CONCEPT OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL POLICY IN FOREIGN COMPARATIVE LEGAL STUDIES

INTRODUCTION. International legal policy is a new object in international legal studies, although this phenomenon exists as long as the external relations of States. International legal policy is a rare case of research subject, which remains unexplored. International legal policy as a Concept of State's policy towards legal aspects of international relations was formed in the 80-s of last century. Earlier the questions and their particular aspects now embraced by international legal policy were divided between international lawyers and international relations researchers. However international legal policy is an integral system of State's approaches to international legal matters, therefore its punctual research is relevant only from comparative point of view. It would be interesting to compare States' positions on concrete issues or States' tactics at different stages of realization of international legal norms. This article concerns the question whether comparative studies of international legal policy can be integrated into existing fields of comparative foreign relations law or of comparative research of international law.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article surveys theoretic questions primarily on the base of doctrinal sources. The retrospective analysis of the comparative method in international law is based on works published by Russian and foreign experts during the XX century. Particular attention is drawn upon works of founders of comparative research in international legal studies. The concept of foreign relations law in the scholarship and practice of the U.S. is researched on the base of national case law, which formulated the principle of executive exceptionalism in State foreign policy. Research work is realized with the use of analysis, synthesis, systematisation, as well as methods of historical and comparative method.RESEARCH RESULTS. The Article consistently reveals meaning and the content of international legal policy as one of the authors of the concept, French lawyer and diplomat G. de Lacharriere, presented it. The Article examines the history of foreign relations law in the U.S. and presents its doctrinal estimations from viewpoint of American constitutional law. The research work specifies different points of view on content of foreign relations law and approaches to its justification. Indeed international legal policy and foreign relations law can be compared as two types of State’s approach to its legal position on the international scene. There are six parameters for comparison: sources, functions, subjects of both concepts, questions on allocation of foreign powers in the State, on relationship between international and national law, on the role of national courts in interpretation and application of international norms. In consideration of “national interest” concept the attribution of international legal policy to international organisations or supranational association is judged as incorrect. The article examines the question of applicability of comparative method in the international law within the discourse among scholars on how differently modern States evaluate international legal norms. Analysis of the tendency to contrasting States’ approaches to the international law encompasses its development from notions “international law of transitional period”, “international legal systems”, to notions “national approach”, “legal style”, “legal culture”. Brief survey of comparative international law gives perspective on diversity of approaches to comparable aspects of the international law. Comparative studies of international legal policy could get consolidated among them.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. At first sight the comparative method is hardly applicable to the international law. However the universality of the international law doesn’t exclude variety of approaches to it. The research into international legal policy determined by national interests of every State allows to systemize positions of a State into a single strategy. At the same time comparative method doesn’t only provide classical comparison of States’ positions by issues, but also offers to compare inner-workings of the international legal policy and shaping factors. Nowadays in the context of trends on diversification of international relations (fragmentation, regionalisation), growing popularity of the comparative method translated into comparative foreign relations law and comparative international law. However international legal policy doesn’t correspond with categorial apparatus of comparative foreign relations law. International legal policy is nor able to apply methodological tenets of comparative international law due to its multivalued content. Most likely comparative studies of international legal policy can become a new approach within comparative international law, which should be based on the principles of concreteness and consistency.


INTRODUCTION. International legal policy is a new object in international legal studies, although this phenomenon exists as long as the external relations of States. International legal policy is a rare case of research subject, which remains unexplored. International legal policy as a Concept of State's policy towards legal aspects of international relations was formed in the 80-s of last century. Earlier the questions and their particular aspects now embraced by international legal policy were divided between international lawyers and international relations researchers. However international legal policy is an integral system of State's approaches to international legal matters, therefore its punctual research is relevant only from comparative point of view. It would be interesting to compare States' positions on concrete issues or States' tactics at different stages of realization of international legal norms. This article concerns the question whether comparative studies of international legal policy can be integrated into existing fields of
it. The Article examines the history of foreign relations law in the U.S. and presents its doctrinal estimations from viewpoint of American constitutional law. The research work specifies different points of view on content of foreign relations law and approaches to its justification. Indeed international legal policy and foreign relations law can be compared as two types of State's approach to its legal position on the international scene. There are six parameters for comparison: sources, functions, subjects of both concepts, questions on allocation of foreign powers in the State, on relationship between international and national law, on the role of national courts in interpretation and application of international norms. In consideration of "national interest" concept the attribution of international legal policy to international organisations or supranational association is judged as incorrect. The article examines the question of applicability of comparative method in the international law within the discourse among scholars on how differently modern States evaluate international legal norms. Analysis of the tendency to contrasting States' approaches to the international law encompasses its development from notions "international law of transitional period",

CONCEPT OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL POLICY IN FOREIGN COMPARATIVE LEGAL STUDIES
"international legal systems", to notions "national approach", "legal style", "legal culture". Brief survey of comparative international law gives perspective on diversity of approaches to comparable aspects of the international law. Comparative studies of international legal policy could get consolidated among them. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. At first sight the comparative method is hardly applicable to the international law. However the universality of the international law doesn't exclude variety of approaches to it. The research into international legal policy determined by national interests of every State allows to systemize positions of a State into a single strategy. At the same time comparative method doesn't only provide classical comparison of States' positions by issues, but also offers to compare inner-workings of the international legal policy and shaping factors. Nowadays in the context of trends on diversification of international relations (fragmentation, regionalisation), growing popularity of the comparative method translated into comparative foreign relations law and comparative international law. However international legal policy doesn't correspond with categorial apparatus of comparative foreign relations law. International legal policy is nor able to apply methodological tenets of comparative international law due to its multivalued content. Most likely comparative studies of international legal policy can become a new approach within comparative international law, which should be based on the principles of concreteness and consistency.
KEYWORDS: international legal policy, foreign relations law, comparative international law, comparative method, national interests, national approaches to international law, contemporary legal studies.

