Saturday, January 31, 2015

Historical stereotypes and traditional media in the Ukrainian-Russian relations

Volodymyr Machuskyy

The historical stereotype is one way of objectification of ideological and political space through traditional media. Traditional media over the years generate historical stereotypes in the public consciousness. The continuous generation of such stereotypes leads to their transformation into a new social reality. 

In addition, in totalitarian states historical stereotypes serve as the primary justification of the ideology of the state. On the basis of the ideology the state is taking political and legal decisions.  The last stage of exploitation of the historical stereotype is the outbreak of war with the aim of geopolitical revenge.

For example, the Russia through traditional media means is exploiting the historical stereotype "The Nazi in Ukraine". For the vast number of young people in Russia it is an indisputable historical stereotype. This generation is formed during the 15-year rule of Putin, who said "Russia could win the Second World War without Ukraine." Thus, a stereotype "The Nazi in Ukraine" widespread through traditional media has led thousands of volunteers from Russia to the east of Ukraine, where the two neighboring people destroy each other.

On the other hand, the stereotype "The Nazi in Ukraine" is not only unfounded, but also offensive to Ukrainians. During the Second World War, Ukraine has lost 8 million people. Among the heroes of the Soviet Union, one in five is a Ukrainian. The banner of Victory over Nazi Reichstag in Berlin was hoisted by Ukrainian soldier together with Russian and Georgian soldiers. Thus Russia through traditional media is trying to privatize the victory over fascism using historical stereotype.

Another historical stereotype is contained in Vladimir Putin’s Address to the Federal Assembly (December 4, 2014). The Address was traditionally delivered at the Kremlin’s St George Hall before an audience of over 1,000 people  and was widely covered in traditional media. Putin in the Address (in particular) pointed out where exactly is "the spiritual source of formation of the Russian nation and the centralized Russian state".

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Canon law of Kyivan Rus'

The Law of Kyivan Rus is the Law of eastern Slavic legal tradition that originated and developed on the basis of a common law. In the future, along with the legal tradition, was formed a new source of law - a princely legislation.

Since the adoption of Christianity in 988, the church and princely (secular) law of Kyivan Rus’ closely intertwined and formed a kind of a set of rules contained in the canons of the Church and princely legislation. There was canon law, consisting of norms of canon law comes from the church and the legal norms about the church come from the secular power.

The norms of canon law were introduced to Kyivan Rus from Byzantium. The basis of the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical system was the legislation Eastern Christian Church.

The Legislation Eastern Christian church contained a fundamental dogmatic beginning, basic canonical framework, the basic principles of organization and administration of the church and, in particular, regulate the functioning of the ecclesiastical court. The sources of canon law, in particular, were Byzantine legal collections: Eclogue , Prohiron та Zakón Súdnyi Liúdem .

Ecloga (εκλογή — choice) — a short set of Byzantine legislation (лат. Ecloga Basilicorum). Was an abridged sample compilation of the codification of Emperor Justinian (known as the Corpus Juris civilis), and subsequent acts of the Byzantine emperors, in order to make the law more accessible to the public.

Ecloga created during the reign of Emperor Leo III in the first half of the VIII century (probably in 726). In it are included mainly norms of obligations. In general, it reflected the changes in the social and political life of the Byzantine Empire, bringing legislation to the norms of Christian morality.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Ukrainian-Moscow Treaty on military and political alliance in 1654

Ukrainian-Moscow Treaty (hereinafter Treaty) marked a turning point in the history of Ukraine. Further development of Ukraine was closely associated with Russia. At the same time, the parties of the Treaty interpreted the Treaty in different ways.

Ukraine has received a protectorate of Russia due to the need. This need was conditioned by the military-political situation (the war with Poland). According to the Treaty, Ukraine had their own governments and armed forces led by Hetman. On the territory of Ukraine acted its own legal system.

Russia had the goal of transforming the protectorate in incorporation – the entry of Ukraine into Russia.  For this the Treaty (articles) were rewritten numerous times for reorganization purposes at every election of the new Hetman. Thus, Russia reached its goal and Ukraine lost its independence.

