Search results

1

Obtaining International Sovereignty of the UPR at the Central Rada Period

100%

Holovchenko V.

Historia i Polityka

|

2017

|

issue 20(27)

89-100

EN

The history of diplomacy and foreign policy of new independent states are one of the most difficult and hardest objects of scientific study because they synthesize complex issues of world and national history system components. The diplomatic service is one of the most important attributes of any sovereign state, an indicator of real aspirations of the country and of its attitude towards the world and its political content. The ultimate success of the Ukrainian revolution of 1917–1920 both in the East and in the West, in our opinion, depended on the international publicity and receiving substantial external support as it happened for example in Poland, Finland and the Baltic States. Measures on the formation of an all-Russian federation taken by the Central Rada led to the opposite result – the armed conflict with red Petrograd and invitation of the German-Austrian troops to save the UPR from the Bolshevik aggression. In the long term the foreign policy choice made by the Central Rada in January 1918 in favor of Germany and its allies, that were defeated in World War I, was a mistake. At the same time, signing the Brest peace treaty between the UPR and the Central Powers and diplomatic recognition of Ukraine from these states opened new opportunities for the development of national diplomatic and consular service, and forced RSFSR to agree to start peace talks with the Ukrainian People’s Republic.

2

Russia’s Military Invasion of Ukraine in 2022: Aim, Reasons, and Implications

75%

Fedorenko V., Fedorenko M.

Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem

|

2022

|

vol. 14

|

issue 1

7-42

EN

The publication examines the legal nature of wars, looks into the law of war genesis, reviews its conventions, as well as identifies the aim, objectives, causes together with the consequences of Russia’s military aggression on February 24, 2022; it provides a testimony on the war of aggression against Ukraine and identifies its threats to post-war international law and order. The aim of the article is to determine the background, nature, fundamentals and nature of the war the Russian Federation launched on February 24, 2022 against Ukraine within the context of confrontation with the values of Western democracy. Historical-legal dialectical, comparative-legal and system-structural methods, as well as methods of formal logic (induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, abstraction and concretization, etc.) were used to study the issues. The application of these research methods entails a cross-sectoral scientific nature. Wars have accompanied the entire history of mankind. Since the 17th century the theoretical foundations of the law of war have been laid, which enshrined in international laws and customs of warfare (Geneva Conventions, Hague Convention, etc.) since the 19th century, thus forming the international humanitarian law. After World War II, violations of the latter by the belligerent party are viewed by the world community no less harshly than the mere war. The paper questions the purpose, reasons, conditions and intermediate consequences of the war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. Obviously, the military aggression and the Russian invasion on February 24, 2022 marked the beginning of the de facto war, under a specific formal definition by a Russian official as a “special military operation” instead of naming it an attempt to avoid legal responsibility for war crimes committed in Ukraine. The article analyses the aggressive nature of this war on the part of the Russian Federation, demonstrates numerous violations of international law conventions by the Russian armed forces during the military invasion and temporary occupied territories in Ukraine. It emphasizes that the law of war has always been replaced by signing a peace treaty and relevant international agreements, which entails the obligation to severe the political, economic, and legal responsibility of the state violating international humanitarian law. The paper reviews the key institutions and legal tools for bringing the Russian Federation authorities to justice for the war crimes committed in Ukraine. So far, the President of Ukraine, the Supreme Council of Ukraine, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine have managed to apply legitimate international legal mechanisms, primarily the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council, to prosecute Russia for violating the international humanitarian law and committing war crimes in Ukraine. At the same time, on the Ukrainian territories currently liberated from the Russian army’s occupation (Bucha, Gostomel, Irpin, etc.), it is already possible to implement a special mechanism of justice, which consists in the collaboration between national and international experts: specialists, investigators, prosecutors, and judges to collect objective and impartial evidence of gross violations of international law and war conventions in Ukraine. It is obvious that for Ukraine today both the victory and just punishment for the committed and continuing committed war crimes on its territory are important. The aftermath of World War II’s “Never Again” now requires, as never before, its effective guarantee and protection

3

Writing at the Emperor’s Behest: A Remark on Theodore Daphnopates’ Correspondence to Bulgarian Tsar Symeon I the Great (893–927)

51%

Hristov Y. M.

