Abstract
The Declaration of Rights of Laboring and Exploited People, of 1917, proclaimed that ‘The Russian Soviet Republic is formed on the basis of a free union of free nations, as a federation of national Soviet Republics’. It is, however, seriously questionable whether the Soviet Union is actually a federation of ‘sovereign states’ and ‘autonomous republics’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Even the R.S.F.S.R., the largest of the Union Republics, has only seven independent ministries. See Trainin, ‘Gosudarstvo stroiushchegosia Kommunisma,’ Izvestiia Akademii Nauk S.S.S.R. Otd. Economiki i Prava, 1944, No. 5, p. 311. Until 1935 the U.S.S.R. Supreme Court was principally an advisory body. In its competence was examination and protest against the TsIK (Central Executive Committee) of the U.S.S.R., at the instance of the federal Attorney General (Procurator General of the U.S.S.R.) resolutions, decisions and verdicts of the supreme Courts of Union Republics. (U.S.S.R. Const, of 1924, Art. 43, b.) But the 1936 Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1938 (Art. 64) vested in the supreme court of the U.S.S.R. ‘the supervision of the judicial activities of all the judicial organs of the U.S.S.R., and of Union Republics.’ (Art. 104). Still more centralized is the activity of Procurators of Republics who are under submission to the Procurator-General of the U.S.S.R. who appoints them (Art. 115).
Peculiarities of the constitutions of different Soviet Union Republics are described by Henry H. Collins, Jr in his article ‘The Constitutions of the Soviet Republics,’ Science and Society, Winter, 1951, Vol XV, 1, pp. 17–30. See also I. Trainin, ‘Consti-tutsii novykh Soiuznykh respublik,’ Sovetskoe gosudarstvo, 1940 No. n, pp. 11–27.
Constitutions of the Turkmen Union Republic, Art. 103; of the Uzbek, Art. 121; of the Tadjik, Art. 107; of the Kazakh, Art. 100; and of the Kirghiz, Art. 93.
Paul Miliukov, Russia Today and Tomorrow, New York. Macmillan Co. 1922. Separatist and federalist movements existed among Ukrainians, Poles, Lithuanians, White Russians (Byelorussians), Georgians and Armenians (Dashnaktsiutun).
See also Halina Zasztowt-Sukiennicka, Fédéralisme en Europe Orientale. Paris, 1926. pp. 78–89.
Gui Ladreit de Lacharriere, Vidée Fédérale en Russie de Riourik à Staline, Paris, 1945. pp. 27
Gui Ladreit de Lacharriere, Vidée Fédérale en Russie de Riourik à Staline, Paris, 1945. pp. 93–995 ‘Federalism arises, as a principle, from the petty-bourgeois views of Anarchism,’ State and Revolution, Ch. III, 4 —’The Origin of National Unity.’ Cf. Gui Ladreit de Lacharriere, o.e. I, III, Marxo-Leninisme et Federalisme.
Lenin, ‘Critical Notes on National Problems,’ Sobranie Sochinenii, 1925, Vol. XIX, p. 58. See also notes 21 and 30 below.
Stalin, Marxism i Natsionalno-Kolonialnyi Vopros, 1937. p. 39–40.
Cf. W. R. Batseil, Soviet Rule in Russia, Macmillan Co. 1929, p. 272.
Stalin, ibid, p. 42.
Batsell, op. cit., p. 109.
Rakovskii insisted at the Xllth Conference that the Soviet political structure was on the wrong road, that ‘it is necessary to deprive the Union Commissariats of nine-tenths of their jurisdiction in favor of National Republics.’ (See Stenographic Reports of the XIIth Party Conference, p. 534, and Stalin’s Collected Works (in Russian), Vol. III. pp. 30–31. On the other hand, Prof. Reisner opposed Federalism unless it was a geographic federalism.
‘Federation is a transitional form.’ Stalin, Vol. Ill, p. 25, pp. 29–31.
Cf. Stalin, Marxism i Natsionalno-Kolonialnyi Vopros.
S. J. Iakubovskaia, op. cit., (See above Ch. XV, note 1).
Stalin, Vol. IV, pp. 87–88, 229. In his report to the Xth Congress of Soviets Stalin declared that only socialist states having a uniform political and social structure could be incorporated in the Soviet Union and that it is necessary to struggle ‘not only against imperialist shovinists’ (sic) but also ‘against local nationalism.’ (Stalin, Marxism i Natsionalno Kolonialnyi Vopros, pp. 93, 112–123). This principle remains a leading motto of the Soviet national policy (Cf. G. Alexandrov, ‘Veliko-derzhavnyi Shovinism,’ Politicheskii Slovar, Gosizdat. 1940).
This policy was formulated by the VIIIth Congress of the Communist Party: ‘The Party accepts a federation of states organized in conformity with the Soviet type, as a transitional form of Union on the way to their complete consolidation.’ (V.K.P. (b) v Resolutsiakh, pp. 1, 287).
Treaties of alliance with the Ukrainian S.S.R., December 20, 1920; with Georgia, May 12, 1920; with Azerbaijan on Unified Economic Policy, September 30, 1920; with Armenia, December 2, 1920; and September 30, 1921; and others.
