International legal policy of a state. Modern concepts

The article examines the phenomenon of the international legal policy of state, which has been conceptually developed in the French legal doctrine. According to the classical concept of the present phenomenon, each state seeks to contribute to the content of international legal norms by participating in the coordination of wills of states in different ways. To promote and assert its position on existing and nascent international legal norms, the state constructs a policy, which guides its international legal practice. However, the conduct of an individual international legal policy raises questions, including critical ones. Interpretation of the role of international legal policy as a simple legal justification for politically motivated decisions leads to the "instrumental" concept of international legal policy. However, in the classical concept, the consideration of international law as an instrument of the state's foreign policy is not acceptable and, moreover, contradicts the very objective of international legal policy – legitimation. The achievement of this purpose is subject to the principle of the rule of international law in international relations. In its turn the instrumental understanding of the international legal policy allows for departures from the existing international law and thereby contributes to international legal destabilization. In this context, the article shows that being flexible the international law develops with the changing interests of states on the international arena on the background of various interstate relations, while the international law’s flexibility is considered as an essential prerequisite for its development. and tasks of states in the international arena. During the development of new norms of international law, the conduct by the state of a competent, active international legal policy, even if its partners do not agree with it, does not per se prejudice the foundations of international law. On the contrary, the policy aimed at its adjustment is a conditio sine qua non for the maintenance of international legal order, its evolutionary adaptation to changing international relations, other challenges of our time. Thuswise the concept of international legal policy allows us to reconsider the competition of multi-vector international legal «manoeuvers" of states.

1. Aalberts T., Gammeltoft-Hansen T. (2018). Sovereignty Games, International Law and Politics. In T. Aalberts & T. Gammeltoft-Hansen (eds.), The Changing Practices of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 251 p. P. 26–44.

2. Beard C. A., Smith G. H. E., Vagts A., Beard W. (1966). The Idea of National Interest: an Analytical Study in American Foreign Policy. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. xxv. 475 p.

3. Bodin J. (1579). Les six livres de la République. de l'impr. de Jean de Tournes. Lyon. 762 p.

4. Botero G. (2017). The Reason of State. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge University Press. (1589). Ed. by R. Bireley. 70 p.

5. Brownlie J. (2008). Principles of Public International Law. 7th ed. Oxford: OUP. 784 p.

6. Caron D. D. (1993) The Legitimacy of the Collective Authority of the Security Council. American Journal of International Law. Vol. 87. No. 4. P. 552–588.

7. Cazala J. (2013). Retour sur un classique: Guy de Lacharrière, La politique juridique extérieure. Revue générale de droit international public. Vol. 2. P. 411–416

8. Chayes A., Chayes A.H. (1998). The New Sovereignty: compliance with international regulatory agreements. Harvard University Press. 417 p.

9. Corten O. (2016). The ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Test: Has it Been and Could it be, Accepted?Leiden Journal of International Law. Vol. 29. P. 777–799.

10. Coussirat-Coustère V. (1983). Guy de Lacharrière. La politique juridique extérieure // Politique étrangère. Vol. 48. No. 4. P. 1000–1002.

11. Daillier P., Forteau M. (2009). Droit international public. 8 Edition. L.J.D.J. Paris. 1709 p.

12. De Lacharrière G. L. (1983). La politique juridique extérieure. Paris: Economica. 231 p.

13. Franck T. (1995) Fairness in International Law and Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. xxxvi. 484 p.

14. Franck T. (1988). Legitimacy in the International System. American Journal of International Law. Vol. 82. No. 4. P. 705–759.

15. Johnstone I., Ratner S. (eds) (2021) Talking International Law. Legal Argumentation Outside the Courtroom. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 376 p.

16. Koh H. H. (1997). Why Do Nations Obey International Law? The Yale Law Journal. 1997. Vol. 106 (8). P. 599–659.

17. Kolb R. (2015). Reflexions sur les politiques juridiques extérieures. Ed. A. Pedone. Paris. 138 p.

18. Kozhevnikov F.I. (ed.) (1967). Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava. V shesti tomakh. Tom I. Ponyatie I suschnost’ sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava [International Law Course. In six volumes. Volume I. The concept and nature of modern international law]. Moscow: Nauka. P. 14–18.

19. Krisch N. (2005). International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power and the Shaping of the International Legal Order. European Journal of International Law. Vol.16. No. 3. P. 369–408.

20. Krylov S.B. (1956). Ot nauchnogo redaktora [From the Editor]. In: Krylov S.B. (ed.) Grotsij G. O prave vojny i mira. Tri knigi, v kotorykh ob’yasnyayutsya estestvennoe parvo i parvo narodov, a takzhe printsipy publichnogo prava. Moscow: Gosjurizdat. P. 4.

21. Kumm M. (2004). The Legitimacy of International Law: A Constitutionalist Framework of Analysis. European Journal of International Law. Vol. 15. P. 907–931.