Przegląd Nauk Historycznych

|

2023

|

vol. 22

|

issue 1

233-250

PL

Listy wysokiego dygnitarza bizantyńskiego Teodora Dafnopata, wysłane do bułgarskiego cara Symeona (893–927; zm. 27 V 927) w imieniu cesarza bizantyńskiego Romana I Lekapena (920–944; zm. 29 VI 948), są dobrze znane. Zostały napisane w końcowej fazie długiej wojny bizantyńsko-bułgarskiej w latach 913–927. Korespondencja Daphnopatesa wywołała i prawdopodobnie nadal będzie inspirować poważną działalność badawczą. Trudno się temu dziwić biorąc pod uwagę fakt, że listy dotyczyły niektórych aspektów bizantyńskiej ideologii i koncepcji politycznych, a także roszczeń bułgarskich z początku X w. Niniejszy artykuł koncentruje się na informacjach dotyczących bizantyńskiej ludności cywilnej i jej losów pod presją nacierających wojsk wroga. Zwrócono uwagę na ich schwytanie i porwanie. Główny nacisk kładziony jest na często pomijane lub jawnie zaniedbywane informacje, które Daphnopathes przekazuje w kwestii zniewolenia, handlu niewolnikami oraz wysiłków władz bizantyńskich, by sprowadzić przynajmniej część poddanych z powrotem do Cesarstwa poprzez znaną praktykę wymiany jeńców wojennych.

EN

The letters written by Theodore Daphnopates, a high Byzantine dignitary, and sent to Bulgarian Tsar Symeon (r. 893–927; d. May 27, 927) on behalf of the Byzantine Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 920–944; d. June 29, 948) in the ﬁnal phase of the prolonged Byzantine-Bulgarian war of 913–927, are well known. Daphnopates’ correspondence has encouraged, and will probably continue to encourage, research activity due to its focus on both the aspects of Byzantine political ideology and concepts, and on the Bulgarian claims in the early 10th century. This text focuses on information concerning Byzantine civilians and their fate under the pressure of advancing enemy troops. Attention is paid to their capture and abduction. The main focus of this article is on the often overlooked or overtly neglected statements that Daphnopathes offers on enslavement, slave trafﬁcking, and the efforts of the Byzantine authorities to bring at least some of their subjects back to the Empire through the familiar practice of exchanging prisoners of war.

4

The specific legal-international regime of peace treaties

51%

Grochalski S. M.

Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne

|

2019

|

vol. 17

|

issue 4

23-34

PL

Prezentowany materiał jest próbą analizy dotyczącej szczególnej pozycji prawnej traktatów pokojowych. Autor polemizuje z występującym (co prawda nieczęsto) stanowiskiem, że owe traktaty, z racji niewyrażania w sposób klasyczny woli państwa, umowami, jako takimi, być nie mogą. W artykule ukazuje się podstawowe podobieństwa i przede wszystkim dające się określić różnice, zwłaszcza w tzw. postanowieniach końcowych, w odniesieniu do umów międzynarodowych oraz traktatów pokojowych. W opracowaniu stawia się tezę o szczególnej roli, znaczeniu i ewoluowaniu traktatów pokojowych, pomimo częstego nieprzestrzegania ich postanowień. Przywołuje się, analizuje się przykłady z historii zawieranych traktatów pokojowych, zderzając je z traktatami zawieranymi w XX wieku, zwłaszcza tych, które zostały zawarte po pierwszej i drugiej wojnie światowej.

EN

The presented material is an attempt at analyzing the specific legal position of peace treaties. The author argues with the opinion which is put forward (not too often, though), maintaining that such treaties – due to their not expressing the will of states in a classical way – cannot be considered to be agreements as such. He presents the basic similarities and – first of all – differences, especially concerning the so-called final provisions, with reference to both typical international agreements and peace treaties, respectively. In the study, he formulates the thesis of a special role, significance and evolution of peace treaties, despite frequent disrespect for the resolutions they contain. Instances of peace treaties which were concluded in the past are recalled and analyzed, and juxtaposed with ones made in the 20th century, particularly those following the First and the Second World Wars.

Refine search results

1 Historia i Polityka

1 Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem

1 Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne

1 Przegląd Nauk Historycznych

1 Fedorenko M.

1 Fedorenko V.

1 Grochalski S. M.

1 Holovchenko V.

1 Hristov Y. M.

1 2023

1 2022

1 2019

1 2017

Obtaining International Sovereignty of the UPR at the Central Rada Period

Russia’s Military Invasion of Ukraine in 2022: Aim, Reasons, and Implications

Writing at the Emperor’s Behest: A Remark on Theodore Daphnopates’ Correspondence to Bulgarian Tsar Symeon I the Great (893–927)

The specific legal-international regime of peace treaties