Reference:
Skachkov, N.G..
Conflict of laws issues of legal
regulation of maritime transportation
of hazardous cargo
// LEX RUSSICA (Russian Law). – 2014. – № 4.
– P. 437-449.
Read the article
Abstract: The article concerns the norms of Russian law of late XV – early XVI centuries on definition and forms
of manifestation of treason against the Grand Prince of Moscow and all Russia. The author analyzes the texts
of the treaties among the Princes and the cross-kissing writs. Special attention is paid to the obligations, the
failure to fulfill which was regarded as treason against the Sovereign Ruler of all the Russia”. It is noted that
the treaties provided for the following obligations “not to be friends and not to correspond with the enemies
of the Sovereign Ruler”, wish him good, “not to gather and compromise” with anyone “for harm” to the Ruler,
to inform the Ruler on everything concerning him “for bad or for good”, to follow the land rights of the Grand
Prince, not to offend, not to limit by any trickery. The cross-kissing writs also provide for the obligations not to
immigrate, to serve the Prince, the Princess and their children for truth without any trickery, not to think or do
any evil to them, and to inform the Ruler of any coming threat. The general conditions for all of the forms of
treason was the matter characterizing the method of committing the crime, which was the failure to fulfill the
obligations taken under oath and abuse of trust as well as violation of the oath. Violation of obligations to the
sovereign of all the Russia given with the cross-kissing oath in the early XVI century was regarded as more than just treason against a specific Prince, but rather a treason against the entire Moscow state, as personified by
the Grand Prince, and such a treason was condemned by the church.
Keywords: history of law, the Grand Princedom of Moscow, the Sovereign Ruler of all the Russia, the treaties among the Princes, the cross-kissing writes, the religious oath, treason against the sovereign ruler, bail writs, condemnation writ, treason cases.
References:
Zvekov V.P. Kollizii zakonov v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave. M., «Volters Kluver», 2007 g. S. 110
Sadikov O.N. Predvaritel'nye (pobochnye) voprosy v mezhdunarodnom chastnom prave // SEMP 1989-90-91. SPb., 1992. S. 169.
Kegel G., Schurig Kl., Internationales Privatrecht: ein Studienbuch.2 Aufl. München, 2004. S.133
Wojciech Sadurski. Commutative, distributive and procedural justice-what does it mean, what does it matter? // The University of Sudney. Sudney Law Scholl. Legal Studies Research Paper N 2005-34. R. 6, 9-11.
Dan Markel. Retributive damages: A theory of punitive damages as intermediate sanction // Cornell Law Review. 2009. Vol. 94. P. 245.
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128. S. Ct. 2605, 2621 (2008).
International Maritime Organization (IMO). MSC.155(78) in May 2004,entry into force on 1 July 2006. SAR CONVENTION, London. 2006 Edition.
International Maritime Organization (IMO), International Convention On Salvage, London, 1989. Hansell D.S. Introduction to Insurance