Ivan Kurill: "Laws" apply "in Russia for specific cases"

“This was what was thinking about in connection with foreign policy (and not only with it). And with the Day of the Constitution (and not only with it). Europe and America grew out of it have developed the same Rule of Law, which is difficult to translate into Russian, they are translated as“ the rule of law ”, then as a“ legal state. ”This is not just law -abiding. “The Danish and Daniel Webster” a brilliant lawyer wins the Devil himself, and he can be appreciated .

“Not in Russia. Here laws are“ applied ”for specific occasions, and these are not walls at all, but convenient mobile fences behind which there are policemen (and the same policemen move them in the directions convenient for them: an hour ago you can walk, but now, by the evening they will again open the movement).

This difference has repeatedly caused serious international problems.
When the Western leaders told Gorbachev that NATO would not advance east, but did not sign any binding agreements on this topic, they used (realizing this or not) this difference: the Soviet leaders had reasons (based on their ideas about the "gentlemanly agreements") to consider that such an obligation was given, while the approach of the "supremacy of law" prompted Western leaders And their successors, that - since there is no contract - no one promised anything.

This trick was completely legal, like that Webster victory over the devil, but did not seem honest to the Russians. He was not honest in the Russian sense of the word, but the system of international relations has long reduced the variety of interpersonal and international exchanges to the dry language of legal formulas. Legally true, it means honestly too.

When Putin violated the provisions of the Budapest Declaration in 2014 and annexed Crimea, he (realizing this or not) used the same difference: the Western leaders believed that the territorial integrity of Ukraine was guaranteed because there was such a document - while the Russian leadership decided that - since a convenient moment could have been imposed, a “police fence” can be moved.

The Russians proving that “Crimea is ours” talk about the population there, who sought to “native harbor” and seriously do not understand how a reminder of some international obligation can beat this argument. The annexation of Crimea, from their point of view, is “honest”, and therefore it just needs to be somehow “legally designed” (and it will not work out - well, let it remain as it is). The same Russians who continue to believe that Crimea - Ukrainian, rely on the idea of ​​Rule of Law, the supremacy of the law that is more important (even) of the immediate interests and joy of many people.

There are many such people in Russia, but they are in the minority. Not only foreign policy, but also domestic laws are adopted with an increasingly open neglect of Rule of Law, and they are more and more directed against the very adherents of the rule of law.

I do not want to write about any backwardness of Russia - this can be called backwardness from the position of belonging to the Western world accepting Rule of Law; If you look from a certain equivalent point, it is just about the difference. It turns out that the world (including the world of international relations) is still not one. It turns out that the Vienna Congress of 1815, which established uniform rules for diplomatic exchange for all, has not yet established the same for all relation to the laws.

Those countries that have entered the orbit of Western influence (colonies in the past, military, political, economic clients in the present), perceived the basic attitudes of the international legal system, but Russia, which retained its sovereignty from the West (as Marshal software writes, has remained the only country in the last 500 years), applies to it ... creatively. Just as creatively, the Russian leadership refers to the system of laws within the country.

Today we celebrate 26 years with a document, the authors of which, perhaps, thought that Russia is becoming part of the Western world. Although, recalling the circumstances of the adoption of the Constitution, we can assume that they doubted this. One way or another, today the slogan of Soviet dissidents is in use - "observe your constitution."
And at the same time, we can say that this is a cynical attitude to the laws is not a multi -century Russian heritage at all, but a situational playing of the opposite of the Western world, the construction of heritage where it was not.

We have a chance to see how it really is. It’s better to live in Russia for a long time. ”