“Pravova derzhava”. Issue 35 (2024), pages 306–314.

DOI: 10.33663/0869-2491-2024-35-306-314

Rominskyi Yevhen
Legal understanding of borders in international treaties and legal texts of Ancient Rus

Studying the issues of the formation and development of legal concepts about the national territory and its borders, we must delve into the very foundations, to the time of the East Slavic state entities (in other words, the state entities of Ancient Rus), as well as those state entities and states under the infl uence or rule of which the aforementioned East Slavic state formations fell during the studied period of the XI‒XV centuries. The term «East Slavic legal and cultural space» is used to denote this territorial and political massif. The language of legal texts of the East Slavic legal and cultural space of the XI‒XV centuries brought to us two main words related to the understanding of the border: «meja» and «rubij». Also, in the Church Slavonic language, which was widely used by scribes, boundaries correspond to the words «predil» and «jereb». «Predil» and «meja» were quite freely used as synonyms in Ancient Rus literature. The «Meja» and «rubij» are mentioned in international and inter-princely treaties. It is interesting that references to the peace concluded along the old princely border are also known from birch documents, i.e. private correspondence. The word «meja» also denoted the borders of economic territories, arable land, etc. Such a «meja» is known from Rus’ka Pravda, other legal monuments, private acts and narrative sources. The «meja» thus introduced a clearly defi ned legal boundary in terms of content and essence. For private farms, it was the border of a certain type of their economic activity. At the same time, for the lands of state and corporate entities, principalities and monasteries, which were endowed not only with economic, but also with political rights, the public rights of the other party could not violate this boundary. Both terms were used in parallel, but in fact had a certain essential separation: the «meja» is more of a specifi c sign or a specifi c division. The «rubij» is a limitation for certain actions and rights. It should also be taken into account that often the words «meja» or «rubij» are simply not mentioned. In general, it should be noted that the most common in peace treaties are statements about old lines, about old «fees», etc., that is, only a reference to previously defi ned borders or practices without even naming them. Only the emergence and development of the state management apparatus, its essential fi lling, both by offi cials and through the development of legislation, will create conditions for the gradual transformation of «mejy» and «rubijy» into state borders.

Key words: Legal history, East Slavic, Kyivan Rus, Ancient Rus, state formations, Medieval Law, Ancient Rus Law, international law, Source of Law, oral law, written law, Legal Treaty.

References

1. Nasonov A. N. «Russkaya zemlya» i obrazovanie territorii Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva. Istoriko-geograficheskoe issledovanie. Moskva: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1951. 252 s. [rus.].
2. Temushev V. N. Territoriya i granicy Moskovskogo knyazhestva v konce XIII — pervoj polovine XIV v. Dissertaciya na soiskanie uchyonoj stepeni kandidata istoricheskih nauk. Minsk, 2002, 150 s. [rus.].
3. Tolstikov A. From Mezha and Rån to Rubezh and Gränsen: Conceptualizing the Russo-Swedish Border in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. Revue d’Histoire Nordique — Nordic Historical Review. 2015. No. 19. P. 31–55; Tolstikov A. V. Mezha kak politicheskaya granica? (Ob odnom aspekte evolyucii ponyatiya gosudarstvennoj granicy v Rossii). Na puti k gosudarstvam novogo vremeni: Zapad i Vostok Evropy v konce XV–XVII veke / otv. red.: I. N. Bergovskaya, V. D. Nazarov, P. Yu. Uvarov. Kaluga, 2020. S. 559–618 [rus.].
4. Lickevich O. V. Vliyanie drevnerusskih tradicij na pravovoe regulirovanie i praktiki ustanovleniya granic v Velikom Knyazhestve Litovskom v XIII–XIV vv. Granica i pograniche. 2023. № 2 (4). S. 7–20 [rus.].
5. Lyapin D. A. Motiv narusheniya granic v «Zhitii blagovernogo i velikogo knyazya Aleksandra». Aleksandr Nevskij: lichnost, epoha, istoricheskaya pamyat. K 800-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya. Materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii (25–27 maya 2021 g., Moskva, Rossiya). Moskva: Indrik, 2021. S. 43–47 [rus.].
6. Kezha Yu. N. Predstavleniya o granicah Rusi v Povesti vremennyh let. Nauchnye trudy Respublikanskogo instituta vysshej shkoly. Istoricheskie i psihologo-pedagogicheskie nauki. Vyp. 23. Ch. 1. Minsk: RIVSh, 2023. S. 120–129 [rus.].
7. Lyapin D. A. Ukaz soch. [rus.].
8. Tolstikov A. V. Ukaz soch. S. 602 [rus.].
9. Shaskolskij I. P. Dogovory Novgoroda s Norvegiej. Istoricheskie zapiski. Vyp. 14, Moskva, 1945. S. 38–61 [rus.].
10. Hramoty XIV st. Uporiadkuvannia, vstupna stattia ta slovnyk-pokazhchyk M. M. Peshchak. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1974. S. 38 [ukr.].
11. Kuchkin V. A. Dogovornye gramoty moskovskih knyazej XIV veka: vneshnepoliticheskie dogovory. Moskva: Drevlehranilishe, 2003. S. 343 [rus.].
12. Zaliznyak A. A. Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt. 2-e izdanie, pererabotannoe s uchetom materiala nahodok 1995–2003 gg. Moskva: Yazyki slavyanskoj kultury, 2004. S. 596–597 [rus.].
13. Duhovnye i dogovornye gramoty velikih i udelnyh knyazej XIV–XVI vv. / podgot. k pech. L. V. Cherepnin. Moskva; Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1950. № 76. S. 285 [rus.].
14. Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova / pod red. S. N. Valka. Moskva: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1949. № 79. S. 139 [rus.].
15. Zaliznyak A. A. Ukaz soch. S. 607–608 [rus.].
16. Tolstikov A. V. Ukaz soch. [rus.].
17. Duhovnye i dogovornye… S. 160 [rus.].
18. Deduk A. V. Ot porubezhya knyazhestv XIII–XIV stoletij k granicam vladenij duhovnyh korporacij: sudba «okolicy» Ryazanskogo Olgova monastyrya i okrestnyh zemel. Uralskij istoricheskij vestnik. 2024. № 1 (82). S. 6–15 [rus.].