“Pravova derzhava”. Issue 36 (2025), pages 273–282.

DOI: 10.33663/0869-2491-2025-36-273-282

Rominskyi Yevhen
Towards the principle of territorial integrity: the dialectic of dynastic, possessory and territorial rights (based on materials from medieval East Slavic state formations)

Although the principle of territorial integrity is a relatively recent theoretical concept, it is also important to search for the moment when the idea of the such a construct could have arisen. Assessment through the prism of modern theoretical knowledge of the phenomena of the distant past allows not only to find the origins, the first manifestations of scientific and ideological curiosity about such constructs, but also to significantly expand the historical and legal picture of the past. To highlight those phenomena of ancient everyday life that today fall out of sight and often remain beyond the attention of researchers. The task of the study is an attempt to assess whether such a concept could have arisen in the legal worldview of our ancestors.
The primitiveness of the princely administration, when all functions were to be performed by the prince, his relatives, and the people of his court and retinue, made it impossible for a tax system to emerge. This problem, very slowly, as the state as an institution improved, would persist in the states on the site of the former East Slavic state formations for a very long time to come. 
This was compounded by the double problem of princely power, namely the confusion and conflict of dynastic rights, i.e. as a representative of the princely family, and possessory rights, i.e. the rights of the prince as the owner of certain estates. By default, the rights of the prince are absolute, since he belongs to the princely family.
These features were reinforced by the tradition of inheritance of power from brother to brother and then to the children of the elder brother. The second important feature of inheritance is heredity. A grandson could inherit from both his grandfathers, but only if his father did not die before his grandfather. A typical prince could change up to a dozen tables in half a century.
The ideas about the princely economy today are noticeably better than about the prince’s court. Thus, in the chronicle we find many references to the economic activities of the princes: they owned villages, industries; their people were engaged in cattle breeding, etc. In addition, the princes personally founded vegetable gardens. Moreover, they did all this every time, moving to a new table. At the same time, the estates and vegetable gardens created by them on the previous table remained with them. Similarly, they inherited estates and gardens from their fathers. The princes freely sold and transferred their property. And today it is often impossible to say where it was their family property, and where it was public property from the table. The princes considered both properties equally, which, however, caused conflicts with the local elites, which are beautifully described in the Novgorod chronicle.
This situation lasted until the middle of the 15th century. Gradually, the princely possessions were divided, and transfers became less frequent. The southern and western lands increasingly came under the influence of the European legal and cultural space, which significantly intensified from the beginning of the 15th century. However, the princes’ views on their principalities as their property remained stable here as well.
Only under the influence of the European tradition, the enlightenment brought by the humanistic education of the Renaissance, does the legal worldview change and in society, primarily among the educated elites, the idea of the concept of a single territory and the principle of territorial integrity begin to take shape.

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

References

1. Voitovych L. V. Kniazivski dynastii Skhidnoi Yevropy (kinets IX — pochatok XVI st.): sklad, suspilna i politychna rol. Istoryko-henealohichne doslidzhennia. Lviv: Instytut ukrainoznavstva im. I. Krypiakevycha, 2000. 649 s.
2. Tolochko A. P. Ocherki nachalnoi rusi. Kiev; Sankt-Peterburg: Laurus, 2015. 336 s.
3. Kotliar M. F., Rychka V. M. Kniazhyi dvir Pivdennoi Rusi X–XIII st. / NAN Ukrainy. Instytut istorii Ukrainy. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 2008. 357 s.
4. Voloshchuk M. Kniaz i korol Danylo Romanovych u zhytti mista Halycha KhIII storichchia. Halych: zbirnyk naukovykh prats / за ред. М. Волощука. Ivano-Frankivsk: Lileia NV, 2017. Vyp. 2 : Do 650-yi richnytsi mahdeburzkoho prava v Halychi. S. 127–146.
5. Drevnerusskie knyazheskie ustavi. XI–XV veka. Moskva: Nauka, 1976. S. 146.
6. Tam zhe. S. 199–200.
7. Milov L. V. Zakon sudnii lyudem na Rusi. Milov L. V. Issledovaniya po istorii pamyatnikov srednevekovogo prava: Sb. statei. Moskva: ROSSPEN, 2009. S. 6–26.
8. Kuza A. V. Drevnerusskie gorodishcha X-XIII vekov. Svod arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov. Moskva, 1996. 256 s., vkladnaya karta.
9. Yasinskii M. M. «Selo» i «verv» Russkoi pravdi. Antolohiia ukrainskoi yurydychnoi dumky. В 6 т. / редкол.: Ю. С. Шемшученко та ін. T. 2: Istoriia derzhavy i prava Ukrainy: Ruska Pravda. / Упорядники: І. Б. Усенко та ін.; Відп. редактор І. Б. Усенко. Kyiv: Yurydychna knyha, 2002. S. 258–277.
10. Rominskyi Ye. V. Yurydychne rozuminnia kordoniv u mizhnarodnykh dohovorakh i pravovykh tekstakh Davnoi Rusi. Pravova derzhava. Shchorichnyk naukovykh prats Instytutu derzhavy i prava imeni V. M. Koretskoho NAN Ukrainy. Vyp. 35. Do 75-richchia Instytutu derzhavy i prava imeni V. M. Koretskoho NAN Ukrainy. 1949–2024. 2024. S. 306–314.
11. Voitovych L. V. Zaznachena pratsia.
12. Biblioteka literaturi Drevnei Rusi. T. 1: ХІ–ХІІ veka. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 1997. S. 456–475.
13. Biblioteka literaturi Drevnei Rusi. T. 4: ХІІ vek. SPb.: Nauka, 1997. S. 268–282.