This article represents an attempt to research the notion of “constitutional identity” through the prism of the latter.

125-150 1097

Central Asia, with its abundance of natural resources and low labor costs, is often seen as an attractive destination for foreign investment. The inflow of foreign investment into Central Asia has significantly increased in recent decades, and this phenomenon supports the improvement of both national economies and the welfare of the region. Still, Central Asia is not classified as a low-risk destination for foreign investment because of inadequate protection of foreign investment – particularly a lack of transparency and predictability in Central Asia states’ FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) regimes. Furthermore, international organizations (such as the OECD) indicate that some countries in Central Asia do not have clear investment policies. These points pose problems for foreign investors who desire to invest in the region. From this perspective, this article analyzes the consistency of the general principles of foreign investment in Central Asia with international investment standards.


151-175 754

The paper is devoted to the issue of centralization in public finance in Russia, and highlights one of the problems of interpretation of the Russian Constitution clauses. The Rulings of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court from the period 1997–2006 created legal grounds for the process of centralization and reduction of the regional powers regarding budgeting and taxation. But all arguments of the Court are debatable. Wherein, the centralization is justified by the constitutional principle of uniform economic area. The author argues that the Russian Constitution does not have clauses establishing the uniform budget and tax systems directly, and any model of intergovernmental relations might comply with the Russian Constitution. Uniformity of economic area does not imply uniformity in taxation and budgeting in the sense of sameness. Study of foreign practices shows different approaches to the understanding of uniformity in economy, and in taxation and budgeting. The contemporary Russian public finance law is formed under the influence of the Constitutional Court’s legal positions, and the process of centralization is still evolving. The Russian history of intergovernmental relations (1991–1997) shows another model of fiscal federalism – the decentralized federalism. Replacement of the fiscal federalism models is determined by the political considerations, not by constitutional requirements.

ISSN 2309-8678 (Print)
ISSN 2312-3605 (Online)