on the rule of law in the context of russian foreign policy

Abstract

The article is an attempt to analyze the Russian school of law features and history of development over the last century, characterized by the priority of the positivist theory of law over the natural law approach. In particular, the author examines the differences in interpretation of such concepts as ‘rule of law,’ ‘rule by law’ and ‘Law-Bound State’ by Russian and foreign lawyers and concludes that these concepts are mixed and misunderstood. Based on the differences of interpretation, the author concludes that there is a significant difference in mentality not only between Russian and foreign lawyers, but also between lawyers in Russia: law enforcers on the one hand and human rights activists, advocates and some independent scientists on the other and, consequently, there are specific criteria for the specialist selection in competent state bodies. As an example of the differences of interpretation, the author analyzes in detail the decision of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court of March 19, 2014, on the constitutionality of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the admission of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation and the establishment of new subjects within the latter.