Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic Research Articles

БІЛЬШОВИЦЬКА МОДЕЛЬ УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ ДЕРЖАВНОСТІ: СПРОБА ВТІЛЕННЯ У 1919 р.

The article considers the process of establishing Soviet power in Ukraine in 1919. The political principles of the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR) as a variant of the Bolshevik model of statehood are analyzed. It is substantiated that the political system of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic (RSFSR) was taken as a model. The power structure was headed by the Provisional Workers and Peasants Government of Ukraine, which exercised the powers not only of the central governing body, but was also the highest legislative body of state power. All its activities were directed and controlled by the TsK RKP(b), the Radnarkom of the RSFSR, and the TsK KP(b)U. The most common form of Soviet power on the ground were revolutionary committees. The Revolutionary Committees carried out all current work on the places: organizing kombidy and komnezamy, seeking to implement prodrozverstki plans, conducting an election campaign, etc. A characteristic feature of the Bolshevik political system was the establishment of an absolute monopoly on state power – all the People’s Commissars of the USSR represented only one ruling party. Ukrainian left-wing socialist parties have been denied a request to include their representatives in the government. Another characteristic feature of the Bolshevik political system in Ukraine was its foreign non-Ukrainian character – in the leading party and government bodies of the republic several times the majority were representatives of other nationalities. Based on the analysis of Bolshevik documents, it is proved that the Central Committee of the RKP(B) steadfastly sought the complete elimination of the sovereignty of the USSR and its unification with the RSFSR. During the spring and summer of 1919, a number of measures were taken to unite the two republics. However, the formal unification of Ukraine with Russia was hampered by the forces of Denikin.

“The Peace of Jurjev” Between Russia and Estonia: History and Consequences

The article focuses on the Treaty of Tartu of February 2, 1920 between the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic and the Democratic Republic of Estonia, which laid the foundation for relations between the two countries for 20 years. As a result of the annexation of Estonia to the USSR in 1940, it ceased to have legal force. However, since the collapse of the USSR, the Estonian side has been trying to “bring it back to life” by declaring it a “cornerstone” of its independence, defining, inter alia, its land border. The article traces the history of the treaty, examines its consequences, briefly analyses the current political controversy surrounding it, and evaluates its assessment in contemporary Russian and Estonian historiography. Having studied the documents and experts' opinions, the author concludes that, although the Treaty of Tartu has no legal force, it is an instructive example of how an imperfect “compromise” international agreement has affected the subsequent relationship between the states. This article draws on documents from the Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation, published in the collection of documents of Foreign Policy of the USSR, and from the State Archive of the Republic of Estonia.

Novelties of the Soviet Constitutionalism: The Principle of Unity of Powers

ABSTRACTThe paper’s purpose is to analyze the provisions of the first Soviet Constitution in terms of the relationship between the legislative and executive political institutions, and to examine whether and to what extent the principle of unity of powers had been prescribed. The analysis is based on the legal method, since the competences and the relationship of legislative and executive institutions had been explicitly prescribed by the Constitution. It also contains an analysis of the theoretical approach of the Marxist theoreticians to the system of government. The conclusion is that the Constitution of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic prescribed the principle of democratic unity of powers, and the system of assembly government, which had been based on the superiority of the representative body over the executive. However, it had not been a “clear” system of assembly government, since the executive (Sovnarkom [the Soviet of People’s Commissars]) had some important competences. Although the leading theoreticians of the new regime had not envisaged this possibility, it occurred as the result of the extraordinary circumstances caused by the civil war, as well as of the fact that the Marxist theory on the new system of government had not been developed in all its aspects.

Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North and Cold War Ideology

During the Soviet period, much of Western scholarship on the smaller indigenous groups of the Russian north and far east-that is, Peoples-was shaped by Cold War ideology. In this paper, we analyze ways in which Cold War ideology distorted representations of Soviet policy toward Peoples, and some of the consequences of these distortions.1By Northern we mean the 26 relatively small, indigenous groups of the north and far east of the former U.S.S.R. which were designated as nationalities by the Soviet state. Their traditional cultures were based on hunting, fishing, trapping, and reindeer breeding. In the late 1980s, the 26 Peoples ranged in population approximately 34 000 Nenets to approximately 200 Oroki (International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) 1990). Two larger groups in northern Siberia-the Sakha/Yakut and the Komi, each numbering around 300 000-were not counted among the smaller nationalities.Most of the Peoples lived in seven Autonomous Regions created by the Soviet state in the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic (RSFSR). By the 1960s, in practically all of these regions, Peoples were greatly outnumbered by people elsewhere in the U.S.S.R., mostly Russians (Armstrong 1978). Generally, the newcomers were transients who lived in urban centres while Northerners lived in rural areas.Cold War IdeologiesThe Cold War (1945-91) can be characterized as a contest between the former Soviet Bloc, led by the U.S.S.R., and the West, led by the U.S., which stopped short of direct U.S.-Soviet armed conflict largely because of the threat of mutual assured destruction posed by nuclear war. This contest involved, among other things, comparisons between various aspects of life in the West and the Soviet Bloc in an effort to marshal political support for capitalism or socialism. Such comparisons were embedded in particular ideologies. These ideologies attempted to provide answers to fundamental questions about the nature and direction of the West and the Soviet Bloc: why was each side the way it was? Was this good or bad? What should be done about it, if anything? (see Dolbeare and Dolbeare 1971; Eagleton 1991).Marxism-Leninism, the official ideology of the former U.S.S.R., was based on the view that capitalism involved exploitation of workers by capitalists (Bartels 1999), and that such exploitation had been eliminated in the U.S.S.R. The Soviet state, which owned the major means of production, communication, and exchange, viewed itseld as an instrument of working people's rule, and thus as democratic. It was illegal for individuals to own the major means of production, exchange and communication. Otherwise, exploitation would reappear. Surplus provided by Soviet workers was to be used to insure security of the state and the socialist social order, and to improve Soviet living standards (see Afanasyev et al. 1974; Bartels 1999). Revenues state-owned enterprises largely supported all social services, including housing, education, daycare, heat, light, medical care, and pensions. As a result, taxes were very low, as were basic living expenses such as the cost of certain food items, rent, utilities, and public transport, including internal air travel. Employment was guaranteed by the state. Soviet socialism was based on the principle, from each according to their ability, to each according to their work, and was seen as the penultimate stage in an evolutionary progression culminating in a stateless, technologicallyadvanced communist society based on the principle, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need (see Khorzov et al. 1977:393-406).In contrast, the ideological foundation of Western societies during the Cold War centred on freedom of individuals to publicly express their political views, to worship, to travel, to participate in a multiparty electoral system, and to own property, including the major means of production, communication and exchange. …

The Soviet Archival System from the Russian Revolution to the 1930's

Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 resulted not only in the establishment of the Socialist regime, but also in the critical changes in the Russian archival system. Soviet government issued On the Reorganization and Centralization of Archival Affairs in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, which prepared the ground for the archival administration in USSR. After having been revised and supplemented in the 1920's, the decree, signed by V. I. Lenin, was changed into The Decree on the Archival Administration of Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, by which the Bolshevik government was able not only to develop the conception of the State Archival Fond with the Single Archival Fond, but also to enlarge the archival collection. Besides, it was remarkable that the archival decree of 1929 provided the justification for actual developments of the archival institution. And from the practical point of view, the decree improved the archival affairs by means of the defining of the conservation period. It was at the beginning of the Stalin's period that the decree of 1929 was issued. Therefore, it may be said that the decree was one of the proofs as well as the agricultural collectivization and the industrialization that Stalin gained the overall control of the Soviet government. It was confirmed when the Second Conference of Soviet Archivists was held from 25 May to 1 June in 1929. After this meeting, M. N. Pokrovskii, who was the director of the Archival Administration in the course of the 1920's, lost the influence over the Soviet archival organizations, which meant that the autonomy of the Soviet archivists was reduced in a great degree. Central Archival Administration of the Bolshevik regime experienced the analogous changes. It was changed into the Central Archival Agent in 1929 when the Stalinist system became strengthened. At the same time, it was significant that the Central Archival Administration of USSR was established. However, the Soviet archival affairs became under the direct control of the N. K. V. D. in the period of the Great Purge.

The Evolution of Research Ethics: The Current International Configuration

I propose in this essay to briefly describe some of the main current stakeholders who issue guidance on the ethics of human subjects research. This will be preceded by a very brief historical introduction.Prior to World War II, as far as I have been able to ascertain, there were no international efforts to regulate human experimentation. National activities were few and far between. One exception was a Directive on Human Experimentation issued in December 1900 by the then Prussian Minister of Religious, Educational and Medical Mairs. This was followed by a Circular on innovative therapy and scientific experimentation promulgated by the then Reich Minister of the Interior in February 1931. Just over five years later, in April 1936, the Bureau of the Medico-Scientific Council of the People’s Commissariat for Health of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic (RSFSR), the main constituent Republic of the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, issued an Advisory Resolution on the procedures for testing new medicinal substances and methods which may present a hazard for the health and life of patients.

