198099 Saint Petersburg
17 Promyshlennaya Ulitsa, Room 107
190008 Saint Petersburg
16 Soyuza Pechatnikov Ulitsa
The Department of History was created in 2012. The overarching goal of the department is systematic development of the field of global, comparative, and transnational history as a potent tool of overcoming the limitations of national history canon, fostering interdisciplinary dialogue in the field of social sciences and humanities, and brining new public relevance to historical knowledge. The department mission includes the development of new type of historical undergraduate and graduate education in Russia and pioneering new research fields in Russian historiography in dialogue with the global historical profession.
Edited by: D. Moon, N. Breyfogle, A. Bekasova.
White Horse Press, 2021.
Gulakova M., Semyonov A.
Ab imperio. 2021. No. 2. P. 139-152.
In bk.: Personal Trajectories In Russia’s Great War And Revolution, 1914–22. Biographical Itineraries, Individual Experiences, Autobiographical Reflections. Vol. 9: Russia's Great War and Revolution. Slavica Publishers, 2021. P. 333-353.
Selin A. A., Байгушев С. В., Levin F. et al.
Working Papers of Humanities. WP. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2020. No. 197.
Tatiana Borisova’s research focuses on the codification of Russian legal tradition. She stated that her presentation would be different from the ones she had done in the past in that it would be “a top down perspective – an official concept provided by the elites in the 19th century.” “I see it as ‘legality with adjectives’ – we used to have Imperial legality, Revolutionary legality, Socialist legality, and now Sovereign legality. This is our Russian legal tradition of adjectives,” she said.
In Russia, Borisova stated, legality is about order. “Whenever there is a public talk about legality, it is about fostering order,” she added, and “justice is a missing point.” Borisova’s main question was: why is Russian law fostered by Russian authorities? She analyzed the work of Harold Berman, who traced the history of authority of law in America in order to understand “why the authority of law did not succeed in Russia.”
Furthermore, by looking at various collections of legislature beginning from the mid 19th century – including the Digest of the Laws of the Russian Empire (Svod zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii) – she was able to conclude that law in Russia was often approached with an instrumentalist and formalist lens. Also, the Digest emphasized the difference of Russian legality with the West, basing its reasonings on the difference in Russian traditions and mentality. The Digest thus presented Russian legality as incomparable to universalist legalities. For example, an emphasis on the enforcement and power predominated the Digest. If power is concentrated in autocracy, what kind of justice can we be talking about? She concluded by suggesting that “the system of Russian legal sources mirror political structure where administrative and legal structures of power have not been separated.”Source the NYU Jordan Center