S
ince international law is an integral legal system that regulates relations within the international community, for a long time the application of the comparative method in international legal researches seemed inappropriate. Indeed, it was assumed that States are guided by the same principles and norms. All the while, studies of States' controversies in the settlement of some matters show that States interpret the content of international legal norms differently, understand their applicability to particular situations also in different ways, and participate in the coordinated development of norms with different motivations. Such discrepancies are usually considered within the analysis of concrete problems, but within the framework of the concept of international legal policy of State (thereafter -ILP concept), these disagreements are not treated as special cases of diverging opinions among sovereigns, but as natural manifestations of differences in international policies in general. In Russian literature on International Law the ILP concept is considered first and foremost as evaluating "legitimate possibilities for a state to defend its national interests through making proper choice between different International Law sources and particular rules and interpretations of relevant rules and also by creation of special expertise" [Vylegzhanin, Dudykina 2016:36]. In this context relevant international documents on politi-cal involvement in International Law are scrutinized in the context of the term "les politiques juridiques exterieures".
At the same time, the ILP concept offers a systematic approach to the analysis not only of various international legal positions of States; since the concept is interdisciplinary, its development stands out in the international legal research and foreign legal scholarship has gradually developed the research field of "comparative international law" [Comparative International Law 2018; Roberts, Stephan 2015:467-474], based on the idea of national approach, which also underlies the ILP concept. The project 1 of "comparative international law" rationalizes the use of the comparative method in international legal research, without denying the fundamental theses about the integrity of this legal system. In addition to that, some legal scholars draw attention to the project of "comparative foreign relations law" (in development of which both legal scholars and international lawyers from different countries are involved) 2 , which won the support of the Carnegie Foundation for elaboration at the Duke Law School. This field of research focuses more on the institutional organization and normative design of States' policies on international legal issues, and generally goes for comparative studies of national legal systems. The question arises whether the study of the ILP concept which is based on legal methodology can be attributed to one of the new comparative legal research projects 3  The present article makes an attempt to work out this issue.

Brief introduction into the concept
The relationship between national policy and international law is one of the most challenging questions in international legal theory. How national foreign policy of States and the international law can affect each other? Which of them determinates the other? French lawyer Guy de Lacharrière supposed, that the most plausible relationship between them is 'politique à l' égard du droit' (policy towards international law), which translates into the concept of "politique juridique extérieure". The term literally means "external legal policy", however in non-francophone scholarship the term is translated as "international legal policy" or "politics of international law". In French as in Russian the term "politique" (rus: politika) is equally applicable to what is embraced by the term "politics" (with the meaning of "statecraft") and by the term "policy" (synonymous to "strategy" or "plan of action"). The collocation "politics of international law" is more common in foreign international legal studies [Koskenniemi 1990:4- Koskenniemi 2011]. Nevertheless the "international legal policy" would be closer to the meaning assigned by prof. Lacharrière. In his work of 1983 the concept of "politique juridique extérieure" is formulated by analogy with foreign military, economic, cultural policies. Once the 'politique juridique extérieure' means the way how the State can handle various issues of "legal aspects of international relations", its better english equivalent is 'international legal policy' (thereafter -ILP).
At the appearance the idea of G. de Lacharrière was surprising. It's common to think that the State's policy is always directed at the questions fully covered by the State's power. For instance, the State has the rights to choose its economic system, to regulate activities of foreign investors or transnational corporations. It's obvious as it's a matter of nation-al jurisdiction. At once the same goes for foreign policy, as the State has equally the right to engage in any form of economic cooperation, to associate with international organizations, to participate in international decision-making process 4 . In other words States are free to determine the content of issues which they will have to handle in their policies. However in regards of the international law the extent of State's power is limited. The content of rules regulating international relations of all States was gradually shaped by interstate consents and practice on the basis of essential principles. Hence the State has only to meet and respect existing international legal rules. G. de Lacharrière contrives to use this collision for justification of the ILP concept. To his point of view, the international legal policy is most pronounced at tentative of States for modification of the international law [Lacharrière 1983:6]. It should be explained by the contrast with the national law. As the State creates itself its national law and politics, there can be no contradictions between them. In case of international legal policy the State's policy is directed at the independent object. That can lead to discrepancies. For this very reason the State strives to refine the content of international legal rules with its own interpretations and suggestions about new rules. Within the ILP concept, such refining endeavours cannot be spontaneous, as all positions and actions of State present integral elements of its consistent systemic policy 5 of positioning itself in different issues of international law.

