Application of Domestic Criminal Statutes in regard to International Crimes

In order for an international crime to be prosecuted in a domestic court, norms prescribing punishability have to be adopted in the legal system of the respective State. The article analyses issues that come up with autonomous transposition of international criminal law norms into the domestic legal order, based on the example of the Estonian Penal Code. It also seeks to offer an explanation as to why it is necessary to be aware of these issues and what the strategies would be to overcome problems with transposition. Both issues of the special part as well as the general part are touched upon.

A Century of the Baltic States’ Independence: Some Similarities and Differences with Bulgaria

The article scrutinizes the Baltic States and their century of independence which have been the focus of interest of various sciences. On the occasion of the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of the independence of the Baltic States – Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – some parallels could be drawn with the historical, economic and political development of these countries and Bulgaria. These parallels are not only found in the political and legal period but are contained in different stages, which shows the interesting legal and political nature of the Baltic States and some of their common problems and events with the countries of Eastern Europe and, in particular, the example with Bulgaria. The article has also drawn attention to a significant problem that the three Baltic States and Bulgaria have to deal with, namely the demographic crisis. This problem is particularly important in the light of migratory pressures that the countries outlining the external borders of the European Union are facing and it involves systematic and long-term efforts.

One Hundred Years of Faith: The Baltic States’ Contribution to International Justice

One hundred years on from the establishment of the first World Court provides an excellent occasion to assess the evolution of International Justice and its role in setting new standards of inter-State behaviour. Faith in the rule of law and international justice in the institutionalised world order by Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia was based on the public mood in the aftermath of the First World War, as well as distinctly practical security interests. Early acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction in turn contributed to the formation of international law with three cases and interpretation by the Court of numerous rules of international law.

Principles and Pragmatism in State Succession: Bargaining in the Economic Affairs Commission of the Tartu Peace Conference

The conventions of legal argumentation have the tendency to reinforce the notion that the development of international law is a principled affair. This article will examine the elaboration of one particular treaty – the Tartu Peace Treaty signed between Estonia and Soviet Russia in 1920 – in order to see to what extent it lends support to the idea that treaties grow out of principles. The Tartu Peace Treaty perfectly illustrates the point that the contents of a treaty can be entirely indeterminate with regard to their underlying principles. My conclusion is not that, in this case, pragmatism triumphed over principles: that the negotiating parties refrained from debates over abstract principles and took the more pragmatic route of finding an array of concrete solutions. Whilst it is true that the end result – the Treaty as it finally stood – was detached from any single foundational idea, it was not obtained by putting principles aside. The Tartu Peace Conference rather offers us a particularly good example of how principles can be used as rhetorical ploys.

Finland’s Continuation War (1941–1944): War of Aggression or Defence? War of Alliance or Separate War?

In September 1939, after having included a secret protocol on spheres of influence in the so-called Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact, Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland and divided it between themselves. It was not long before the Soviet Union approached Finland by proposing exchanges of certain territories: ‘in our national interest we want to have from you certain territories and offer in exchange territories twice as large but in less crucial areas’. Finland, suspicious of Soviet motives, refused – the outcome was the Soviet war of aggression against Finland by the name of the Winter War in 1939–1940. The Soviet Union won this war and compelled Finland to cede several territories – about 10 per cent of Finland’s area. After the Winter War, Finland sought protection from Germany against the Soviet Union and decided to rely on Germany. After Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, Finland joined the German war effort in the so-called Continuation War and reoccupied the territories lost in the Winter War. Finnish forces did not stop at the old border but occupied Eastern (Soviet) Karelia with a desire eventually to annex it. By that measure, Finland joined as Germany’s ally in its war of aggression against the Soviet Union in violation of international law. In their strong reliance on Germany, the Finnish leaders made some very questionable decisions without listening to warnings from Western States about possible negative consequences. Germany lost its war and so did Finland, which barely avoided entire occupation by the Soviet Army and succeeded in September 1944 in concluding an armistice with the Soviet Union. Finland lost some more territories and was subjected to many obligations and restrictions in the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, dictated by the Allies. This article analyses, according to the criteria of international law, Finland’s policy shortly prior to and during the Continuation War, especially Finland’s secret dealings with Germany in the months prior to the German attack against the Soviet Union and Finland’s occupation of Eastern Karelia in the autumn of 1941. After Adolf Hitler declared that Germany was fighting against the Soviet Union together with Finland and Romania, was the Soviet Union entitled – prior to the Finnish attack – to resort to armed force in self-defence against Finland? And was Finland treated too harshly in the aftermath of World War ii? After all, its role as an ally of Germany had been rather limited.