Tactical acquisition of Ukraine: a) the separation from Poland; b) the recognize Ukraine as an independent state by Muscovite tsar.

Strategic defeat of Ukraine: Russian’s absorption and a loss of independence.

The main provisions of the Treaty:
1. Zaporizhia Forces with their rights and privileges falls under the hand of the Russian Tsar.
2. The court proceedings Ukraine was based on local laws and customs.
3. The tsar allowed the Cossacks to choose the Hetman and the foreman. Newly elected Hetman immediately had to take an oath to the tsar.
4. About international relations with other states Hetman had fully informed the tsar.
5. The Cossack Army was meant to serve the tsar.
6. The tsar had the right to keep in Kiev a governor and an army.

Monday, January 19, 2015

The understanding of the Law

Intellectual philosophical vanity often postulates the Law as an unknowable, otherworldly and almost mystical phenomenon. On the other hand, the theory of the law says what the law is doing, but often silent, what the law is in fact. In addition, the Law is in danger of being transformed into ordinary tool of economics.

The concepts of Law arise and die as a many things in the book of Ecclesiastes, but the Law as itself is forever. It (the Law) had existed a long time before the emergence of the economy and may be realized only with the advent of human being. The internal moral law, which is so admired for Kant, there is nothing like a typical biblical distinction between the good and the evil (and they have become as gods....).

The understanding of the Law is not only and not so much a thirst for knowledge, and certainly not the economic feasibility. The understanding of the law is due to the permanent self-identification of society and the person. It reflects the state of society and the person in the particular phase.

The water can be in different states: the water, the snow and the ice. So the Law has the ability to constantly change and be himself. This is the movement of the Law. Thus, the Law comes from the generality through specialty to a singularity.

The Law as a generality is directly the Law and answers the question “what” (a cause). The Law as a specialty is an action of the Law – a legal regulation and answer the question “how” (an action). The Law as a singularity is object-matter of law – a law order and answer the question “why” (an object-matter).

The Law as a generality is a boundless and a boundless of the generality causes an infinity concepts of law. A court decisions and a legal acts are two parts of legal regulation. Substantial differences between a court decisions and a legal acts does not affect their essence as a positive.  

A court decisions and legislation have a common object-matter – the regulation of relations and the law order. But a law order is an object-matter not only for a law. The law order as a singularity for the law is a generality for a person. 

Thursday, January 15, 2015

The right of the blood revenge in Kyivan Rus'

Initially, the blood revenge was not limited in the Kyivan Rus' and belonged to all members of the community - verv’. The verv’ had the right and the obligation to chase for the murder of the community's member. An addition, in some cases the verv’ bore collective responsibility for the murder of the Prince’s officer or some member of the community.

The murder was a private offence and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the State as a criminal law did not exist yet. As well, there was no the court and the police in the modern sense.

The possibility of killing the felon without a trial was fixed in the treaties between Rus’ and Byzantium. Specifically, in the article 4 of the Rus'–Byzantine Treaty of 911 it was stated that “if someone would kill anyone - Rus' kill Christian or Christian kill Rus' - let die at the scene of the crime.

In connection with the development of social relations and the strengthening of princely power the right of the blood revenge gradually limited and eventually became only the right of relatives of the slain member of the community. In the article 13а of the Rus’-Byzantine Treaty of 944 it was stated that “if someone would kill anyone - Rus' kill Christian or Christian kill Rus' and the murderer will be caught by relatives (who was killed), then let he will be killed”.

Thus, there were personal relationships between the relatives of the murdered and the murderer that could be realized only in the form of the revenge. In the future the list of relatives-avengers was defined at the legislative level. Such Avengers could be a brother, son, father, sister's son or brother’s son. This provision is confirmed by article 1 of Rus'ka Justice (Rus'ka Pravda) where it is stated that "If a man kills a man, then avenges the brother for the brother or the son for the father, or the father for the son, or the son of his brother, or the son of his sister."