The scope of ILP concept
The international legal policy is expected to embrace the standpoints on the sources of the international law, including approaches to the use of general and special rules and attitude to legal gaps or ambiguity of rules; the conduct towards interrelated operations of interpretation and application, including recognition or reject of the legal force of rules, ways of suitable interpretation, evaluation of the international judgements and the general attitude to the international justice. Clearly every State determines its own content of its policy and sets its own objecing research fields also based on the comparative method?" Consequently the present work does not pretend to encompass fundamental theoretic issues, or to review matters profoundly elaborated by Russian and foreign legal scholars. The objective of the article is to determine whether the development way of the author's specific concept lines up with trending projects initiated by foreign scholars over the last ten years. 4 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. GA Resolution 3281(XXIX), UN GAOR, 29th Sess., Supp. No. 31 (1974) 50. Art. 1, 2, 10. 5 The ILP is considered as systemic, though it does not prevents it from dynamism. As far as the ILP gets realized in the system of international relations, the ILP should be responsive and sensitive to the system-related changes. tives governed by national interests [Lacharrière 1983:13]. However the introduction of "national interests" into the evaluation of relationship between States' foreign policy and international law can undermine the authority of the latter. G. de Lacharrière made a point: "Qui relativise le droit le désacralise. Si le droit devient l' objet de stratégies, les règles en vigueur ne correspondent plus qu'a une stratégie qui a réussi» 6 [Lacharrière 1983:10]. The suggestion on political dependence of international rules is rather popular among proponents of the critical theory of international law. It follows from the assumption of the legal scholarship of the 19 th century about procedural character of the law. The international law "of civilized nations" embodied diplomatic practice of the European States, i.e. procedures for entering into and serving diplomatic relations, attaining sovereign status, establishing the status of territory or the neutrality. If not "procedural" argument, the international law is deemed to carry political traces, as it never completes its objectivity [Koskenniemi 1990:6, 28].
The question though arises whether the international legal policy includes internal legal aspects of foreign relations? Introducing the ILP concept Lacharrière didn't distinguish particular legal aspects of international relations and thereby allowed the suggestion on its dichotomous nature. The understanding of the essence of the international legal policy clears up uncertainty. It should be kept in mind that the international legal policy deals exclusively with the content of the international law. For instance, the exercise of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction does not fall within the scope of the international legal policy, since its legal framework is provided by norms of national law. In this regard the allocation of foreign policy power among national authorities, procedures of implementation of international rules into the national legal system, they all constitute a kind of frame of the international legal policy's operations, but don't determine it as such. The analysis of the international legal policy excludes the question on the choice between monistic and dualistic approaches to the international law. It's necessary to understand whether the international legal policy covers matters of the national legal system, such as direct or conditioned applicability of international rules by national judges or the possibility of citizens to invoke those rules in national courts. On the one side, these matters belong to internal legal affairs of State, to the effect that their settlement is not intended to have an effect on the content of international legal rules. But on the other side, national judges, as representatives of State's judicial power, also communicate State's international legal policy in the work. It's notable that the thesis on national approaches to international law underlying the idea of comparative international law originated with examination of national judgements on the same international legal question [Roberts 2011:64-67].

Factor of internal changes as exemplified by the ILP of the U.S.
Nevertheless the international legal policy is first of all a part of the foreign policy. Consequently the international legal policy undergoes the influence of changes in the internal political course of the State as its foreign policy in whole. This phenomenon can be observed through the example of every State. However the most outstanding illustration is the U. It's noticeable that most of concerned actions were undertaken without full accord among power branches. The known inner struggle baffles the realization of adopted policies. For instance, the USMCA Protocol met major difficulties in ratification due to the Congress' general opposition to the president's project on replacement of the quarter-century-old NAFTA. The international legal policy is inseparable from the mechanisms which serve its operation, therefore discords among national political forces or different authorities affect not only the choice of international legal position, but also its realization.

The ILP as an object of legal studies
Guy de Lacharrière admitted that the proposed concept is vulnerable to critical attacks. Those, who regard the international law as sacred, can't tolerate that it can become the target for national policy. Otherwise, the policy which objectifies the international law would be considered amoral. On the contrary, those, who deny the significance of the international law, would challenge vain efforts of States to form their international legal policy [Lacharrière 1983:9].
The international legal policy necessarily implies some manipulations, which would allow balancing between self-interested conduct and the absolute commitment to the international law 9 . This balance is attained through endeavours to justify State's actions with legal rules. Therefore inconsiderate opinions on the concept could blame it for reducing the meaning of the international law to the simple tool in the State's hands. Is justification of State's actions the only role of the international law in the eyes of the sovereign? Actually prof. Lacharrière's idea is far from the so-called instrumentalist approach to the law. The very fact that by forming the international legal policy the State seeks certain balance instead of falling into self-indulgence -is the evidence of a significant value of the international law. The fact that the State strains after legitimation of its adopted decisions and undertaken steps by international rules proves that the international law has the authority [Cazala 2013:415]. First, the authority to make action legitimate or unlawful, second, the moral authority in the international community. The weight and the force of international law make the State to adopt particular policy. This circumstance contributes into the research value of the ILP concept.
First of all, the concept of international legal policy integrates the questions traditionally examined separately by international lawyers and political scholars, or at least in the interdisciplinary research works. It proposes an elegant way to transfer sheer political conduct into the field of international law in order to compose its comprehensible analysis without blending dissimilar factors. Furthermore, the research of the concept is a gratifying experience given the number and diversity of holders of the international legal policy. If the international law can be figuratively considered as a language for international relations 10 , every State speaks it with its 8 Rampton R., Wroughton L. Van den Berg S. U.S. withdraws from international accords, says U.N. world court 'politicized' . 3 October 2018. URL: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-diplomacy-treaty/u-s-reviewing-agreements-that-expose-it-toworld-court-bolton-idUSKCN1MD2CP (accessed 15.11.2019). 9 Lacharrière wrote: "Des raisons de nier complètement la pertinence du concept pourraient venir de deux conceptions […]. Selon la première conception, le droit, dont le rôle serait grossi sans mesure serait reconnu comme étant d'une nature sacrée qui le voue au respect des gouvernements et le met au-dessus des manipulations politiques. Considéré sous l'angle d'une telle dévotion, il ne pourrait être l'objet de politiques gouvernementales.
[…] en réalité, aucun État ne manifeste a l'égard du droit ce respect totalement dévot ni ce nihilisme radical". Translated as: "Reasons to completely deny the relevance of the concept could come from two conceptions [...]. According to the first conception, the law, the role of which would be increased without measure, would be recognized as being of a sacred nature that governments would respect and put it above political manipulation. From the perspective of such devotion, it could not be the subject of government policies. [

Notion of foreign relations law
As all kinds of terms generated first in practice and then becoming a doctrinal research subject, the foreign relations law doesn't have an explicit generally recognised definition. As every State necessarily participates in the international life, rules governing external relations of State with the others seem essential to exist. American international lawyer prof. C. A. Bradley proposes to consider foreign relations law as domestic legal rules which govern "interactions" of a Nation with the rest of the world [Bradley 2019:3]. These interactions include interconnections as such between the international law and domestic law of a State, so the foreign relations law does not address the substance of concerned international nor municipal rules. Nevertheless questions falling into the field of foreign relations don't leave the law-zone. Rather, they become a matter of particular legal reg-ulation. How these questions are regulated (in the framework of which law branch, to what extent, what their scope is) depends on the assumed position of every State. The Foreign Relations Law as a separate integral concept was developed in the U.S. precisely due to its essential attitude towards external relations. Therefore brief pointlike retrospective into the development of the international legal scholarship of the U.S. would allow understanding background of the project of comparative foreign relations law.

Development of the foreign relations law of the U.S.
Being an emerging nation, fighting for independence, the U.S. of the late XVIII century strived to enter international scene acting as a free sovereign state [McLachlan 2012 :24]. Besides the task to find its niche in the world of present powers, the new nation was at the same time concerned with internal allocation of competence among branches of power as well as between united states and federal government. Therefore organisation of external interactions was closely related to inner political processes. The framework of these authoritative workings is determined by the U.S. Constitution 11 : the power of Congress to declare war, to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, to define and punish offences against the Law of Nations (Art. I, section 8), the power of President to make treaties (conditioned by the advice and consent of Senate), to appoint ambassadors, to be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (Art. II, section 2) 12 . However, the realities of international politics revealed the lack of more detailed rules in the field of foreign affairs.
The Neutrality Proclamation issued by President Washington in 1793 in response to the outbreak of war between the Great Britain and revolutionary France caused the first considerable dispute on powers in exercising foreign policy. Despite reasonable objective to prevent fragile State from getting involved into an European conflict, the legitimacy of the adopted decision was fiercely contested. In a series of letters published in the Gazette of the United States, two founding fathers A. Hamilton 13  J. Madison contended whether the U.S. had the right to recuse itself from another war with the Great Britain notwithstanding its obligations under the Treaty of Alliance with France concluded in 1778. Madison considered the proclaimed neutrality not only as a betrayal of the old ally, but as a breach of constitutional principle of separation of powers. In his opinion, unspelled powers in foreign affairs should have pertained only to Congress. Hamilton advocated the executive authority's power (namely, the President's one) while strictly construing Senate's participation in making international treaties. Defending the president's decision in substance, Hamilton advanced the concept of national interest, destining the whole further foreign policy of the U.S. 14 The discourse in Pacificus-Helvidius Letters 15 reflected a delicate intertwinement of internal issues with questions of foreign policy. As to the constitutional norms in the dispute, the opposite sides based their arguments on their alike interpretation of these norms without impinging upon their normative value. But the situation which had come about due to the Chaco war between Bolivia and Paraguay (1932-1935) necessitated a true divergence from explicit constitutional provisions. Being landlocked countries, both belligerent parties heavily relied on foreign armament supplies, they chiefly resorted to American manufactures. In order to terminate arms trade as a main source for continuing violence, the Congress invested the president with a discretional power to take steps towards establishment of peace or de facto authorized him to put an embargo on arms shipments from the U.S. 16 When the Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation was charged with violating the President's proclamation, the company contended the invalidity of this proclamation on the grounds of unconstitutional delegation of powers by Congress to the President 17 . Then the Supreme Court confirmed the president's exclusive power over foreign affairs due to their specific complicated character. The adopted decision introduced a new order in exercise of foreign policy, which can be characterised as "dichotomy of internal and external powers" [Purcell 2013:663] or "foreign affairs exceptionalism" [Bradley 1999[Bradley :1096. Either definition comes down to the statement about less extent of constitutional restraints on executive power in foreign policy in contrast to domestic issues.
The executive domination in determination of foreign policy was then reasserted in the cases concerning the President's power to recognise the Soviet government (United States v. Belmont (1937) 18 , United States v. Pink (1942) 19 ), and in cases concerning the recognition of foreign state's immunity (Ex parte Republic of Peru (1943) 20 , Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman (1945) 21 ). The constitutional regime of foreign relations saw the triumph of executive discretion [White 1999:134]. Probably the judicial reasoning on 14 It should be noticed, that Hamilton didn't campaigned for the "self-interested" foreign policy, as for him policy guided by the own interest of nation "is and ought to be prevailing" "as far as justice and good faith permit". [Beitzinger 2011:253] 15 In the american history the dispute around the Neutrality Proclamation is usually referred to as "Pacificus-Helvidius Letters", as publishing their letters A. Hamilton and J. Madison used pseudonyms "Pacificus" and "Helvisius" correspondingly. URL: https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/pacificus-helvidius-letters/ (accessed 15.11.2019). 16 A Joint Resolution of May 28, 1934, provided: "That if the President finds that the prohibition of the sale of arms and munitions of war in the United States to those countries now engaged in armed conflict in the Chaco may contribute to the reestablishment of peace between those countries, and if (…) he makes proclamation to that effect, it shall be unlawful to sell (…) any arms or munitions of war in any place in the United States (…)". Joint Resolution. May 28, 1934 18 United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937): "the President recognized the Soviet Government and normal diplomatic relations were established between the two Governments, followed by an exchange of ambassadors"; "The international compact was within the competency of the President, and participation by the Senate was unnecessary"; "The external powers of the United States are to be exercised without regard to state laws or policies". P. 331. 19 United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942): "The powers of the President in the conduct of foreign relations included the power, without consent of the Senate, to determine the public policy of the United States with respect to the Russian nationalization decrees". P. 229; "The power of the President in respect to the recognition of a foreign government, includes the power to remove such obstacles to full recognition as the settlement of claims of our nationals". P. 229. 20 Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (1943): "That principle is that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction, by the seizure and detention of the property of a friendly sovereign, as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations. "P. 588 21 Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman, 324 U.S. 30 (1945): "It is the duty of the courts, in a matter so intimately associated with our foreign policy and which may profoundly affect it, not to enlarge an immunity to an extent which the Government, though it has had numerous opportunities, has not seen fit to recognize". P. 324 U. S. 38. extra-constitutional executive powers could provide the groundwork for generation of foreign affairs law apart from constitutional one. Nevertheless foreign affairs law didn't intend to deny the explicit constitutional rules, as it's primarily based on them. Louis Henkin comprehensively studied the constitutional foundation of modern foreign policy of the U.S. in his "Foreign Affairs and the Constitution" of 1972 and a range of consequent articles. There he highlighted the fact that despite seeming prevalence of politics over law in the conduct of foreign affairs, this is "the law of the Constitution that gives the politics its form and much of its content" [Henkin 1976:4-5].

