SHAW’S INTERPRETATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: THEORETICAL REFLECTIONS

Introduction.The 8^th edition of M. Shaw’s textbook on “International Law” (2017) provides an opportunity to reflect on how the most “burning” and complicated issues of contemporary International law are interpreted in the West and in the Russian Federation.

Materials and methods. The materials for the article were the 8th edition of M. Shaw’s textbook on “International Law” (2017) in the context of the earlier relevant publications of the Russian and foreign scholars in the field of international law . The methodological basis of the research consists of general scientific and special methods .

Research results. Honesty becomes an imperative feature of contemporary textbooks on International law, hiding or distorting relevant facts are unacceptable. Naturally, the English language offers its own advantage (in respect of the much wider market that can access such a work), but Shaw’s textbook eschews the natural temptation to present an essentially anglocentric perspective in the work. It is imperative to avoid “International law” becoming “English International law” or “US International law” or “International laws”, meaning (normatively) quite different things across continents and jurisdictions. There is room for a theoretical discussion of such notions as “the Common Heritage of Mankind” (for example, is this a part of general International law? Or just a notion provided by some international agreements?) or specific territorial issues of International law. Still International law remains a coherent and unique regulator of international relations.

Discussion and conclusions. The events of 1989-1991 have presented certain opportunities for International law research, but also tragedies for peoples and challenges for the International community. The break-up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union engendered certain adjustments which, almost three decades on, are still not concluded. Perceived historical injustices have, in some instances, been attempted to be corrected. Inevitably, International law research includes consideration of the events in Ukraine since these events are the most important issue of the contemporary crisis in relations between the US/EU on the one side, and, on the other, the Russian Federation. The two opposite legal approaches are explained. According to Russian legal sources, the events of 2014 in Kiev are regarded as a coup d’état. According to Washington and the European Union (in contrast to the accusations provided in the book of the former Prime Minister of Ukraine Nikolay Azarov) the West did not intervene in the internal affairs of Ukraine in 2014 nor organize a coup in Kiev. Western legal sources ignore the very fact of the coup d’état in Kiev in  February 2014. There may be different legal qualifications of a given real-life situation. Dropping of atomic bombs by the US on the Japanese towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was differently qualified by lawyers: some qualified it as a violation of International humanitarian law, while others, as a justified measure against Japan as an aggressor during World War II. The US military intervention in Iraq in 2003 without relevant UN Security Council resolutions was treated differently by the community of international lawyers. However, there are limits for a State’s Policy of International law, for practising International law. A message is suggested: the further organization from abroad of another coup d’état – in Kazakhstan, or in Belarus, or elsewhere – is unacceptable and contradictory to the Rule of Law. “Quieta non movere”.

1. Azarov N. 2015. Ukraina na pereput’e. Zapiski prem’erministra [Ukraine at the Crossroads. Notes of the Prime Minister]. Moscow: Veche Publ. 685 p. (In Russ.)

2. Biden J. 2017. Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose. London: Macmillan. 300 p.

3. Byers M., Osthagen A. 2017. Why Does Canada Have So Many Unresolved Maritime Boundary Disputes? – The Canadian Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 54. P. 1–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cyl.2017.14

4. Evans M.D. 2006. International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 833 pp.

5. Frederick M. 1979. La délimitation du plateau continental entre le Canada et les Etats-Unis dans la mer de Beaufort. – 17 Canadian Yeabook of International Law. P. 30–98.

6. Friedman G. 2010. The next 100 years: a forecast for the 21st century. New York: Anchor. 253 p.

7. Naryshkin S.E. 2015. Gosudarstvennyi perevorot v Kieve v fevrale 2014 g. i mezhdunarodnoe pravo: interv’yu [Coup d’état in Kiev and International Law]. – Evraziiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. No. 2 (81). P. 8–10. (In Russ.)

8. Self-Determination and Secession in International Law. Ed. by Walter C., Ungern-Sternberg A. von, Abushov K. 2014. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 334 p.

9. Shaw M. 2017. International Law. 8th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1033 pp.

10. Voronin E.R., Kulebyakin V.N., Nikolaev A.V. 2015. Gosudarstvennyi perevorot v Kieve v fevrale 2014 g.: mezhdunarodno-pravovye otsenki i posledstviya [The Coup d’état in Kyiv in February 2014: International Law Context and Consequences]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 1 (97). P. 11–28. (In Russ.)

11. Vylegzhanin A.N., Young O.R., Berkman P.A. 2018. Governing the Barents Sea Region: Current Status, Emerging Issues and Future Options. Ocean Development & International Law. – Ocean Development & International Law. Vol. 49. Issue 1. P. 52–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2017.1365545