22. Levin D. B. (1960). The question of the relationship between diplomacy and international law in the light of the principle of peaceful coexistence. In: Sovetskij ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava. P. 109–120.

23. Lukashuk I.I. (1997). Mezhdunarodnoe parvo. Obschaya chast’ [International Law. General Part]. Moscow. 371 p.

24. Machiavelli N. (2016/1513). The Prince. Dover Thrift Editions: Philosophy. 80 p.

25. Megret F. (2021). Foreign Legal Policy as the Background to Foreign Relations Law? Revisiting Guy de Lacharriere’s La politique juridique exterieure. In Aust P.A., Kleinlein T. (eds) Encounters between Foreign Relations Law and International Law: Bridges and Boundaries. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 450 p. P. 108–129.

26. Meinecke F. (1924). Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’État and Its Place in Modern History. London. Routledge. 487 p.

27. Mjullerson R.A., Tunkin G.I. (eds.) (1989). Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava. V semi tomakh. T. 1. Ponyatie, predmet i sistema mezhdunarodnogo prava [International Law Course. In seven volumes. Volume 1. Concept, subject and system of international law]. Moscow: Nauka. P. 184–189.

28. Morgenthau H. J. (1949). The Primacy of the National Interest. American Scholar. Vol.18. No. 2. P. 207–212.

29. Movchan A.P. (1996). Mezhdunarodnyj pravovoj poryadok [International Legal Order]. Moscow. 102 p.

30. Mulligan S. P. (2005). The Uses of Legitimacy in International Relations.Millennium. Vol. 34. P. 349–375.

31. Murray D. (2017). Flawed and Unnecessary: the ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Doctrine Pertaining to States’ Use of Force in Self-Defence against Non-State Actors. Hague Yearbook of International Law / Annuaire de La Haye de Droit International. Vol. 30. P. 59–118.

32. Pellet A. (1985). Le Sage, le Prince et le Savant (A propos de «La politique juridique extérieure» de Guy de Lacharrière). Journal du Droit International. Vol. 112. P. 407–414.

33. Savenkov A.N. (2020). Gosudarstvo i parvo v period krizisa sovremennoj tsivilizatsii [State and Law in the crisis of modern civilization]. Moscow: Prospekt. 319 p.

34. Schachter O. (1982). International Law in Theory and Practice. General Course in Public International Law. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Vol. 178 (I). P. 9–396.

35. Shaw M. (2008). International Law. Sixth Edition. Cambridge. University Press. Cambridge. New York. 1708 p.

36. Sovremennaya nauka mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij za rubezhom. Hrestomatiya v trekh tomah. (2015) [Modern foreign science of international relations. The anthology in 3 volumes] Volume 2. Chief-editor I.S. Ivanov. Moscow. P. 434–580.

37. Stoll P.T., Vöneky S. (2002). The Swordfish Case: Law of the Sea vs. Trade. Heidelberg Journal of International Law. Vol. 62. P. 21–36.

38. Teson F. R. (2018). A Philosophy of International law. Routledge. 207 p.

39. Thomas C. A. (2014). The Uses and Abuses of Legitimacy in International Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 34. No. 4. P. 729–758.

40. Trimble P. R. (1990). Review Essay: International Law, World Order and Critical Legal Studies. Stanford Law Review. Vol. 42. P. 811–845.

41. Tunkin G. I. (1958). Foundations of modern international law. M.: 1958. 48 p. (In Russ.)

42. Tunkin G.I. (1970). Theory of International Law. M. Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya. 511 p. (In Russ.)

43. Vattel E. (2008). The Law of Nations / eds. by Kapossy B., Whatmore R. – Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. 896 p.

44. Voronin E.R., Kulebjakin V.N., Nikolaev A.V. (2015). Gosudarstvennyj perevorot v Kieve v fevrale 2014g. [Coup d'état in Kiev in February 2014]. Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 1. P. 11–28.

45. Vylegzhanin A.N., Dudikina I.P. (2016). Ponyatie “mezhdunarodno-pravovaya politika gosudarstva” [The Politics of International Law as a Concept]. Moscow Journal of International Law. No. 4. P. 21–37.

46. Vylegzhanin A.N. (2016). Voprosy sootnosheniya i vzaimodejstviya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij i mezhdunarodnogo prava [Issues of interactions of International Relations and International Law]. In: Ivanov I.S. (ed.) Sovremennaya nauka mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij za rubezhom. Khrestomatiya v tryekh tomakh. T. 2. Мoscow: Aspekt Рress. P. 418–433.

47. Weil P. (1983). Towards Relative Normativity in International Law? American Journal of International Law. Vol. 77. No. 3. P. 413–442.

48. Weil P. (1996). Le Droit International en quête de son identité. Recueil des cours de l’Academie de droit international. Vol. 6. No. 237. 369 p.