Significance of foreign relations law
The idea of the executive supremacy in foreign affairs sowed certain concerns about the general American approach to external relations and the international law. The spring of legal realism anchored by H. Morgenthau's "Politics among nations" of 1948, the uprise of the policy-oriented approach with the lead of M. S. McDougal, H. D. Lasswell and formation of the New Haven School, persistent scepticism about foreign policy's subjection to normative rules strikingly exposed in "Limitations of International Law" by J. Goldsmith and E. Posner. Finally, the inner cultivation of foreign relations law (as zone for executive 'law-making') shouldn't translate into "unilateral replacement" of international law in regulation of the U.S. external relations [McLachlan 2012 :25]. Definitely these trends are not imputed to the foreign relations law as such, but they present the other side of this phenomenon inside the U.S. The legal handling of the foreign affairs by other nations will be different. It's not only the matter of how every nation builds up and manages its relations with other nations in terms of its normative or institutional workings. The differences begin with the status of foreign relations law and its scope. C. Bradley counts the foreign relations law as domestic law, which encompasses specific questions as entering international agreements, participating in international organisations, using armed forces and incorporating international law into domestic legal system [Bradley 2019:4]. Therefore foreign relations law isn't a separate legal field with its own sources, rather it draws on legal materials from constitutional law, statutory law (for countries of common law), administrative law and established jurisprudence. So international legal scholars unambiguously qualify the foreign relations law as a domestic field [ C. McLachlan considers the central function of the foreign relations law as allocative. The foreign relations law is meant to resolve four principal questions on relationship between international and domestic law, extent of foreign power for every of three branches, implications of foreign relations for private rights and treatment of foreign state in municipal law [McLachlan 2012:4]. So the researcher delineates cases of immediate treatment of foreign relations by domestic authorities from cases in which it comes to incorporated international legal norms. But it generates more questions on the nature of norms of the foreign relations law, whether they are substantive or procedural, or how they relate to rules concerning conflict of two domestic legal systems. D. Abebe emphasizes the same function of the foreign relations law with use of other terms. In his opinion the allocation of foreign affairs powers among different branches serves as an 'internal constraint' on the authoritative unilateralism in the international field [Abebe 2009:128]. Introduction of the notion of "internal constraint" as opposed to "external constraint" of international politics conducted by other States allows to build-up a dichotomous scheme how the foreign affairs policy ploughs its way between two fires. However, in this model only one side of the foreign relations law comes into focus, namely policy-related side.