‘The very nature of the workers’ ‘and peasants’ state, in gradual development and strengthening of the new structure of society in the Soviet Republics, is driving them towards union and towards the fusion of their forces for the realization of their common aim.’ Declaration of July 13, 1923, on the Constitution of the Soviet Union (see Batsell, op. cit., p. 301).
For example, according to the Ukrainian Constitution (Art. 35), the Presidium of the Ukrainian TsIK was deprived of the right to issue laws of basic significance only. This same Constitution was the only one of the Union Republic Constitutions which had reproduced in its text (Art. 36) the regulations concerning the right of protest against decrees and resolutions of the Sovnarkom of the U.S.S.R., and of suspending ordinances of the people’s commissariats of the U.S.S.R. Although these regulations were included in the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. of 1924 (Art. 3, 59) their repetition in the Ukrainian Constitution certainly stressed the significance and authority of local administrators. Certain of the Constitutions (Byelorussian, Art. 12; Azerbaijan, Art. 6; Georgian, Art. n; Armenian, Art. 5) had acknowledged freedom of both religious and anti-religious propaganda. This was also an essential difference compared with the other constitutions, and no longer exists.
Cf. Mark Vishniak, ‘Sovereignty in Soviet Law,’ The Russian Review, January, 1949.
Collating, for example, the Constitutions of the R.S.F.S.R. of 1927 and 1937 it is found that the enumeration of the objects of jurisdiction of the Union Republic authorities (which was only approximate in 1927—Art. 17, 18) is exhaustive in the Constitution of 1937 (Art. 19). Formation of new republics and regions was within the scope of the R.S.F.S.R. It now requires approval of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. (Art. 19, c. of the Constitution of 1936). The list of Republican Ministries (formerly Commissariats) is significantly abridged. This same picture is paralleled in the other constitutions of the Union Republics.
‘… in the interests of the successful struggle against the nationalism of all nations, in all forms… the task of preserving the unity of the proletarian struggle and of proletarian organizations, of amalgamating these organizations into an international community, in spite of the bourgeois strivings for national segregation.’ (V. I. Lenin, ‘On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination,’ Conclusion. See Lenin’s Selected Works, Vol. IV, New York. International Publishers, p. 293). ‘They (Soviet national republics) have carried out the most important program of reorganization of the political and social structure. They have built their state power on the basis of the support on the part of organizations of toiling masses and, therefore, they can be members of the Union of the friendly people’s republics under the leadership of the Soviet Union whose final goal is to unite and merge the uniformly organized nations into the potentially largest single state.’ (A. Alymov i S. Studenkin —’Sovetskii federalism i democraticheskii centralism.’ Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo, 1933, No. 1–2, p. 13).
‘The more closely the democratic system of state approximates complete freedom of secession, the rarer and wreaker will the striving for secession be in practice; for the advantages of large states, both from the point of view of economic progress and from the point of view of the interests of the masses, are beyond doubt… The recognition of self-determination is not the same as making federation a principle.’ (Lenin, Collected Works. International Publishers, Vol. XIX, p. 50).
Local taxes and other revenues of the Union Republics are relatively inconsiderable.
Ministry of Armed Forces was later divided into Ministry of Defence and Naval Forces, which merged again, in 1953, in one Ministry of Defense.
N. P. Farberov (‘S.S.S.R.—obrazets mnogonatsionalnogo gosudarstva’) refers to the three cases only when the boundaries of the Union Republics were changed in accordance with their mutual consent. Once the Byelorussian S.S.R. enlarged its territory at the expense of the R.S.F.S.R.; another time, on the contrary, it conceded a part of its territory to the Lithuanian Republic. In both cases, in conformity with the ethnographic principles. The third case took place when the Uzbeck S.S.R. received a strip of land in the neighboring republics for the construction of a large canal. (Sovietskoe Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 1951, No. 2, pp. 24–26).
Article 6 of the Constitution of 1924 gave more guarantees of rights and interests of the Union Republics: ‘The territory of the Union Republics cannot be altered without their consent,’ and ‘for modification, limitation of the right of secession the agreement of all republics forming the U.S.S.R. is required.’
I. D. Levin—Printsip suvereniteta v sovetskom mezhdunarodnom pravé. M.1947. p. 8;
Alexandrov, Politicheskii slovar (see supra note 10) 1940. Almost literally the same in Entsiklopedia Gosudarstva i Prava, III, pp. 1074–5. M. 1929–30;
I. Trainin, ‘K vorprosu o suverenitete,’ Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo, 2, 1938, p. 75. See also Ch. XXV.
