Legal forum in Petersburg Memory, textbooks and law

Jun 24

Alena Germanova's complete report from the fourteenth St. Petersburg International Legal Forum covers historical-memory discussions, textbook presentations and legal cooperation. Konstantin Chuychenko gives his interpretation of foreign support for the 1905 revolution and state weakness; Margarita Simonyan claims global historical amnesia. The report says new Donbas and Novorossiya history books were presented and that new state social-studies textbooks will be used from September 1; Vladimir Medinsky criticizes old definitions and Sergey Kravtsov describes the new grade coverage and lower prices. Dmitry Medvedev opens the plenary with an argument for equal sovereignty under international law; the report identifies Vietnam as guest partner and shows its justice minister. It briefly describes prosecutorial cooperation meetings. Alexander Gutsan says an Istanbul court rejected Russia's Tarabya-villa ownership claim in May and that an appeal is being prepared. A navigation-sanctions session includes Bart Soens calling tanker detentions and maritime-drone attacks illegal and suggesting naval escorts. A final section describes bureaucracy facing charities and planned regional offices of a child-protection foundation. Historical, sovereignty and legality claims remain the speakers' positions; textbook use, an appeal and foundation expansion are future actions in this report.

Dmitry Medvedev opens the legal forum's plenary on whether international law is a privilege of leaders or a right of equals. He argues leadership does not permit revoking others' rights or sovereignty and that law should guarantee equality. Channel One describes the forum's international participation and Vietnam as guest partner; its justice minister presents Vietnam as peaceful and stable. These are public positions, not a new international agreement. At the forum, Medvedev argues for genuine sovereign equality and alleges that Western privilege, colonial legacies and double standards undermine international law. He advocates applying existing legal institutions and viable models with contemporary meanings, rather than overthrowing the system, and says a stable balance is necessary. In follow-up he calls functioning international law an exception worth striving for; at the close he describes it as the last regulatory barrier before war. These are his programme and assessments, not an agreed institutional reform.