Two concepts about State's conduct in the international legal field
The meaning of foreign relations law is different to that of the international legal policy, despite seeming resemblance of covered questions. Actually they can't be directly compared as they don't belong to single category: foreign relations law is a legal issue, international legal policy is a tactic matter of State's conduct. Nevertheless each of them represents a particular State's apprehension how and what determines the way, which this State lives in the international legal order. Concepts of "foreign relations law" and "international legal policy" should be distinguished by their content.
First distinction concerns sources. Due to its legal nature "foreign relations law" derives its substance from legal sources, like norms of constitutional law; executive regulations, including so-called extra-constitutional norms (notion related to the phenomenon of "foreign relations exceptionalism"), jurisprudence (relevant for countries of common law). The international legal policy doesn't rely on legal norms as such, but on the content of legal provisions. From viewpoint of international legal policy legal norms reflect approaches and visions of a State how to regulate particular matter in this moment. Therefore international legal policy can meaningfully match with the content of legislation, but it's not bound with it. The policy's substance is essentially composed of definite standpoints and perspectives on international legal issues.
Second distinction bears upon question of power allocation in State. The concept of foreign relations law places major focus on volume and content of allocated powers, processes of their delegation, whereas international legal policy leaves it out. This is because foreign relations law is first of all, national law, which regulates institutional mechanisms of realisation of foreign policy. Furthermore the whole history of the U.S. foreign relations law developed through legal reasoning on legitimacy of foreign powers of different branches. The international legal policy isn't charged with questions about work of internal scheme, its scope begins with the products of these work, exact positions, and destines outwardly.
Third distinction refers to 'non-treatment' of the issue of relationship between domestic and international law. Although this issue looms large in the theory of international law (it was developed D. Anzilotti, S.V. Chernichenko, H. Kelsen, J. Kunz, A. Lasson, D.B. Levin, A.N. Talalyev, H. Triepel, E.T. Usenko, A. Verdross, A. Zorn and many other researches), neither ILP concept nor concept of foreign relations law concerns this matter, but for different reasons. As has been noted above, international legal policy doesn't tackle procedural matters of implementation of international rules, as it's concentrated on substantive questions how State understands those rules, whether it finds them relevant, how it justifies their particular use etc. The foreign relations law seems destined to embrace this matter. However C. Bradley explains, that national doctrines on implementation of the international law are not the subject-matter of foreign relations law, as they constitute a part of foreign relations law itself. In this context dualist, monist, mixed and other approaches are incorporated in existing national rules, like rules of ratification procedure [Bradley 2019:8].
Herefrom follows the fourth distinction, which is in the role of national courts. The foreign relations law includes treatment of international norms in national courts. The practice of interpretation and application of international rules doesn't distinct from practice with domestic rules neither in status nor in value. Within the international legal policy of State courts' practice also reflects fundamentals of State's policy. Judgements of special meaning, for instance, in case of submission of ambiguous question to the Supreme Court, they could play the role of considerations in formation of international legal policy, but they don't make up its content.
The fifth distinction follows from the nature of featured approaches. The objective of foreign relations law is to regulate steps on building and maintaining foreign relations from inside, whereas the international legal policy doesn't have regulative functions. It embraces concrete patterns of conduct with fixed approaches to their justification in international legal terms.
Finally, the sixth distinction, which could bring closure to this inquiry, relates to subjects or originators of laws and policies. First distinction relates to subjects or originators of laws and policies. It's true that foreign relations law and international legal policy have a notable trait in common -both of them are founded on the notion of "national interest" 22 . This term has been generally equated with 'self-interest' as an advantage pursued for own benefit 23 . Back in the day this term had a particular value in the positivist theory, which interpreted conflict of norms as a conflict of interests [Rovira 2014:766]. The main points of foreign relations law of the U.S. were introduced on the ground of their conformity to "national interests of the country". For the international legal policy "national interests" play the double role of motivation and of determinant of pursued objectives. Consequently foreign relations law or the international legal policy can appertain only to keeper of national interests, sovereign state, state-like formations, or nations struggling for self-determination. The question whether supranational authorities can bear "national interests" is an outstanding matter. There are works on international legal policy [Gouttefarde 2004:33-79] and on foreign relations law of the EU. 24 [EU Foreign Relations 2008; Larik 2017:321-325] As far as this policy or law should have some 'interests' in their base, what is meant here is "common interests". Hereof the question follows, whether notion of "common interests" is compatible with the substances of foreign relations law and international legal policy, which come from ideas about individual needs and aspirations. If the former is considered as a system of norms regulating interactions of the subject with its peers, the foreign relations law indeed fits into the legal order of the European Community. However "common interests" are not applicable to the concept of international legal policy, as even position of the State what "interests" it's ready to regard as common would form an integral part of its own international legal policy. Therefore it would be incorrect to speak about international legal policies of integration associations or of international organisations.
In view of the aforementioned differences, the methodological framework of the project 'comparative foreign relations law' is not applicable for research of the ILP. Nevertheless it would be more rational to consider the ILP within legal studies of national approaches to the international law. The State doesn't step on the field of international law with its own rules, it comes there with a solid background constituting its vision of international law. If these visions are at variance, they might be comparable by certain characteristics. That raises the suggestion about the research field of comparative international law.

Applicability of the comparative method in the international legal field
The common association of universality of international law with the notion of "uniqueness" calls into question applicability of the comparative method in the researches of international law. In opinion of H.C. Gutteridge, famous British comparativist, the universal character of international rules doesn't allow them to "lend themselves to comparison" [Gutteridge 1980:13-25]. For him, international law is, first of all, "principles of justice" which govern interstate relations due to "common consent of mankind". Understanding of international law as a kind of global morality besides its legal constraining function sends back to ideas of natural or divine law, hence, undivided. H. Lauterpacht underlined, that the nature of international law is inherently international, it cannot have separate domestic conceptions in essence [Lauterpacht 1937:200]. The universality of international law can be found in its fundamental principles. Principle of sovereign equality of States, peaceful disputes settlement, non-intervention, prohibition on the threat or use of force and the other, are recognised as universal in that sense that they're applicable in every sphere of international law and need no special normative consolidation for it 25 .
At the same time the universality hasn't been always regarded as an absolute feature of international law. A.B. Lorca argues that the international law has become 'universal' only recently [Lorca 2010:476]. In his vast research into evolvement of the international law through the XIX century, he contends the "expansion of European international law" to "semiperipheral" nations 26 . Describing mental premises of nations unfamiliar with imported order, Lorca uses the notion of "legal consciousness" and establishes the doctrine of "particularistic universalism". Lorca explains that semi-peripheral scholars appropriated the international law, not only for learning play rules of dominating powers, but also with the purpose of "changing their content". Acceptance of the international law was understood as a chance for their states to obtain legal personality in the minds of European nations that is to become on a par with those who postulates "equal sovereignty". For the same reason non-western states were prone to live up to foreign standards more than to evaluate commonalities with their neighbours and other regions [Lorca 2010:482, 521-522]. Without the struggle for recognition, former "semi-peripheral" states adapt assumed tenets of international law to their particular visions. The historic researches can invite the assumption about international law as a normative system, which was designed for the comfort of privileged actors. This idea underlies the so-called Third World approaches 24 26 The "semi-periphery" is a figurative term derived from the idea that modern international law is a globalized legal order, which was initially developed in seventeenth-century Europe. However, Umut Özsu suggests, that this term is based on the considerations of ethnicity, territory, and politico-economic power alike. [Özsu 2010:59] Anyway the author of the term doesn't define it outright.
to International Law (TWAIL). The TWAIL scholars stand out for review of legal order, which in their opinion, subordinates the Third World countries to the Western States. The aim of revision is to remove colonial foundations of the international law, as they continue to make people of the Third World sensitive to injustice of imposed rules [Anghie 2003: 80]. In some non-optimistic views the imposed belief into universality of international law is used to "mask its logic of unipolar power" [Megret 2012:85]. This is what D.F. Vagts calls "Hegemonic International law" [Vagts 2001:843-848], or in more popular terms, imperialistic tendency [Kapustin 2014:13]. In light of this appealing to the comparative method can be mistaken for tentative to play on current interstate divergences on doctrinal level. Apparently wrong actions of States shouldn't be justified by "national vision" of international law. Conversely comparative studies of international law are capable to mitigate effects of frequent oscillations in the international legal field.

Experience in application
of the comparative method According to M. Forteau over the last seventy years the International Law Commission has been successfully using the comparative method in its work [Forteau 2015:500]. Setting the objective to "promote the progressive development of international law and its codification" 27 , the Commission receives the task not only to bring the outcomes of States' practice to normative form, but also to embrace the fields in which there is still no full agreement among nations. Faced with the insufficiently general practice the Commission has three options: first, to reject any development or codification; second, to opt for the major practice; finally, to favour one version over the other [Forteau 2015:507]. Besides grading "justified" and "deviated" variants, Commission is armed with so called "accommodating tools", like recourse to linguistic tools, drafting general rules (leaving room for marge of appreciation) or providing normative flexibility. Using these instruments the Commission seeks to reconcile diversity of opinions with unity of international values. It's worth noting that Commission doesn't have to comfort much with different approaches to international law, rather with normative discrepancies [Forteau 2015:507]. Probably, differences in legal conceptions are destined for doctrinal comparative studies.
Comparative legal studies are believed to be so aged as national law itself, though the science of comparative legal studies took its shape only in the latter half of the nineteenth century 28 . When it comes to the comparativist research in the field of international law, its origins seem to be hidden in the epoch of power polarization in the world. Actually the tradition of applying the comparative method to international law arose in the Soviet Union in its early years 29 . It resulted from the urgent need to counterpose fledging Soviet view of international law against old imperialistic pre-setting in this field. "International law of transitional period" stood out from "the law of civilized nations". Russian international lawyer E. Korovin was the first who tried to analyse how emerging Soviet republics were going to "communicate" with their bourgeois partners given their unlike viewpoints 30 . Nonetheless, comparative international law sought to develop in the XX century beyond fierce camps' rivalry 31 29 In the retrospective analysis of CIL's foundations, prof. B.N. Mamlyuk suggests to reckon the history of comparative international legal studies from the establishment of soviet international legal scholarship, while also admitting, that the comparative method could have been used in international law since the very birth of the latter [Mamlyuk, Mattei 2011:389]. The introduction of the term "tradition" should justify this approach. By tradition we mean purposeful research efforts to differentiate international legal knowledge or to identify existing dissimilarities in its understanding. Taking into account the existence of "so called anglo-american and continental schools of thought in international law" at that time, it should be underlined, that these schools didn't go in for opposing their views to others, nor for sustained comparison. [Lauterpacht 1931:31]. 30  notion of international legal systems with the aim to illustrate the development of different outgrowths of the international law. For instance, he ranged the Socialist international law among the traditional international law (meaning customs and general treaty rules), the UN law 32 (first of all, resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly, as well as the judgements rendered by the ICJ), the 'regional' international law [McWhinney 1964:36]. In the same decade W. Butler started his course "Soviet, Chinese and Western Approaches to International Law" at the Harward Law School. The years of his comparative studies resulted in the widely-known collection of essays, which came out in 1980 as a stand-alone volume titled "International Law in Comparative Perspective". Except numerous single works on treatment of international law inside domestic legal systems it can be seen that by the end of the XX century comparative international law has obtained the robust analytical experience (but appearingly still lacks methodological one).

Focus at national approaches
to international law Today we observe the new splash of interest to the comparative method in the context of intensifying discourse on national approaches. Some scholars aim for overriding commonplace Eurocentrism and draw attention to diverse regional and national traditions. For instance, the aforementioned TWAIL school insists that pre-colonial Third World states had their own rules of interstate conduct, laws of treaties and laws of war [ ]. Another path involves the research into the role of different actors in forming any particular attitude to international law, like national scholastic approaches to international law 33 . Nowadays the subject of 'diversified' international law appears in works on separate national perspectives as wells as in integral research papers [Roberts, Stephan 2015: 467-474]. It should be noted, that the object of such comparative legal studies does not confine itself to normative materials or mental conceptions on law. For instance, W. Butler includes into their scope differences and similarities in legal schools, historic regularities, extra-legal factors of differences, particularities of law created by international institutions, special considerations in international adjudication, regional ideological, theological subsystems, cultural patterns and national approaches [Butler 1986:32-44]. By the term "national approach" W. Butler understood the State's attitude towards international law expressed in the assembly of words, documents and gathered experience. Their accumulation form policies on concrete matters of international law [Butler 1986:44]. From this point of view, the national approach is tantamount to Lacharrière's concept of international legal policy. However, it's not the only perspective on its definition.
In the work "Russian approaches to international law" Estonian scholar L. Mälksoo analyses early Russian theories of international law, soviet and contemporary thinking and seeks to determine how these ideas shape modern State's practice. But thereby he narrows down complete national approach to the scholastic one. Viewed in this way national approach won't be an equivalent to international legal policy. Such national approach would have to embrace divergent or even contradictory opinions of national scholars on one question, while international legal policy is singular and unambiguous. In international studies the term "national approach" is often applied for description of State's positions on concrete matters, like attitudes to the rule of law, to compliance with international norms etc. Besides notion of "national approach", comparativists appeal to "national style" and "legal culture". W. Butler presents national style as an aggregation of extra-legal, quasi-legal and legal factors, including State's historical experience and mode of foreign relations, geopolitical frontiers, links to foreign communities, sense of mission, extent of power of influence, techniques of foreign policy, competences of national institutions, legal methodology [Butler 1986:80]. Legal culture seems even more focused on extra-legal elements, as it embodies a national identity of State just in legal terms. In the context of international law "legal culture" is a kind of an individual voice in the choir of those who cre- 32 The idea to mark out the UN law might have been one of the first steps anticipating the phenomenon of fragmentation, which was determined in international scholarship only in the new millennium. See: Fragmentation of International law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi ate legal norms. In other words "legal culture" predetermines the national vision of international legal order, which by extension to global level can intersect and conflict with other visions [Joannet 2006:295]. After a quick glance on potential objects for comparative studies of international law the impression is that everyone feels the dissemblance of States, but can't find a right term to express it. Herefrom we get so many words, which overlaps in meaning, but are not identical to each other. Thuswise the object of comparative international law is either too vague or too extensive.
Without prejudice to comparativists' capacities, it would be more appropriate to specify their agenda. A. Roberts first concentrated on the role of national courts in a process of nationalizing international law through its interpretation and application (instead of impartial enforcement). In this context she characterizes the 'comparative international law' as "loosely fusing international law substance with comparative law methodologies" [Roberts 2011:73-74]. B.N. Mamlyuk finds comparative studies more fruitful in the research of the soft law. In his view problems of positive law across jurisdictions are enough covered by existing international and inner research fields, while institutional projects are little addressed [Mamlyuk 2011:441]. In a climate of growing vogue of interdisciplinary research, the policy-oriented mode from half a century ago is constantly at play. The authors of the policy-oriented approach to international law (which was then developed to the New Haven School), M.S. McDougal and H.D. Lasswell effectively embraced the comparative method for consistent description of power-processes. In their view it could contribute to clarifying differences and enabling cooperation among authoritative decisionsmakers [McDougal 1952:57].
It seems that project of comparative international law encompasses every research into dissimilitudes or contradictions of States' positions on international legal matters. The comparative method allows to lift researcher's viewpoint slightly over examined objects and thereby to provide a full sight of the problem. In case of States' standpoints on particular matters the substance of differences is generally intelligible. For instance, different positions on the status of the Arctic and its continental shelf, on the status of natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies, on legitimacy of support to local producers by means of investment measures, on the meaning of public interest exception and many other more or less obvious controversial questions. The problem is that these positions haven't yet been systemised in the context of international legal policy. The Chinese foreign policy can serve a good illustration. It's widely known that China regards the Arctic as a region where «community with a shared future for mankind» should be built in contrast to its «original inter-Arctic States nature». This position is plainly declared in its Arctic Policy of 2018, in the terms of "near Arctic State" status, "win-win result", "multi-level, omni-dimensional and wide-ranging cooperation" 34 . The same discourse on the 'shared future' and 'mutual benefit' is applied in the "Belt and Road" Initiative 35 . Thereby it can be seen that the State adopts its international legal policy, which is formed by one logic and based on one mechanism. Therefore international legal policy is supposed to be coherent and consistent in every aspect of State's external interactions. It allows to reveal the policy's inner-workings. Once they are revealed, comparativist can get down to work.

Conclusion
The international legal policy is a system of nonlegal elements directly tied to the legal aspects of international relations. While legal framework is inherently constant, its multi-faceted substance varies on individual basis, therefore presents a special interest for comparative studies. It would be better to examine a new research subject with the established methodology. However the comparative studies in the field of international law hasn't yet formed their precise methodological tenets, so as to provide international legal policy with systemic treatment. We certainly know where the comparative research of international legal policy cannot be inserted: the framing field of comparative foreign relations law treats a categorially different subject. Within comparative international law the research of international legal policy will benefit from creative freedom. But international legal policy's nature and its scope of questions should be clearly distinguished from contiguous terms. The most important moment about