‘Il n’y a pas sur la terre de volonté supérieure à la souveraineté’ (Leon Duguit, Traité de Droit Constitutionel III’me edition. 1927. Vol. I, p. 545); ‘La souveraineté est inalienable.’ ‘En s’alienant elle disparait (ibid. Vol. II, p. 125). ‘Die oberste hoech-ste Rechtsmacht, welche keine andere ueber sich hat, nennen wir souveraen.’ ‘Die Souveraenetaet Unbeschraenkbar und folglich auch unteilbar ist.’ (Dr. Paul Laband, Deutsches Reichsstaatsrecht. D. Oefientliches Recht der Gegenwart B. L, 1907, s. 16, 17). ‘Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Souveraenetaet lehrt dass sie die Negation jeder Unterordnung oder Beschraenkung des Staates durch eine andere Gewalt bedeuted. Souveraene Staatsgewalt ist daher eine Gewalt, die keine hoehere ueber sich kennt.’ (Georg Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre, 2 A. 1905, s. 461).
P. Laband, op. cit., s. 17: G. Jellinek, op. cit., s. 751.
‘The Proletarian Party aims to create as large a state as possible. It tries to accomplish a further rapprochement and fusion of nations.’ (A. Alymov and S. Studenkin, op. cit., p. 13.) The U.S.S.R. has become what was described by I. D. Levin in his article ‘Printsip suvereniteta v burzhuasnoi nauke prava’: a disappearance of the old form of federalism and appearance of a new one, which guarantees a complete predominance of the federative center, only screened behind ‘co-operation.’ (Izvestia Akademii Nauk, Otdelenie Ekonomiki i Prava 3, 1947).
Soviet jurists themselves are skeptical concerning the application of any descriptive labels of non-Soviet jurisprudence in Soviet legal science (Cf. J. Towster, op. cit., p. 109, note 50).
Cf., for instance, Art. 67 and 71 of the Constitution of the R.S.F.S.R. which submit activity of the Ministers of Autonomous Republics to the instructions and orders of the Council of Ministers and of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and of the R.S.F.S.R.
‘Autonomous republics are in a sense sub-Republics enjoying a species of local self-government. They are certainly not autonomous in the fullest sense of that term.’ (Scrutator, ‘The Soviet Legal System,’ The Law Journal, (London, January, 1944). Cf also John Hazard, ‘Soviet Public Administration and Federalism,’ The Political Quarterly. Jan.-March, 1952, pp. 4–14.
The nature of the administrative ‘substitution’ was pre-established by Article 56 of the Constitution of 1918: ‘… during the intervals between the sessions of the Soviets the Executive Committee is the supreme power.’ Another provision of the same constitution set up the following provisions: ‘The Congresses of Soviets and their Executive Committees have the right to control the activity of the local Soviets (i. e. The Regional Congress controls all Soviets of the respective province, with the exception of the urban Soviets, etc.); and the regional and provincial Congresses and their Executive Committees have, in addition, the right to over-rule the decisions of the Soviets of their districts, giving notice in important cases to central authority (Art. 62 of the Constitution of 1918). Cf. also Article 29 of the Constitution of 1924: ‘The Presidium of the TsIK of the U.S.S.R., during the interval between the sessions of the TsIK of the U.S.S.R. is the supreme legislative and administrative organ of authority of the U.S.S.R.’ The All-Russian Congress of Soviets consisted of some thousand representatives. It was replaced by the TsIK which, during the last years of its existence, had over five hundred members. The TsIK became a kind of Parliament. However, as we have just cited, this Parliament was replaced by the Presidium of the TsIK consisting of only twenty-seven members (Art. 26 of the Constitution of 1924).
‘The carrying out of Socialist construction under conditions of sharpening class struggle requires inevitably more and more strengthening of planning leadership from the center…’ A. Alymov i Studenkin, op. cit., p. 18. (see supra note 25).
Articles 1 and 2 of the Declaration of Rights of the Laboring and Exploited People included in the Constitution of 1918. ‘The local organs of the Soviet state differ from all corresponding organs of local administration and self-government in the capitalist countries not only as far as their class structure is concerned, but also in that they are the only local organs of the government.’ Acad. Trainin, ‘Local Organs of the State Power in the U.S.S.R. and the” self-government” in the capitalist countries’ (Sovetskoe Gosudarstvo, No. 1, 1940). ‘All Soviets—from the Supreme Soviets to the village Soviet—are organs of state authority.’ (A. Vyshinsky, The Law of the Soviet State, New York, 1948, p. 425).
See the report by Vyshinsky presented to the Supreme Soviet on February 25, 1947, (Moscow News, March 1, 1947).
The number of members of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. remains, in spite of amalgamations, about 45–50 members, including vice-chairmen, and chairmen of several committees. The number of Ministries, however, increases and decreases. In addition to the illustrations given in Ch. XV, 8 a new ukase (Ved. Verkh. Sov. Dec. 1, 1953) established the Ministry of Agricultural Procurement and renamed correspondingly the Ministry of Agriculture and Procurement in Ministry of Agriculture.
The Ispolkoms have different departments or Commissariats (of Finance, Economies, Land, Labor, Education, Commerce, etc.) which were organized since 1918 to replace ‘the old, antiquated government institutions.’ Later, in the Union and in the Autonomous Republics these departments and Commissariats were developed and re-named Ministries.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1954 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Guins, G.C. (1954). Soviet Centralism and National Problems. In: Soviet Law and Soviet Society. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0869-8_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0869-8_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0324-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0869-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive