Beijing Law Review, 2012, 3, 31-41
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/blr.2012.32005 Published Online June 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/blr)
31
Place and Role of Norms and Sources of International
Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation: The
Doctrinal Exploration and the Legislative Development
of the Constitutional Principle
Sergei Yu. Marochkin
Institute of Continuing Education, Tyumen State University, Tyumen, Russia.
Received April 19th, 2012; revised May 20th, 2012; accepted May 28th, 2012
ABSTRACT
The article introduces one of the aspects of the national legislation and of the Russian doctrine concerning the entire
problem—implementation of generally recognized principles and norms of international law (IL) and international trea-
ties as an integral part of the legal system of Russia. It can be interesting for at least two reasons. First, the Constitution
of the country establishes the direct application of international obligations in the domestic matters without their incor-
poration into the legislation. Not many countries go this way. Second, one can say about the whole theory consisting of
a complex of aspects elaborated by the Russian doctrine of IL concerning of operation and realization of international
norms. Some propositions and conclusions of this theory could be interesting and useful for colleagues in the countries
where implementation of IL norms is also based on the principle of their direct application. In particular, the article
examines the question of how the constitutional provision on the place and role of international obligations is being
interpreted in the theory and developed in the legislation. The situation of the 90’s years of the past century and in the
first decade of the current century is being compared. It is noted that the practice (especially judicial) moves forward
leaving the legislation and legal theory behind in understanding of the constitutional principle’s content, what does not
conduce to full and precise realization of one of the foundations of the constitutional system of the country.
Keywords: Constitution; Constitutional Principle; Generally Recognized Principles and Norms of IL; International
Treaties of Russia; Sources of Law; Legislation; Doctrine; Legal Theory; Research-and-Practice
Commentaries
1. Preliminary Observations
The first appearance in 1993 in the national constitu-
tional development of the principle on universally recog-
nized principles and norms of IL and international trea-
ties of the Russian Federation as part of its legal system
has played an outstanding role. The Constitution of 1993
contains quite a radical provision: “The generally recog-
nized principles and norms of international law and the
international treaties of the Russian Federation shall be
an integral part of its legal system. If an international
treaty of the Russian Federation establishes other rules
than those provided by the law, the rules of the interna-
tional treaty shall apply” (Part 4, Article 15). This princi-
ple has reflected the desire for greater openness of Russia
to the international community, its involvement into
European and world structures, into international human
rights mechanisms.
Domestically, this rule has become crucial in the con-
text of the legal guarantees of national implementation of
Russia’s international obligations, a turning point in
changing and upgrading of the entire legal system: na-
tional law, legal practice and sense of justice. One should
especially note that this principle is not an “ordinary”
norm of the Constitution. It is included in the Chapter I
of the Constitution and together with other principles it
forms the fundamentals of the constitutional system of
the country. All other norms of domestic law have to
correspond to them. The direct use and application of IL
fixed at the constitutional level is now one of the main
ways to develop judicial practice.
Nowadays, IL is not a “foreign body” in the internal
life of the State. It is rather a usual legal tool in the ac-
tivities of all State organs, citizens, legal entities and or-
ganizations, and most of all, of the courts. The ensuring
of the action and the application of IL in the national

Place and Role of Norms and Sources of International Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation:
The Doctrinal Exploration and the Legislative Development of the Constitutional Principle
32
jurisdiction via direct implementation by the courts would
fit the contemporary dynamics of life, avoiding the long
process of incorporation into legislation.
This constitutional provision was included in practi-
cally all codes and federal laws adopted after the Consti-
tution. Thus, the current Russian legislation is based on
the common principle of and approaches to IL, which
remained untypical during the previous socialist period.
The former Soviet constitutions did not contain such ba-
sic provisions on the interaction between international
and national law.
The new approach of the Constitution to IL led to the
appearance of many research works in IL (articles, books
and doctoral dissertations) of Russian scholars [1-12]
based on theory and on practice of IL application and
published in Russia and abroad.
It is possible to say that the Russian theory of IL has
played and still plays a significant role in the research of
the issue of operation and application of IL in the domes-
tic legal system. It elaborated this issue as a complex of
aspects: the place and the role of IL norms in domestic
jurisdiction, correlation between sources of IL and na-
tional law, the hierarchy of internal and international
norms, juridical conditions of application of IL norms,
methods (the procedure) of determining of applicable
(international and/or national) law, etc. [14-18]. Here I
should note a direct influence of the IL doctrine on judi-
cial practice. Thus, the Ruling of the Supreme Court
Plenum (Board) of the Russian Federation of 10 October
2003 On Ap plication of Generally Recognized Princip les
and Norms of International Law and the International
Treaties of Russia by Courts of General Jurisdiction
having an obligatory character, “absorbs” key theoretical
aspects mentioned above as a guideline for lower courts.
Individual courts’ decisions (in particular, of the Consti-
tutional Court of the Russian Federation) often address
theoretical propositions.
Hypotheses and conclusions of the Russian IL doctrine
might be suitable for or at least considered by researchers
and scholars in different countries, which Constitutions
say about a direct effect (application) of IL (e.g. the
Netherlands). As well as works of colleagues and judges
[19-21] demonstrate an experience of those countries in
implementation and application of IL.
Due to the direct force and operation of the Constitu-
tion the courts in their decisions, the plaintiffs (citizens,
legal entities, state bodies) in complaints directly refer to
the Constitutional principle on IL for argumentation of
their claims and positions. Nonetheless, the principle
should be adequately reflected and developed in the
branches of the legislation. It also needs a proper explo-
ration and interpretation in the legal theory as well as in
particular legal disciplines, especially in ones of constitu-
tional and international law.
2. The Doctrine on the Nature of
International Law Norms and Sources
in the Domestic Legal Sphere: Stability
and/or Conservativity?
2.1. IL Norms
It could seem strange but notwithstanding the fact that
since 1993 IL became a legal reality in the domestic legal
system and has actually changed the entire legal picture,
the legal theory hardly reacted on the altered situation.
As a general rule, courses and textbooks on theory of law
of the 90s of the last century and the first decade of the
present one speak only about the norms of domestic law
without consideration and even mentioning IL, or speak
just about their differences from each other [22-24].
Despite the specific wording of Article 15 of the Con-
stitution, IL obtains completely different and sometimes
unequal status in scientific and academic literature on
legal theory and on IL, it is “announced” as a part of do-
mestic law or of the legislation (sometimes authors do it
with references to the Constitution that is not correct!)
[25-32]. In some cases, it is a principled position (E.T.
Usenko, for example, considered irrelevant and mistaken
an attitude that the IL norms should be regarded as an
integral part of the RF legal system), in other cases such
a terminological substitution takes place implicitly and
can be hardly explained. Nevertheless in both cases the
notion of law (and its integral structure (system)) and the
notion of legal system of the country are confused.
IL norms as an expression of agreed wills and posi-
tions of States, but not of a will of a sole State, should be
interpreted and enforced by all States (including in their
domestic affairs) in terms of objects and purposes of IL
norms, of IL principles on the whole. This is a clear and
generally recognized provision of the law of treaties.
Thereby IL norms are hardly grounded to be considered
an integral part of the domestic law. They do not change
their nature and form; in this sense they are extraneous
towards the domestic law norms.
No one domestic act regardless its character and con-
tent, which provides fulfilment of a State’s international
obligations, is not able to alter norms nature, their spe-
cific aims, subject-matter, form, etc. That is not even
required—the State ensures implementation of the IL
norms in particular.
A message occurring in law literature that any norm
incorporated into the national legal system shall change
its nature and has to be considered by the domestic law
subjects as the national law norm, is perceived as a mis-
understanding. In any case it is not consistent with the
practice of application of IL norms, which shall be inter-

Place and Role of Norms and Sources of International Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation:
The Doctrinal Exploration and the Legislative Development of the Constitutional Principle
33
preted and accepted by courts and other bodies, natural
persons and legal entities as norms of other (not domestic)
law. Such an approach was emerged in the 90’s when
after the adoption of the 1993 Constitution the practice of
use and application the IL norms started to form.
One of multiple examples is a decision of the Moscow
Regional Court of 3 October 1997 in the criminal case
against B., L., and V., adopted with regard to the RF
Constitutional Court determination on request of the
judge of the Moscow Regional Court about a contradict-
tion of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Constitution
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. In a new trial after vacating of previous judgment
by the Presidium of the FR Supreme Court the lawyer
referred to the RF Constitutional Court determination
which says that in purpose to decide the case it is needed
to follow the norm of Part 7 Article 14 of the Covenant
“which is to be applied as an IL norm”. The Moscow Re-
gional Court held that whereas Part 3 Article 380 of the
Criminal Procedure Code contradicts the abovemen-
tioned norm of the Covenant, in accordance with Part 4
Article 15 of the RF Constitution “in this case the court is
obliged to apply the IL norms” and then decided under
Part 7 Article 14 of the Covenant to close the case against
the present accused [33].
Further development of the practice has shown that
courts followed and keep following this approach as well
as they focus Academic Commentaries on codes and
federal laws on the same direction.
In particular, the Commentary on the RF Labour Law
[34], exemplifying the contents of Article 10 on the role
of generally recognized principles and norms of IL and
international treaties in the labour relationship regula-
tions, says that this results “in changes of current stereo-
types in the Russian legal system and in the legal norms
application […]. It is getting possible and necessary to
apply directly the IL norms in case of their ratification by
the Russian Federation” (Article 39).
The RF Supreme Court in the “Review on Judicial
practice concerning a status of refugee procedure” [35]
reflected a current trend, in particular, applying to issues
of a family and/or a dependent definition. The Court un-
derlined whereas the Federal Law “On the Refugees”
does not include such definitions, courts in judging civil
cases “in coordination with the federal law or an interna-
tional treaty applied the foreign law norms. Herewith if
the RF international treaty stated rules not coinciding
with those under the law, courts […] applied the rules of
the einternational treaty” (section “Princi ple of Unity , Fam-
ily Reunification”).
Essentially, this is the function of such a method of
international obligations fulfilment, as to refer within the
domestic legislation to the IL norms: “The reference is
made as far as these norms remain to be norms of that
very legal order, which is referred to, they remain to be
the same and from the point of view of a referring legal
order” [36].
Research of the issue in the national literature pro-
duced a burst of wide and long discussion about interact-
tion of international and soviet (nowadays—Russian) law,
about possibility or impossibility of the IL norms acting
within the State. This discussion brought its participants
apart. Often it was accompanied by a thorough analysis
of different points of view and arguments [37-41]. Nev-
ertheless the doctrine of that period up until the adoption
of the 1993 Constitution was not either enriched by a
common concept or forwarded to an amplification of
particular issues in interaction between international and
domestic law within the domestic affairs. On the contrary,
theoretical constructions were not based on the practice,
did not proceed from it and finally did little for it if not
darkened its actual aspects. There was no of a wide and
systematic study and generalisation of the rule-making
and law-enforcement bodies’ activity, connected with the
reference to IL. The theory and practice had been devel-
oping without any touch.
Since 1993, the issues on the role of IL in the legal
system of the country began to be discussed not only on
the theoretical level—whether it is possible or not for the
IL norms to act and to be applied to—but more often on
the level of practice. While in the theory they broke a
lance, the practice of use and application of the interna-
tional norms, mostly court practice, got an immense shot
in the arm. And the study of the practice shows that a
dispute over the nature of the IL norms in the legal sys-
tem of Russia—whether they stay the same or “trans-
form” into the domestic norms—makes a little difference
for the practice itself. The courts refer to particular norms
and sources of IL, substantiate cases with their help and
award judgements.
In the course of various seminars, symposia and con-
ferences particular issues have been discussed, guides for
judges appeared [42-46] reflecting and summarising the
practice, and also presenting necessary key points and
recommendations.
Rule-making and law-enforcement bodies, all subjects
of domestic law, including natural persons and legal enti-
ties, employ, refer to and apply the IL norms. Practical
guides for judges and commentaries on codes and laws
say about not the domestic but IL norms as a manifesta-
tion of a State’s will in a treaty form. Highest courts do
the same when make guiding instructions for lower
courts (in Plenum decisions and Informational letters) on
employment and application of the IL norms and interna-
tional treaties in court activity on the whole, and in cases
of particular category. Previous (soviet) [40,47-49] and

Place and Role of Norms and Sources of International Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation:
The Doctrinal Exploration and the Legislative Development of the Constitutional Principle
34
current court and arbitration practice bear the same evi-
dence though even now it is heard about “objective boun-
daries” of IL which are allegedly stable and beyond which
its regulating abilities cannot spread: IL acts on the State
territory, but not within its internal affairs; it can objec-
tively regulate only State-to-State relations, but not inter-
nal relations; interaction means existence of the IL norms
and appearance of the corresponding norms in domestic
law [30,50].
In changing conditions IL cannot remain as before, all
the more in the modern époque of globalization, interde-
pendence, and human rights. Nowadays in the interna-
tional dialogue not only the States take part, but also non-
governmental bodies that exert a growing influence—
transnational corporations, mass media, and NGOs. IL is
of great importance in the regulation of rights and for the
protection of interests of individuals and legal entities,
and is to be directly applied in their legal relations.
