Canadian Slavonic Papers

Die Völkerrechtssubjektivität der Unionsrepubliken der UdSSR by HENN-JÜRI UIBOPUUReview by: Richard SzawlowskiCanadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 18, No. 4 (December 1976), pp.476-477Published by: Canadian Association of SlavistsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40867520 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 07:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Canadian Association of Slavists and Canadian Slavonic Papers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:05:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

476 I Canadian Slavonic Papers

western Soviet borderlands if they had improved their research along the lines suggested here.

[Bohdan Harasymiw, University of Calgary]

Die Völkerrechtssubjektivität der Unionsrepubliken der UdSSR. HENN-JÜRI UIBOPUU. Vienna and New York: Springer- Verlag, 1975. xv, 341 pp. DM 118.

Central to this book is the problem of the international legal personality of the Union Republics of the USSR. The Soviet 1936 Constitution (article 18) provides that "the right to secede freely from the USSR is reserved to every Union Republic." It also stipulates, in article 18a (added in 1944), that "each Union Republic has the right to enter into direct relations with foreign states and to conclude agreements and exchange diplomatic and consular representatives with them." It is on this basis that Soviet writers advance the idea that all the Union Republics have an international legal personality - a much too simplistic proposition.

The author, a dozent of law in Austria, but born in Estonia, is well qualified to challenge that stand. He spent over two months on research in three Union Republics but was never given a chance to contact the so-called Foreign Ministries of those Republics - a circumstance which speaks for itself.

Uibopuu correctly says that constituent parts of a federation may, in principle, be subjects of international law, although this status would result not only from the relevant provisions of the respective federal constitution but also from the actions of other members of the international community. (Such Western federations as Canada do not like this idea at all. Canadian diplomatic action in the 'sixties helped to mobilize the large majority to reject the passage in the draft of the Law of Treaties giving constituent parts of federations the ius contrahendi under certain circumstances and the 1969 Convention does not contain it.)

The USSR would not dream, for obvious reasons, of allowing any Republic to secede. And, only in order to gain two additional votes in the UN General Assembly (sometimes also an additional vote in the UN Security Council and ECOSOC) and in most of the UN Specialized Agencies, membership of the Ukrainian and Belorussian Republics as separate states in those bodies was forced by Stalin on the West. Mainly because of this membership, the author is inclined to acknowledge the two Republics as being what he calls particular and partial subjects of international law. The remaining constituent Republics (and Ukraine and Belorussia, except in their actual international activities, mainly limited to their membership in the UN bodies) may only be qualified as potential subjects of international law.

The author tries to offer some answers as to why the Soviets adhere, with such obstinacy, to the fiction of the Union Republics being subjects of international law - for instance, to satisfy the national pride of the individual nations. One striking argument is that this fiction could also be useful in the case of a potential territorial enlargement of the USSR. One might speculate (for a detailed presentation see my System of the International Organizations of the Communist Countries, Leiden, Sijthoff, 1976) that, as a result of the large-scale integration now going on in the Soviet bloc in response to West European integration and for other reasons, in some two decades, with the rebus sic stantibus proviso, Moscow may feel that constitutional integration of the smaller East European countries should be attempted. In such a case, the above fiction could be useful - not only for

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:05:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews | 477

psychological reasons but also, for instance, to keep the membership and votes of all potential new Union Republics in the UN bodies.

In sum, Uibopuu provides an interesting, well-documented and useful book. [Richard Szawlowski, University of Calgary]

Soviet Foreign Policy, 1962-1973: The Paradox of Super Power. ROBIN EDMONDS. London: Oxford University Press, 1975. xiv, 197 pp. $12.75.

This book - written by a member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who served during 1969-71 in the British Embassy in Moscow and put forth as a "reappraisal" of the past, present, and future course of super-power relations -

promises much more than it is able to deliver. The main problem lies with the format. The author attempts to cover more

than a decade of the Soviet Union's increasingly worldwide foreign policy within the compass of fewer than 1 80 pages. The book is fragmented by its division into no less than seventeen separate chapters, some of a topical nature ("The Theory," "Defence Policy") and others along chronological lines ("1970," "1971"). Furthermore, chapters are further sub-divided into a quick succession of brief sections. There is, for example, a seven-page chapter on "Asia" which is composed of two pages on the Vietnam War, four on the Sino-Soviet dispute, and one on the June 1969 Conference of Communist Parties. The result, alas, is a book which is both too fleeting and superficial for specialists and too highly compressed for undergraduate students. At times the book moves so quickly through events that it reads almost like a chronology in paragraph form.

The author seems unable to decide whether to aim at the synthesis and popularization of what is already well-known to specialists or at providing his own individual (and sometimes idiosyncratic) analysis. As a result, he accomplishes neither objective adequately. This is all the more unfortunate, because, had the author more clearly focused his quite evident talents and had he drawn upon his first-hand experience in Moscow (a dimension which is almost totally lacking in the book), he could certainly have made a significant contribution to our understanding of Soviet foreign policy.

[Paul Marantz, University of British Columbia]

Russian Folklore: An Anthology in English Translation. ALEX E. ALEXANDER. Belmont, Mass.: Nordland, 1975. 400 pp. $16.95.

A book of Russian folklore is long overdue, and Professor Alexander is to be commended for his effort; but however useful this anthology justly proves to be, it must be used with caution. The non-reader of Russian (for whom this book is intended) who takes the author's word that this is what Russian folklore is like will be somewhat mistaken; for while the contents cover a wide range and most of the sense is there, the spirit is not adequately caught and the translation is not always accurate.

Chapter titles convey the contents: Ceremonial Poetry Connected with the Calendar; Wedding Ceremonials and Chants; Funeral Laments; Charms; Proverbs and Proverbial Sayings; Folktales; The Russian Folk Epos; Historical Songs; The Ballad; Religious Verses; Songs of Serfdom; Love Lyrics; and The Chastushka. The chapter introductions by the editor, besides the general introduction by William E. Harkins, are all rather good. The texts themselves, however, require analysis.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:05:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions