Kremnev Pyotr Petrovich

This publication provides a conceptual and theoretical analysis of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on generally recognized principles and norms of international law (para 4 of art. 15), discusses the content of the term-the concept of “peremptory norm of international law” (jus cogens) and its relationship with obligations erga omnes, as well as the basis (main sources) of such norms and principles. The article provides a list and a brief justification of about 20 generally recognized principles and norms of modern international law and their hierarchical position in the system of Russian law.

The publication, in the context of current international law and legal doctrine, provides a theoretical and legal analysis of the statements of the Vilnius Court on the status of Lithuania as an “occupied State” in 1940–1990, whether “the Republic of Lithuania and the Soviet Union were different States from the standpoint of international law” during the pointed period. In this regard, on the basis of the Soviet-Lithuanian bilateral agreements, reliable archival sources and foreign materials of international affairs departments, the problem of compliance or violation of the international legal norms in force at that time with the procedure for Lithuania’s entry into the USSR is considered. The article reveals the concept, content and consolidation of the term “occupation (military occupation)” in international law, as well as the features of the occupation regime in relation to the topic of the publication. The views of well-known representatives of the Western European and Baltic legal doctrines of the concept of the “Soviet occupation of the Baltic States” are considered. A theoretical analysis of the concept of “annexation” in international relations is given, the absence of its normative consolidation in international law is noted, a number of examples of annexation in European interstate practice on the eve and during the Second World War are given. Based on the analysis of the legal nature of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the recognition by almost the entire international community and the prevailing views in the international legal doctrine, the legality of Lithuania’s being a part of the USSR in the period 1940–1941 as a union republic is justified.

The article is a continuation of the doctrinal and legal analysis of the decision of the Vilnius District Court to give retroactive effect to the law, namely to impose a criminal penalty on the basis of articles of the Lithuanian Criminal Code of 2000 as amended in 2011 in relation to the events of 1991. The publication also examines the issue of the Court’s failure to refer to the UN Charter and the UN General Assembly Resolution of 1974 on the definition of aggression for the purpose of substantiating allegations of “Soviet aggression that began in 1940 and continued” against Lithuania. The Court’s qualification of the actions of units of the armed forces and law enforcement agencies of the USSR in January 1991 in Vilnius as war crimes and crimes against humanity on the basis of the application of the provisions of the Charter of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, the Convention on the Inapplicability of the Statute of Limitations of 1968 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 on the Protection of Victims of War are considered from critical positions. Taking into account the refutability of the Court’s statements about the alleged crimes committed by the Soviet Union in 1940–1991. acts of “occupation”, “aggression”, “crimes against humanity”, “war crimes” and other “crimes under international humanitarian law” justify the general conclusion about the illegality of the decision of the Vilnius Court on the application of the norms of Lithuanian national criminal legislation with reference and on the basis of the international legal acts considered in the publication.