The mentioned viewpoint is progressively supported in
theory and discovers more substantiation in practice of
international courts, in particular, of the European Court
of Human Rights (ECtHR) and of the International Court
of Justice (ICJ). The Chairman of the ECtHR explicitly
speaks about the recognition of an individual as a subject
of IL in the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR). Judge of the ECtHR elected from Russia A.I.
Kovler highlights that the Court has reacted quite rigidly
on attempts of some national courts to discredit the direct
application of the ECHR norms or international legal
personality of an individual. V. S. Vereshchetin, formerly
Judge at the ICJ, while analysing new trends in the Court
activity, pointed out that its recent orders concerned not
only the States but the subjects of domestic law as well.
For example, in “La Grand (Germany v. United States of
America)” case the Court decided that the Vienna Con-
vention on Consular Relations of 1963 regulated the
rights and obligations not only of States but also of indi-
viduals [51-55].
There is no need to reason upon universal interconnec-
tivity, or steady development and intensification of in-
ternational relations, or new objects to regulate—this is
obvious and generally recognized. But it is not less rea-
sonable or obvious that this process is accompanied by
equally active development of the legal systems’ interact-
tion; that the objects regulated by IL and domestic law
often coincide; that former traditionally and exclusively
“internal affairs” of a State, now fall under the focus not
only of domestic law; that supra-national legal regulation
is widening; that fundamental principles of IL tradition-
ally considered as the basis for State-to-State relations
regulation, now can be also applied to private relations
[56-59]. Such trend has been regularly mentioned.
There can be no interdependence of States, tight global
links with “objective and subjective boundaries” an-
nounced between different legal systems. Who has de-
fined these boundaries and their immutability? It appears
that such a brink between the legal systems, their juris-
dictions is always conventional and flexible. Thus, one of
the statements within this “construction of boundaries”
that IL acts on the territory of a State but not within its
internal affairs can hardly be understood.
By virtue of its sovereignty a State can spread out
functioning of approved and adopted by the State IL
norms within the sphere of domestic law to regulate rela-
tions between organizations and individuals. The State’
will, manifested in other (not legislative but agreement)
way, can equally be obligatory within the sphere of do-
mestic jurisdiction by the State approval.
It is worthy of note that the regulation of such kind is
often more saving and efficient than “transformation” of
the IL norms into domestic ones, or alteration of legisla-
tion to correspond with them, for example when domes-
tic law establish one regime for all, whereas the regional
or bilateral treaties create a special regime for subjects of
particular States (e.g. in passenger, cargo and luggage
carriage, or legal assistance, avoidance of double taxation,
or retirement insurance, migration, or frontier coopera-
tion, double nationality, etc.). In such treaties it is obvi-
ous that they regulate private international and domestic
relations, and that their subjects are the participating
States as well as subjects of domestic law (individuals,
state bodies, legal entities).
A typical example is the Agreement between the Gov-
ernments of Russia and Estonia On Cooperation in the
Sphere of Retirement Insurance of 1993 (came into force
on 16 October 2007) [60]. Practically all its articles refer
to the parties’ competent authorities for assignment of
pensions and regulate the types of relevant labour expe-
rience, the list of required documents, types of salaries
for pension calculation, etc.
Budapest Convention on the Contract for Carriage of
Goods by Inland Waterway (CMNI) of 2001 (came into
force for Russia in 1 August 2007) [61], concluded for
correlation of legal regimes of carriage between the
member States of the Central Commission for Navigation
on the Rhine and the Danube Commission in cooperation
with UNECE, regulates the rights and obligations of the
parties under contracts for carriage concerning cargo
reception and delivery, liability issues, contract for car-
riage termination, etc.
Agreement on International Goods Transport by Rail
(AIGT) and the Agreement on International Passenger
Traffic (AIPT) provide that their provisions are binding
for railways, consignors and consignees, and passengers
correspondingly.
Over the last years new significant elaborations on

Place and Role of Norms and Sources of International Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation:
The Doctrinal Exploration and the Legislative Development of the Constitutional Principle
35
general issues and on particular branch aspects have been
worked out [6,7,13,16,62-64]. Nevertheless, it has to be
noted an appearance publications of postgraduate stu-
dents and PhD candidates (unfortunately even in the re-
spected journals and editions), which often do not go
further than abstract theorising, reiteration of generally
recognized, conceptual or fundamental theses, reproduce-
tion of earlier expressed opinions and approaches (some-
times without any references to the authors), formulation
just additional arguments in favour of one or another
theory. Some of such publications sound like a kind of
eye-opener as if a problem or an issue has been revealed
for the first time ever, has not been earlier discussed and
even indicated.
It is also worthy of notice that well-developed in the
IL doctrine numerous aspects of applied character of the
problem under consideration, which specify key points
for the practice, still have not been reflected, or entered
into the study literature. Textbooks on IL generally cover
a topic on interaction of IL and national law due to the
tradition, in the framework of two well-known ap-
proaches (monism and dualism) to explanation an issue
of correlation of international and domestic law, repro-
duction of theories, range of arguments, general forms of
implementation of the IL norms on the domestic level
(transformation, incorporation, legitimating, reception,
reference, etc.).
In some textbooks there appear the paragraphs con-
cerning the court practice of IL application, but they
mostly consist of sheer description of some or series of
cases. However, there is lack of reproduction of a whole
set of practically important issues: foundations, legal con-
ditions, order (procedure) of application of the IL norms,
correlation of legal power (hierarchy) of the IL and Rus-
sian norms. In other words, the particular is given with-
out clarification of the general. In this sense, the text-
books serve aims of general education rather then of
training of future specialists and practitioners.
2.2. IL Sources
An issue about a place of the IL norms in the legal sys-
tem of Russia has a logical follow-up: what is a correla-
tion between their forms of explication (sources) and the
sources of domestic law, can sources of one law be
sources of norms of another law? After all, the Constitu-
tion means not only the IL norms as a part of the legal
system of the country, but their sources as well—interna-
tional treaties in particular (see Part 4, Article 15 above,
in the first paragraph of Section 1). Taking into account
that generally recognized norms often exist in a form of
customary IL, it is possible to suggest also such a source
as a part of the national legal system.
Legal theory in its traditional “links” with only domes-
tic law does not unfortunately provide definite answer on
the question above. And this is typical as to the 90s and
to the current decade firstly because a theoretically for-
mulated definition of a source of law has non-general
meaning. In one form or another, a source of law is con-
sidered to be related to an expression of will of a par-
ticular State. This notion is hardly precise even for inter-
nal aspect (not all sources of domestic law are expression
only of will of a State) and moreover it is not true as re-
gards to sources of IL and interaction of the legal sys-
tems. Even such sources as a custom or a precedent the
scholars usually mention in a context of domestic law,
not meaning IL customs and precedents in the national
jurisdiction.
