www.lituanus.org |
|
Copyright
© 1958 Lithuanian
Students Association, Inc. December, 1958 Vol. 4, No. 4 Managing Editor P. V. Vygantas |
Editorial
ASPECTS OF CO-EXISTENCE
Nothing gives better competence to
express an opinion on a problem than experience. To most of the captive
European nations the problem of co-existence with Russia is as old as
the state of Russia itself, and its neighborhood to our nations. One
needs only to recall the main events of the long history of these
neighborly relations to conclude that they always were marked by a
constant struggle of our nations against Russian expansionism and, at
times, even Russian megalomania.
As far as Lithuania is concerned, her neighborly relationship with
Russia has been that of a big beast and its unfortunate prey for
hundreds of years. Through centuries Lithuania had to fight for its
sheer national existence against Russification. Russian megalomania in
its present Bolshevik form even had plans to exterminate the soul of
the Lithuanian nation. Political independence was possible only in the
wake of a collapse of the political power of the men in the Kremlin and
the weakening of their physical means of subjugation and annihilation.
Lithuanians could never escape this relationship, its nature and its
consequences. They have always been Russia's neighbors since early
times and shall remain her neighbors as long as their nation inhabits
the territory given her by destiny. Neighborly co-existence with Russia
is their fate. They have to live with it and in it.
This means that the independence of their nation and the liberty of the
Lithuanian individuals is a matter of constant struggle and fight —
when lost it is to be regained, when achieved it is to be preserved
against the permanent Russian danger. Whereas co-existence in this
sense is an inescapable truth, the main target and aim of Lithuanian
statesmanship is to keep the Russian neighbor at a distance. Lithuania
never has been happy with the co-existence and shall always be happier
with the distance.
We believe the recent history of our nation would have been much, much
happier if we had been able properly to realize not only the power and
scope of the Russian danger, but also the inherent advantages which lay
in our neighborly and friendly relationship with other nations. If some
of us saw them, they did not see them in time. If others of us did not
see them at all, it was because they fell prey to the spirit of the
times.
13 there any real co-existence at all between East and West? Let us for
a short while think along the lines of legal thought.
We will not dwell in detail on the profound differences between Eastern
and Western legal thought. Where, as in the East, ideology centers
around the state — its power and selfishness — the individual — his
liberty and dignity — has no place in law; at the most he is restricted
to a nominal and formal place. Glorification of dictatorship and of
unrestricted state sovereignty are the fundamentals of Eastern law.
Despotic arbitrariness in dealings with the West is the result. There
can be no sound reconciliation with Western legal thought.
As to international law, two different systems exist today: the Eastern
system and the Western system, both based on different and antagonistic
ideologies. The Russian school of law frankly admits that there can be
no lasting cooperation between these two systems.
According to this school, the relationship between Eastern or (as they
call it) "Socialist" international law and Western international law
can be only that of a temporary compromise, lasting only until the day
of the complete victory of world Communism over Capitalism and final
replacement of "bourgeois" international law by the inter-Soviet law
all over the world.
Until then, Western international law is considered a catalogue of
rules and legal notions and institutions of which those useful to the
political aims of Bolshevism are accepted and of which those
detrimental or of no advantage are rejected — all according to the
merits of the individual case and of the political situation of the day.
To the East, law is only a means to implement political tasks, of which
the security of the Soviet Union is the most important. To quote
Koshevnikov, one of the theorists of the Eastern school: "The Socialist
State has no relationship with modern, i.e., Western, international
law. In this question the Soviet Union bases its action exclusively on
the requirements of its own security. Those institutions of
international law which conform with this task are accepted and
implemented by the Soviet Union, those which do not conform, are
rejected."
It
is easy to realize why any change affecting the security and selfish
interests of the Soviet Union automatically results in a change of the
Russian position towards Western international law and its various
institutions in general and to its own obligations towards the West, in
particular. This is why the basic international rule of "PACTA SUNT
SERVANDA" is of so little importance to the East, whereas the legal
institution of the "CLAUSULA REBUS SIC STANTIBUS" is of such highly
practical value to the East. This is why all legal obligations of the
East are always made under the reservation that they last only as long
as the interest prevails which it is supposed to serve.
To
mention one example of the practical workings of the relationship
between Eastern and Western legal thought and the arbitrary selection
of what is considered valuable and acceptable to the East and what is
not, we shall refer to the Russian translation of Oppenheim's
well-known Treatise on International Law and Professor Krylov's (former
member of the International Court of Justice at the Hague) introduction
to the translation. He says that some parts of the Treatise have been
omitted in the Russian translation because "they are of no interest to
the Soviet reader." Which parts have been omitted 7 Among others, those
which criticize the Soviet position towards Western international law
and those which are connected with the Western legal view as to
Russia's annexation of the Baltic States.
There exists not the
slightest intention on the part of the East to discuss even the
possibility of a reconciliation of Eastern and Western legal thought.
Intolerance and strict rejection of the faintest approach is the rule.
Here again we see the famous Iron Curtain. We see part of the legal
side of an ideology which not only refuses to recognize a real
co-existence with the West, but even strictly prohibits it.
_______
For further information write to
The
reproductions of Lithuanian art, used as illustrations of this issue,
have been supplied by courtesy of cultural magazine "Aidai" (Echoes)
Illustration on back cover by Romas Viesulas — "Poetry"