Inheritance Law in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China: An Unfriendly Comment

In a recent article published in the American Journal of Comparative Law,' Frances Foster-Simons states: With the continuing expansion of succession rights and growth in inheritable property, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that a socialist inheritance law flourishes either in the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China.2 This statement is based on an analysis of the evolution of the relevant provisions of Soviet and Chinese inheritance laws. For Russia, Section I of the 1918 R.S.F.S.R. Central Executive Committee's Decree on the Repeal of Inheritance proclaimed: testate and interstate succession are repealed. Following the death of the owner property belonging to him (both moveable and immoveable) becomes the property of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.3 The author sees this as the embodiment of the communist philosophy of inheritance, but finds it compromised by the very same device: Despite the uncompromising language of its opening clause the R.S.F.S.R. Decree of 1918 expressly permitted the continued succession of close relatives of the deceased in certain specified cases.4 This recognition of certain inheritance rights is termed as the survival stage of socialist inheritance law. The next stage, termed institutionalization,5 was initiated by the 1922 Decree Concerning Basic Private Property Rights Admitted in the RSFSR, Safeguarded by its Laws and Protected by its Courts, and the Civil Code of the

The School's Basic Document

Regulations of the Secondary General Education School, approved by the USSR Council of Ministers, is the basic document of the Soviet school, which comprehensively defines its activities. Following the Great October Socialist Revolution, the first regulatory document of the Soviet school was The Statute on the Unified Labor School of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, confirmed by a Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee dated October 16, 1918. Socialist democratic principles of school affairs were proclaimed in this document.

Liability for Crime

The Penal Code of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic: ‘Article 10. Persons who commit socially dangerous acts shall be liable to the application of measures of social defence of a judicial-correctional character only—(a) if they acted deliberately,i.e., if they foresaw the socially dangerous consequences of their acts, or desired those consequences, or knowingly permitted them to happen, or(b) if they acted carelessly,i.e., if they did not foresee the consequences of their acts although they ought to have foreseen them, or if they light-mindedly hoped to avert auch consequences.’

The Baltic States and the Soviet Union

The development of political relations between the Baltic States and the Soviet Union has passed through two distinctive stages. The first began with the conclusion of treaties of peace signed in 1920 between Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Finland, and the then Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic. By the terms of these treaties Soviet Russia renounced all its previous rights of sovereignty over the territory of the Baltic States and unreservedly recognized their independence.

Wulfsohn v. Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.

Jurisdiction — Exemptions from — Non-Recognised Governments.Governments — Recognition of — Non-Recognition — Effects of — Non-Recognised Governments as Defendants — Non-Recognition of Soviet Russia by the United States.

Political Organization of the Soviet Power

A NY discussion of Russian-American relations necessarily involves a consideration of the political organization of the power now exercising control of the major portion of the territories of the former Russian Empire-the Soviet Federation. It is the purpose of this paper to answer the question: What is the Soviet Federation? The present organization of the Soviet power-the so-called Federation of Soviet Socialist Republics, was established by a treaty concluded on December 30, 1922, between the four Soviet Republics known as the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, the Ukraine Socialist Soviet Republic, the White Russian Socialist Soviet Republic, and the Trans-Caucasian Federated Soviet Republic. The relations between these four states of the Federation are defined by a constitution which was promulgated on July 6, 1923, and definitely confirmed by the Second Federal Congress of Soviets on January 31, 1924. Prior to the creation of this new or-

Trade Agreement Between His Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic

Trade Agreement Between His Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic

Soviet Government in Russia

The Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic was proclaimed by the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets in November, 1917, shortly after the Bolshevist party had overthrown the Kerensky government by the force of arms. Eight months later, the Fifth All-Russian Congress adopted a constitution. Since it was the party of Lenin and Trotzky that had invented the slogan “all power to the Soviets” and changed Russia from a prospective democracy to a soviet republic, American public opinion came to identify the soviet form of political organization with bolshevism and all the policies it stands for, including the dictatorship of the proletariat, and nationalization all along the line of economic life.