The issue has not changed for the last years: not al-
ways international treaties are mentioned when a treaty is
described as a source of law [as an exception see: 26,28,
65,66], their place in the legal system of a country is not
analysed, not to say about their correlation with internal
sources of law. In the works where they are mentioned,
assessment of their place in the legal system varies up to
polar opposite. In some books they are announced to be a
source of law of a country [26,67,68], in another they are
featured in a list of sources in general or in a list of
sources of law acting in Russia (note, not a source of law
of the country, but source acting within it) [69-71]. And
only in one case it is precisely and correctly written
about a strong necessity to separate consideration and
application of sources of domestic law of a particular
State and of recognized by the State sources of IL (nearly
an exclusive example when the legal theorists involved
an international lawyer for elaboration of a textbook on
Theory of Law and State) [28].
On the whole, the chapters dedicated to the sources of
law do only mention IL in connection with the treaties.
As a rule, it is neither meant nor written about signifi-
cance of norms of customary IL, precedents, doctrine as
sources of law being of importance for the legal system
of Russia.
In the literature on IL the correlation of sources of in-
ternational and Russian law has been also evaluated in
different ways. A number of researchers consider the
sources of IL as one of the types of sources of domestic
law. An approach of such kind was spread out before and
after the adoption of the 1993 Constitution, though there
may be detailed some connotations: “part of legislation”,
“the law”, “source of law of Russia”, etc. The present ap-
proach can be found nowadays (V. M. Volzhenkina, S. A.
Gorshkova, M. M. Boguslavskiy and L. Y. Rykhtikova).
Many international lawyers in the 70 - 80 s of the past
century, when a dispute on the problem under considera-
tion reached its heights, did not agree to accept the

Place and Role of Norms and Sources of International Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation:
The Doctrinal Exploration and the Legislative Development of the Constitutional Principle
36
sources of IL as the sources of domestic law (G. V. Ig-
natenko, R. A. Mullerson, A. N. Talalaev). For the last few
years this position has been supported by a considerable
number of scholars and researchers (P. N. Biryukov, V. A.
Tolstik, M. O. Lits, I. V. Fedorov, A. A. Yakovlev, A. V.
Lesin, O. V. Sashnikova, A. V. Iliynykh, L. A. Lazutin, B.
L. Zimnenko, V. V. Gavrilov and O. I. Rabtsevich).
Strictly speaking, the Constitution does not proclaim
treaties to be a source of law of Russia (see Part 4 Article
15). Moreover, having called them a part of the legal
system, the Constitution does not insert them at all in the
list of sources of domestic law, so placing them aside of
the list.
In other words, the sources of IL occupy an independ-
ent position within a normative part of the legal system
of the Russian Federation, neighbouring the sources of
domestic law. They act in association with the latter, but
do not integrate into it. The Constitution confirms this
position when giving an answer to a logical question
about a correlation of legal force (hierarchy) of sources,
about a rule of settlement of conflicts between them: a
priority of application belongs to an international treaty,
if it establishes other rules than the law (Part 4, Article
15).
The court practice expressly and constantly testifies
this. As one of examples we can take an abstract from the
“Review on Judicial practice concerning a status of refu-
gee procedure” [35], which was elaborated by the RF Su-
preme Court office for generalisation of the court prac-
tice:
“Generalisation of the court practice indicates that not
all local migration services while examining requests for
a refugee status consider international treaties of the
Russian Federation, which under Part 4, Article 15 of the
RF Constitution shall apply directly, if they establish
other rules than provided by the law”.
The Constitution due to its level distinguishes thor-
ough the system of sources of Russian law: it names
them; specifies the hierarchy, federal and regional levels
among them; conditions of application; correlation with
the human rights; particular form of expression of one or
another norms or regimes; some rules of procedure in
time, space and personality; spheres of federal and re-
gional legislation; responsibility of highest agencies of
the State power regarding adaptation and application of
normative acts; competence of juridical authorities for
legislation enforcement; origins of law-making of the
local government.
It’s important that in all cases the Constitution under-
stands only those sources which are covered by one-side
competence of a State power or a local government, i.e.
sources of domestic law properly: the federal laws, the
RF presidential decrees, the RF governmental regulations,
laws and other normative acts of the Federation subjects
(regional level acts), acts of local government.
But the Constitution does not include the sources of IL
into this bulk. The latter are mentioned separately and
shortly: a general principle of their correlation with the
internal sources, as well as a list of issues, which are set-
tled in accord with the IL norms, and some authorities of
State bodies in conclusion of treaties.
In development of the Constitution the current legisla-
tion, establishing a legal regime in one or another sphere,
also separately outlines a role of internal sources (laws,
other acts) and external sources (of IL) in process of
regulation of particular issues, their correlation (with
limited exceptions).
3. Does the Legislation Favour the
Development of the Constitutional
Principle on International Law?
Though the legislation a priori should strictly correspond
to the Constitution, it sometimes reveals an interesting
variety, which mostly counts against this conformity.
A series of codes and federal laws do not mention at
all generally recognized principles and norms of IL (the
RF Forest Code, the RF Water Code, the RF Arbitration
Procedure Code, the RF Civil Procedure Code, the RF
Tax Code, the RF Family Code, federal laws on housing
saving co-operative, on land tenure, on peasant farm en-
terprise, on mass media).
The RF Criminal Procedure Code (Part 3 Article 1),
the Federal Constitutional Law On Referendum of the
Russian Federation (Part 1 Article 3) indicate the IL
norms and treaties as an integral part of the RF legisla-
tion. Some acts make mention of them in articles devoted
to a structure of legislation in a certain sphere (e.g. Arti-
cle 1.1 of the RF Administrative Violation Code, Article
3 of the Federal Law On Enforcement Pro ceedings, Arti-
cle 4 of the Federal Law On Technical Regulation, the
Federal Law On the RF Citizenship). This approach itself
predetermines not adequate (non-true) evaluation of their
place in the legal system.
A number of codes considerably narrow their role and
significance, proclaimed by the Constitution. So, the RF
Criminal Code (Article 1) and the RF Administrative
Violation Code (Article 1.1) just “rely on” the generally
recognized principles and norms of IL. The RF Penal
Execution Code (PEC) “proceeds” from a strict adher-
ence of guarantees of defence from attempts and violence
“in compliance with” the present norms (Article 3). In all
cases generally recognized principles and norms seem to
be not a constituent part of the legal system, but its sup-
plement or a foundation for legislation.
Article 3 Penal Execution Legislation of the RF and

Place and Role of Norms and Sources of International Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation:
The Doctrinal Exploration and the Legislative Development of the Constitutional Principle
37
International-Legal Acts of the PEC RF qualifies as the
latter all international treaties, and generally recognized
principles and norms, and recommendations (declara-
tions) of the international organisations. At the same time
this legislation just “recognizes” international treaties
concerning execution of sentences (Part 1, Article 3).
As a rare example of a full and correct reflection of a
constitutional Part 4, Article 15 in a certain sphere of the
legislation may be named the Civil Code (Article 7), the
Labour Code (Article 10), the Customs Code (Article 8)
of the Russian Federation, as well as federal laws on Or-
der of Consideration of the RF Citizens Applications, on
Social Control of Human Rights Security in Places of
Forced Imprisonment and on Assistance for People in
Places of Forced Imprisonment, etc. The related articles
are also properly named: “legal regulation”, “legal basis”
in an according sphere.
Thus, in accord with Article 1 of the Federal Law On
Counter-Terrorism (as amended 30 December 2008) [72]
“a legal basis for counter-terrorism consists of the Con-
stitution of the RF, generally recognized principles and
norms of international law, international treaties of the
RF, the present Federal Law and other federal laws,
normative acts of the RF President, normative acts of the
RF Government, and also adopted in conformity with
them normative legal acts of other federal authorities of
the State power”.
As in case with the generally recognized principles
and norms, the legislation differently accepts the consti-
tutional principle in connection with the IL sources as
well. Surprisingly seldom it is made properly, for in-
stance in the Civil, Labour, Customs Codes of the RF.
A series of codes though reproduce only a part of the
constitutional principle—concerning a priority of appli-
cation of international treaties before a particular code
and other normative acts of a certain branch (the RF
Civil Procedure Code, the Family Code, the Tax Code,
the Arbitration Procedure Code).
The others even corrupt the principle to some particu-
lar extends. The RF Criminal Procedure Code, for exam-
ple, declares treaties a constituent part of the RF legisla-
tion (Part 3 Article 1), but not of the legal system as it
does the Constitution. Obviously, it changes completely a
place and role of the treaties than it is stated by the Con-
stitution. It seems logical to have not precise commen-
taries about a role of the treaties in the criminal court
proceedings regulation.
The RF Administrative Violation Code (Part 2 Article
1.1) just “relies” on the international treaties and the RF
Criminal Code (Part 2 Article 1)—on the generally rec-
ognized principles and norms and totally excludes any
notes of IL sources. The Penal Execution Legislation
(Part 1 Article 3 of the PEC RF) just “considers” the in-
ternational treaties. Finally concerning these branches the
international treaties seem not to be a constituent part not
only of the legal system, but even the legislation.
4. The Role of Academic Commentaries on
Codes and Federal Laws
Possibly a very specific feature of the Russian legal sys-
tem is academic (in Russia they are usually called “re-
search-and-practice”) commentaries to the RF Constitu-
tion, codes, and federal laws. They form a solid layer of a
doctrinal thought and to be written by scholars and re-
searchers and by lawyers and judges as well. Commen-
taries are also a direct link between a pure theory and
legislation, on the one hand, and practice, on the other
hand. They are used by the subjects of law and (what is
important) by the law-enforcement bodies (including
prosecutor’s offices and courts) as a ready-to-use practi-
cal guides, and in this sense they mostly define a vector
of development of law application, justice in particular.
That is why among all kinds and forms of theoretical
writings it is commentaries that are logically expected to
proper interpreting and explaining a constitutional prin-
ciple in Part 4 Article 15 and related articles in codes and
laws, and to make recommendations as well.
Nevertheless unfortunately, commentaries in general
do not mark precise key points, or proper full explanation
of the articles concerning a role of IL in a related sphere
of regulation. Partially it can be explained that such arti-
cles are commented by not experts in IL affairs, and for
them it is difficult to make a proper comment operating
with non-familiar matters and terminology. This fact
might be understood and accepted.
But the problem yet is in the point that it is specific for
commentaries to pay poor attention to the text of the
Constitution, a commented code or law, and also a con-
fusion in terminology (a norm, a source, a treaty, a sys-
tem of law and a legal system).
On the whole, the commentaries are of little use for
practitioners, they do not define a role and place of the IL
norms in the legal system and at its best they nearly
word-for-word reproduce the text of a particular article
or circle the international sources, where there may be
found generally recognized principles and norms (the
Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the Resolutions of the General Assem-
bly, ILO Conventions, etc.).
The authors of the Commentary on the RF Labour
Code [73], for instance, “helped” the users only by say-
ing that “Unfortunately, such principles are not defined
in compliance with the labour legislation of Russia. This
makes it hardly possible to designate a set of interna-
tional principles of the labour law, which are a constitu-

Place and Role of Norms and Sources of International Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation:
The Doctrinal Exploration and the Legislative Development of the Constitutional Principle
38
ent part of a system of the Russian labour law”. Logically
to ask what is the role of the doctrine and such commen-
taries?
Some authors do not only give an extensive explica-
tion of particular articles, but do not even differentiate
the acts (sources) and norms. Commentary on the RF
PEC following Article 3 The Penal Execution Legislation
of the RF and International Legal Acts while explaining
its provisions used the notions “acts” and “generally rec-
ognized principles and norms” as exchangeable. At the
same time authors of the Rostov commentary on the RF
Constitution all in one paragraph associated treaties with
the IL norms and vice versa referred to such norms as to
international documents [74,75].
Humble attempts of the commentaries authors to de-
fine a place of the IL norms in the legal system of Russia
are not correct enough. So, the Commentary on the RF
Labour Code explains that “international law norms shall
be incorporated into the Russian legislation, into the
structure of particular laws”, and that the international
principles of the labour law are “a constituent part of the
Russian labour law” [67-73].
Even the commentaries on the Constitution itself in
explaining Part 4 Article 15 usually do not define a place
and a role of the IL sources within the legal system. Re-
peating the phrase “shall be a constituent part of the legal
system”, they do not even try to explicate and reveal the
meaning, or see it only in “to legally fix a priority of IL
origins and decisions (?!—S. M.) in a hierarchy of the
internal sources of the State”[76-80] (as it was done by a
group of analysts from the Institute of Legislation and
Comparative Legal Studies at the RF Government). A
regulation on priority of treaties over laws is just reiter-
ated or given a poor clarification. And again a question
about practicability of such commentaries arises.
Simple reproduction of articles without any explana-
tion or revealing their meaning is very characteristic for
most commentaries on codes and law [81-85]. Obviously,
it is senseless to expect the other from the commentaries
to acts, which narrow or distort the meaning of a consti-
tutional principle: each of them explains a particular code
or law, thus more or less being kept within the frames of
the latter. But this is also peculiar for those which ade-
quately and fully reproduce a constitutional provision
(the Civil, Labour, and Customs Codes of the RF).
In some commentaries the authors as if tried to recre-
ate a context of a constitutional principle omitted in a
code (e.g. the RF Arbitration Procedure Code, the RF
Civil Procedure Code, the RF Tax Code do not mention
generally recognized principles and norms of IL). But
this is it—with this they do not try to reveal or explicate
the meaning of regulations under consideration, to des-
ignate a role and a place of the IL sources in the legal
system of Russia [86-93]. In those places where codes or
laws distort a constitutional norm, commentaries have to
“correct” them. Some commentaries on the RF Criminal
Procedure Code [94-96], for example, carefully get read-
ers back to the initial regulation of the Constitution.
Finally, a series of commentaries declare the IL sources
to be a part of domestic law or the legislation [97-100].
By negligence or other cause, this “substitution” (a part
of not a legal system but of legislation) in principle alters
the meaning of the constitutional provision. As it was
mentioned above, the IL norms do not pour into the bulk
of the domestic law norms, they act and apply in the le-
gal system of Russia together with latter, remaining a
part of IL. Consequently, forms of their existence
(sources) cannot become sources of domestic law.
As a result, quite full, developed commentaries un-
packing the notion of generally recognized principles and
norms, defining a place and a role of IL in the legal sys-
tem of Russia on the whole and in compliance with its
components are unfortunately rare. In this respect the
commentary, which (as an exception) was written by a
group of analysts involving an international lawyer,
stands prominently out [101-103].
5. Conclusions
Study of the issue proves a presence of an obvious diver-
sity in a level of reflection and realization of the constitu-
tional principle on international component of the Rus-
sian legal system within the legislation and its explora-
tion in theory (including research-and-practice commen-
taries on codes and laws), on the one side, and compre-
hension and development of this principle in practice, in
court activity first of all, on the other side. With obvious
contradictions and defects in legislation and doctrine the
current situation in practice significantly differs. Appli-
cation of this principle and, on its basis, international
norms and documents has become habitual and routine in
court activity. The courts have not only familiarised but
significantly detailed and developed its contents [104].
The practice (especially judicial) moves forward leaving
the legislation and the doctrine behind in understanding
of the constitutional principle’s content. Such a disparity
does not conduce to full and precise realization of one of
the foundations of the constitutional order of the country.
Crucial for practice conclusions supervene on provi-
sion that the IL norms in the process of their operation in
the legal system of the Russian Federation do not become
domestic legal norms, and the IL sources do not become
sources of Russian law. Norms and sources of IL occupy
an isolated position in the normative corpus of the legal
system of the Russian Federation, and function along
with Russian law. They have to be explained and applied

Place and Role of Norms and Sources of International Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation:
The Doctrinal Exploration and the Legislative Development of the Constitutional Principle
39
in accord with aims and principles of IL and a certain
treaty, as provided for herein temporal, special and sub-
jective limits of application, in context of herein used
terms, but not from the angle of any correlated key points
of domestic law.
This aim is targeted by international treaties, and pri-
marily a core document for IL of treaties—the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, and also the
majority of literary sources and the court practice.
Here we come to another conclusion: sources of IL
within the legal system of the Russian Federation stay
apart from sources of domestic law on their legal force
(hierarchy) as well [105].
REFERENCES
[1] A. N. Talalaev, “Correlation of International and Domes-
tic Law and the Constitution of the Russian Federation,”
Moscow Journal of International Law, No. 4, 1994, p. 3.
[2] O. N. Khlestov, “International Law and Russia,” Moscow
Journal of International Law, No. 4, 1994, p. 15.
[3] I. I. Lukashuk, “Constitution of Russia and International
Law,” Moscow Journal of International Law, No. 2, 1995,
p. 29.
[4] E. T. Usenko, “Correlation and Relationship of Interna-
tional and Domestic Law and the Russian Constitution,”
Moscow Journal of International Law, No. 2, 1995, p. 13.
[5] G. M. Danilenko, “The Path to the ‘Kingdom of Law and
Justice,” Moscow Journal of International Law, No. 1,
1997, p. 82.
[6] P. N. Biryukov, “Norms of International Criminal Proce-
dure Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation,”
Istoki, Voronezh, 2000.
[7] V. V. Gavrilov, “Notion and Interaction of International
and National Legal Systems,” Dalnevostochny University
Press, Vladivostok, 2005.
[8] A. L. Burkov, “Convention on Protection of Human
Rights in Russian Courts,” Walters Kluwer, Moscow,
2011.
[9] V. S. Vereshchetin, “New Constitutions and the Old
Problem of the Relationship between International Law
and National Law,” European Journal of International
Law, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1996, pp. 29-41.
doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a015502
[10] G. M. Danilenko, “Implementation of International Law
in Russia and other CIS States,” Wayne State University
School of Law, 1998.
[11] B. R. Tuzmukhamedov, “International Law in the Rus-
sian Constitutional Court,” Proceedings of the 94th An-
nual Meeting of the American Society of International
Law, April 2000, p. 166.
[12] S. Yu. Marochkin, “International Law in the Courts of the
Russian Federation: Practice of Application,” Chinese
Journal of International Law, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2007, pp.
329-344.
[13] W. Butler, “Russian Federation,” In: D. Sloss, Ed., The
Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A Com-
parative Study, CUP, 2009, pp. 410-447.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511635458.011
[14] I. I. Lukashuk, “Norms of International Law in the Legal
System of Russia,” Spark, Moscow, 1997.
[15] S. Yu. Marochkin, “Action of International Law Norms in
the Legal System of the Russian Federation,” Tyumen
State University Press, Tyumen, 1998.
[16] S. Yu. Marochkin, “Operation and Realization of Interna-
tional Law Norms in the Legal System of the Russian
Federation,” Norma, Moscow, 2011.
[17] V. A. Tolstik, “Hierarchy of Russian and International
Law,” Yurait, Moscow, 2001.
[18] B. L. Zimnenko, “International Law and the Russian Le-
gal System,” EIP, Utrecht, 2007.
[19] A. Nollkaemper, “National Courts and the International
Rule of Law,” Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 117-
213. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199236671.003.0006
[20] A. Nollkaemper, “The Netherlands,” In: D. Sloss, Ed.,
The Role of Domestic Courts in Treaty Enforcement: A
Comparative Study, Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 2009, pp. 326-369.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511635458.009
[21] T. de Vries, “The Role of International Courts in the Dutch
Legal System,” International Law, No. 1, 2011, p. 18.
[22] A. A. Polyakov, “General Theory of Law. Issues of Inter-
pretation in the Context of Communicative Approach.
Series of Lectures,” ID Yuridicheskaya, Saint Peterburg,
2004, pp. 693-743.
[23] V. M. Syrykh, “Theory of State and Law. Course Book,”
Delo, Moscow, 2007.
[24] V. N. Khropanyuk, “Theory of State and Law. Course
Book,” Yurizdat, Moscow, 2008.
[25] V. S. Nersesyants, “General Theory of State and Law.
Course Book,” Nauka, Moscow, 2001.
[26] A. F. Cherdantsev, “Theory of State and Law. Course
Book,” Prospect, Moscow, 2001.
[27] М. N. Marchenko, “General Theory of State and Law.
Academic Course,” Statut, Moscow, 2001.
[28] V. D. Perevalov, “Theory of State and Law. Course
Book,” Yurait, Moscow, 2008.
[29] N. I. Matuzov and A. V. Mal’ko, “Theory of State and
Law. Series of Lectures,” Yuridicheskaya Literatura, Mos-
cow, 2001.
[30] E. T. Usenko, “Essay on Theory of International Law,”
Norma, Moscow, 2008.
[31] A. B. Vengerov, “Theory of State and Law. Course
Book,” Yurist, Moscow, 2008.
[32] M. N. Marchenko, “Problems of Theory of State and
Law,” Gardariki, Moscow, 2002.
[33] “Herald of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Fed-
eration,” No. 1, 1998, pp. 47-51.
[34] A. L. Safonov, “Commentary of Official Authorities on

Place and Role of Norms and Sources of International Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation:
The Doctrinal Exploration and the Legislative Development of the Constitutional Principle
40
the RF Labour Code,” Profizdat, Moscow, 2006.
[35] Database, “Consultant Plus. Version Prof Legislation.”
[36] D. Anzilotti, “Course of International Law,” Progress,
Moscow, 1961.
[37] A. S. Gaverdovskiy, “Implementation of the International
Law Norms,” Nauka, Kiev, 1980.
[38] G. V. Ignatenko, “Interrelation of Domestic and Interna-
tional Law. Study Guide,” Sverdlovsky Yuridicheskyi In-
stitute, Sverdlovsk, 1981.
[39] V. G. Butkevich, “Correlation between Domestic and
International Law,” Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1981.
[40] R. A. Mullerson, “Correlation between International and
National Law,” Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, Moscow,
1982.
[41] R. A. Mullerson and G. I. Tunkin, “Course of Interna-
tional Law,” Progress, Moscow, 1989.
[42] “On Application of the International Law Norms by the
Law-Enforcement Bodies of the Russian Federation: Re-
view of Proceedings of the Research-and-Practice Con-
ference,” State and Law, No. 5, 1996.
[43] “First Research-and-Practice Conference on Issues of Ap-
plication of the International Law Norms by the Russian
Federation Law-enforcement Agencies,” Moscow, 7-9
February 1996.
[44] “Russian Legal System and International Law: Current
Issues of Interrelation: Proceedings of the All-Russia Re-
search-and-Practice Conference,” State and Law, No. 2-4,
1996.
[45] M.A. Mityukov and S.V. Kabishev, “Generally Recog-
nized Principles and Norms of International law, Interna-
tional Treaties in Practice of the Constitutional Justice,”
Proceedings of the All-Russia Meeting, Moscow, 24 De-
cember 2004.
[46] B. L. Zimnenko, “On Application of International Law
Norms by Courts of General Jurisdiction. Reference Guide,”
Statut, Moscow, 2005.
[47] S. Yu. Marochkin, “Legal Foundations and Practice of
Court Application of the International Treaties in the
Civil Cases Disposal,” In: G.V. Ignatenko, Ed., Interna-
tional Treaties Implementation in the USSR. Issues of
Theory and Practice, Sverdlovsk, 1986, pp. 88-95.
[48] S. Yu. Marochkin, “Implementation of the International
Treaties’ Norms in the USSR: To Development of the Is-
sue,” In: G.V. Ignatenko, Ed., Problems of the Interna-
tional Law Norms Realization, Sverdlovsk, 1989, pp. 4-
11.
[49] S. Yu. Marochkin, “Improvement of Civil-Law Procedure
with Participation of Foreign Citizens,” In: S.V. Nikitin,
Ed., Court-Legal Reform and Increase of Justice Effec-
tiveness, Tyumen, 1991, pp. 36-43.
[50] S. V. Chernichenko, “Question of Correlation between
International and Domestic Law as Legal Systems (Re-
flections on Some Books of Colleagues),” Jurisprudence,
No. 1, 2009, pp. 21-24, 28.
[51] A. I. Kovler, “Issues of the International Law in Deci-
sions of the European Court on Human Rights (Interna-
tional Legal Personality and State Immunity,” Russian
Yearbook of International Law, 2003, pp. 299-306.
[52] A. I. Kovler, “Anthropology of Law. Course Book,” Yurist,
Moscow, 2002.
[53] V. S. Vereshchetin, “Some Aspects of Correlation of
International and National Law in Practice of the UN In-
ternational Court of Justice,” Russian Juridical Journal,
No. 3, 2002, pp. 19-26.
[54] V. S. Vereshchetin, “The UN International Court of Jus-
tice on a New Stage,” Russian Yearbook of Internation-
alLaw, 2006, pp. 16-18.
[55] R. A. Mullerson, “Ordering Anarchy. International Law
in International Society,” Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,
London, 2000.
[56] Yu. A. Tikhomirov, “Globalization: Interdependence of
Domestic and International Law,” Journal of Russian
Law, No. 11, 2002, p. 5.
[57] M. M. Boguslavskiy, “International Private Law. Course
Book,” Yurist, Moscow, 2009, p. 56.
[58] K. Jauffret-Spinosi, “Issues and Development Perspec-
tives of the Legal Cooperation in the Framework of the
Chankhai Organization of Cooperation, European-Asian
Economic Cooperation and Partnership with EC: Speech
at the European-Asian Law Congress,” Russian Juridical
Journal, No. 5, 2009, pp. 22-25.
[59] T. N. Neshataeva, “Court and Generally Recognized Prin-
ciples and Norms of International Law,” Herald of the
Supreme Arbitrazh Court of the RF, No. 3, 2004, pp. 124-
140.
[60] Bulleten’ mezhdunarodnykh dogovorov, “Bulletin of Inter-
national Treaties,” No. 3, 2008.
