The article provides a philosophical and legal understanding of the war between Ukraine and the RF. The methodological basis of this study is the concept of the “Nomos of the Earth” by the famous German lawyer K. Schmitt. At the same time, “Nomos” is not taken in its traditional sense as a positive law that is opposed to ‘physis’ as a natural law. By “Nomos of the Earth”, the German legal philosopher understands the event of measuring the earth, the essence of which is the phenomena of ordering and localisation. Due to this event, both positive and natural law receive their ontological foundation. In turn, the historical equivalent of Nomos is the act of seizure of land. According to the German legal scientist, it is the historical event of the distribution and appropriation of land that establishes the political, economic and legal order. Any right has its origin in a certain designated territory. At the same time, the seizure of land should not be understood as a purely arbitrary, armed takeover. Therefore, the article sets out the criteria (consent of the legal sovereign, consent of the overwhelming majority of subjects of international law, consent of the indigenous population of the occupied territory) by which the actual seizure of land turns into a legal event that can be included in the global or continental legal order. A logical consequence of this procedure is a rethinking of the phenomenon of war, which is understood as an armed conflict between equal sovereigns that is conducted according to certain rules. If these rules are violated, it is no longer a war, but a punitive action against the aggressor as a violator of international law. Therefore, the law aims not to prohibit but to limit war. As a result, the author concludes that law in time of war applies only to equal subjects and has three main directions of action: punishment, forgiveness (amnesty) and reconciliation.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Bulygin E, Essays in Legal Philosophy (Oxford University Press 2015).

2. Hart H L A, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Press 1994).

3. Kant I, Critique of Practical Reason (Cambridge University Press 2015).

4. Kelsen H, Pure Theory of Law (The Lawbook Exchange LTD 2005).

5. Schmitt C, Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum (Duncker und Humblot 1997).Journal articles 6. Alexy R, [2019] 1 ‘Law’s Dual Nature’ Ordines 42–51.

7. Rabinovych P, ‘Liudianist: mizhnarodni standarty pravovoho zakhystu (do 65-richchia zavershennia Niurnberzkoho protsesu)’ [2011] 10 Pravo Ukrainy 349–357.

8. Rabinovych P, ‘Profesor Hersh Lauterpakht – pershyi proektant spetsialnoho orhanu OON z kontroliu za dotrymanniam yii Mizhnarodnoho billia prav liudyny’ [2017] 4 Pravo Ukrainy 26–33.

9. Rabinovych P, ‘Universalnyi kanon liudskykh prav’ [2018] 9 Pravo Ukrainy 109–123.

10. Rabinovych P, Derzhypilska A, ‘Rozvytok idei profesora H. Lauterpakhta shchodo vidpovidalnosti za vchynennia zlochyniv proty liudianosti u suchasnomu mizhnarodnomu kryminalnomu pravi (do 75-richchia peremohy nad natsystskym rezhymom u Druhii svitovii viini)’ [2020] 8 Pravo Ukrainy 212–222.

11. Rabinovych P, Osoba V, ‘Zahalna deklaratsiia prav liudyny: khto buv yii pershym proektantom?’ [2013] 49 Yurydychnyi visnyk Ukrainy 6–7.