Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:59:11.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Changing Attitude Towards International Adjudication in the Soviet Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

G. Shinkaretskaya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Russia (at that time still Tsarist Russia), its science and its government played a special role in the preparation of the two Hague Peace Conferences. One cannot but appreciate what Russian scientists, like Kachenovski, Nezabitovsky and others have done for the development of the idea to apply formalized, juridical methods in disputes between nations; one cannot but see that it was Kamarovsky who suggested that very scheme of building an international court of justice which is used up to now.Let us also give F.F. Martens, who took part in the preparation of the acts adopted by the Conferences, his due.

Type
Articles
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 3 , Issue 3: SPECIAL ISSUE 1990: THE UNITED NATIONS DECADE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: Reflections on International Dispute Settlement , December 1990 , pp. 59 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1990

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 Now this might be the oldest obligation of the USSR in the field of dispute settlement. 48th Report of the Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration 4 (1989).

2 6 Documents on Foreign Policy of the USSR 324 (1963) (in Russian).

3 With the exception of the minor dispute with Japan concerning the redemarcation of a part of the border near Hasan Lake in 1938. 17 Documents of Foreign Policy of the USSR 639 (1971) (in Russian).

4 Law of the Sea Bulletin. Office of Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea, No. 1, April 1986.

5 In 1923–1924 when Soviet Russia was accused by American and English statesmen of intending to bring about a coercive change in the social structure of capitalist states. Ill History of Diplomacy 402 (1965).

6 The USSR, Ukrainian SSR and Belorussian SSR delegations at the Second Session of the UN General Assembly 556 (1948) (in Russian).

7 See the contributions of P. Kooijmans and E. Myjer for a more detailed description of this topic.

8 The Soviet representative at the Third UNCLOS stressed that the most important thing was to prevent disputes by elaborating substantial rules in such a way that they would be mutually acceptable and effective. U.N. Doc. A/Conf.62/SR.68 (1976).

9 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Annex VII, Art. 3(e).

10 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (1948); Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1952); Convention on the Struggle Against Trade of People and Exploitation of Prostitution by Third Persons (1949); International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979); Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984).

11 See the joint American-Soviet statement of Sept. 23,1989, U.N. Doc. A/44/578, S/20868 (1989). See also, M.S. Gorbachev, Reality and Safeguards fora Secure World, Sept. 17,1987, distributed as U.N. Doc.A/42/574, S/19143 (1987); and the Memorandum of the Soviet Union, referred to in L.B. Sohn's contribution to this issue, U.N. Doc. A/44/585 (1989).