[61] Sobraniye zakonodatel’stva RF, “Compilation of Legisla-
tion of the Russian Federation,” No. 44, 2007.
[62] S. V. Polenina, “Gender Equality. Issue of Equal Rights
and Equal Abilities of Men and Women,” Gardariki, Mos-
cow, 2005.
[63] V. M. Volzhenkina, “The International Law Norms in Rus-
sian Criminal Procedure,” ID Yuridicheskaya, Saint Pe-
terburg, 2001.
[64] O. I. Rabtsevich, “Right for a Fair Trial: International and
Domestic Regulation,” Yurait, Moscow, 2005.
[65] V. V. Lazarev, “Theory of State and Law. Course Book,”
Prospect, Moscow, 2001.
[66] M. N. Marchenko, “Theory of State and Law. Course
Book,” Statut, Moscow, 2007
[67] М. М. Rassolov, V.О. Luchin and B.S. Ebzeev, “Theory
of State and Law. Course Book,” Infra-M, Moscow,
2000.
[68] M. N. Marchenko, “International Treaty as a Source of
Current Russian Law,” Herald of the Moscow University.
Series 11 “Law”, No. 3, 2004, pp. 3-18.
[69] V. V. Lazarev, “General Theory of State and Law. Course
Book,” Omega-L, Moscow, 2002.
[70] A. B. Vengerov, “Theory of State and Law. Course
Book,” Prospect, Moscow, 2005.

Place and Role of Norms and Sources of International Law in the Legal System of the Russian Federation:
The Doctrinal Exploration and the Legislative Development of the Constitutional Principle
41
[71] L. A. Morozova, “Theory of State and Law. Course
Book,” Yurizdat, Moscow, 2008.
[72] Compilation of Legislation of the Russian Federation, No.
11, 2006.
[73] M. О. Buyanova and I.А. Kostyan, “Commentary on the
RF Labour Code,” Profizdat, Moscow, 2007.
[74] А. S. Mikhlin, “Commentary on the Penal Execution
Code,” Norma, Moscow, 2008.
[75] Yu. M. Prusakov, “The RF Constitution. Research-and-
Practice Commentary,” Yurlitinform, Moscow, 2001.
[76] G. D. Sadovnikova, “Commentary on the RF Constitu-
tion,” TK Velbi, Moscow, 2001.
[77] V. D. Karpovich, “Paragraph-to-Paragraph Commentary
on the RF Constitution,” Yurtsentr Press, Moscow, 2002.
[78] V. V. Lazarev, “Research-and-Practice Commentary on
the RF Constitution,” Yurist, Moscow, 2003.
[79] О. Е. Kutafin, “Paragraph-to-Paragraph Research-and-
Practice Commentary on the RF Constitution,” Statut,
Moscow, 2003.
[80] E. Yu. Barkhatova, “Commentary on the RF Constitu-
tion,” Yurait, Moscow, 2008.
[81] Е. N. Sidorenko, “Commentary on the RF Administrative
Violation Code,” Omega-L, Moscow, 2003.
[82] V. Е. Sevryugin, “The RF Administrative Violation Code.
Research-and-Practice Commentary,” Yurist, Moscow,
2004.
[83] E. N. Renov, “Commentary on the RF Administrative
Violation Code,” Prospect, Moscow, 2004.
[84] V. I. Seliverstov, “Commentary on the RF Penal Execu-
tion Code,” Gardariki, Moscow, 2008.
[85] A. N. Guev, “Paragraph-to-Paragraph Commentary on the
RF Tax Code. Part 1,” Infra-M, Moscow, 2005.
[86] V. M. Lebedev and Y. I. Skuratov, “Commentary on the
RF Criminal Code,” Yurizdat, Moscow, 2002.
[87] V. I. Radchenko, “Commentary on the RF Civil Proce-
dure Code,” TK Velbi, Moscow, 2003.
[88] L. M. Pchelintseva, “Commentary on the RF Family
Code,” Yurlitinform, Moscow, 2006.
[89] A. N. Guev, “Paragraph-to-Paragraph Commentary on the
RF Customs Code,” Omega-L, Moscow, 2004.
[90] Yu. F. Kvasha, “Commentary on the RF Tax Code, Part I,
II,” Walters Kluwer, Moscow, 2007.
[91] G. А. Zhilin, “Commentary on the RF Arbitrate Proce-
dure Code (Paragraph-to-Paragraph),” Yurait, Moscow,
2007.
[92] V. V. Yarkov, “Commentary on the RF Arbitrate Proce-
dure Code (Paragraph-to-Paragraph),” Yurist, Moscow,
2003.
[93] G. А. Zhilin, “Commentary on the RF Civil Procedure
Code (Paragraph-to-Paragraph),” Norma, Moscow, 2006.
[94] A. B. Borisov, “Commentaries on the RF Criminal Pro-
cedure Code with Practical Explanations and Paragraph-
to-Paragraph Materials,” ID Yurisprudentsia, Moscow,
2007.
[95] I. L. Petrukhin, “Commentary on the RF Criminal Proce-
dure Code (Paragraph-to-Paragraph),” Infra-M, Moscow,
2000.
[96] V. V. Mozyakov, “Commentary on the RF Criminal Pro-
cedure Code,” Delo, Moscow, 2002.
[97] P. V. Krasheninnikov, “Paragraph-to-Paragraph Com-
mentary on the RF Civil Procedure Code,” Statut, Mos-
cow, 2003.
[98] A. B. Borisov, “Commentary on the RF Civil Code,”
Yurizdat, Moscow, 2005.
[99] E. L. Danilov, “Civil Procedure Code of the RF. Com-
mentaries. Paragraph-to-Paragraph materials. Court and
Law Practice. Samples,” TK Velbi, Moscow, 2005.
[100] A. V. Nikiforov, “Commentary on the RF Civil Procedure
Code,” Yurlitinform, Moscow, 2006.
[101] B. N. Topornin, “The RF Constitution. Research-and-
Practice Commentary,” Prospect, Moscow, 1997.
[102] О. N. Sadikov, “Commentary on the RF Civil Code, Part
I,” Gardariki, Moscow, 2005.
[103] V. D. Zor’kin and L. V. Lazarev, “Commentary on the
RF Constitution,” Yuridicheskaya Literatura, Moscow,
2009.
[104] S. Yu. Marochkin, “On International Component of the
Russian Legal System: Exploration and Development of a
Constitutional Principle by Means of Practice,” Jurispru-
dence, No. 1, 2010, p. 160.
[105] S. Iu. Marochkin, “Correlation of International Law and
Russian Law,” East European and Russian Yearbook of
International and Comparative Law, Vol. 4-5, 2010-2011,
p. 111.