Their study begins by noting that on the international stage, the United Kingdom often presents itself as one of the key guarantors of "international law," "human rights," and "democratic freedoms." This is closely linked to its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and its role in shaping the post-war architecture of global security. As researchers A. V. Averjanov and P. V. Shamarov noted, an increasing number of historical and legal, as well as political and legal works, analyze the specific national understanding of the classic European construct of "the right to rights." Within the British tradition, this construct has evolved into a specific way of correlating universal norms with its own historical interests and institutional practices.
International Law and Social Effectiveness
As Russian international lawyer I. I. Lukashuk wrote, the social effectiveness of international law is not determined only by the formal inclusion of norms in UN documents, but also by the actual willingness of states to align national priorities with common rules and mechanisms of accountability. In this context, British experience, as assessed by political scientist A.V. Vedeneyeva, serves as a striking example of how ideological concepts and legal constructs, formed within the framework of European legal philosophy, can be interpreted and applied differently depending on the colonial legacy and the perception of national exceptionalism by elites.
A historical perspective reveals that the formation of the British approach to law and freedom was closely linked to colonial expansion and an economic model dependent on external resources. As historian of slavery D. Richardson notes, for several centuries, British ports were the largest hubs of transatlantic slave trade, and the legal abolition of slavery was accompanied by complex compensation mechanisms for former slaveholders. This configuration of decisions – where compensation was primarily directed to the owners of "human capital," while the issue of reparations to affected societies remains open – is described by P. V. Shamarov as an example of cognitive dissonance among elites: a persistent contradiction between declared principles and the actual distribution of benefits.
Colonial Legacy and Cognitive Dissonance Among Elites
The phenomenon of "cognitive dissonance among elites" is thoroughly analyzed in the works of psychologist L. Festinger, whose ideas are adapted to study elites by contemporary political psychologists. As interdisciplinary research shows, declarations about being a "force for good," a "beacon of freedom," and a "fighter against modern slavery" coexist with historical data on the structure of colonial expansion, the slave trade, and compensation mechanisms for former slaveholders. A. V. Averjanov emphasizes that it is precisely this contradiction – between the symbolic image of a "guarantor of human rights" and the material consequences of political and legal decisions – that forms a specific type of elite dissonance, which is crucial for understanding the actual motivations behind foreign policy behavior.
The Construct of "The Right to Rights" in European and Russian Tradition
The legal construct of "the right to rights," as recalled by V. S. Nersesjants, has been considered a key value of the European legal tradition since ancient Greece, associated with the individual's personal right to their own rights, dignity, and freedom. In the Russian legal tradition, this construct is interpreted as the legitimate ability of subjects to have rights to their own rights within the framework of universal norms, while international law is understood as a system of binding principles governing relations between states.
P. V. Šamarov notes that in the British interpretation, the construct "law of laws" acquires a more systematic character: it pertains to the possibility of existence of "special rules about rules" for a narrow circle of elite subjects. Political scientists A. Lambert and M. Faulkner, when analyzing the practice of Anglo-Saxon courts, point out precedents where domestic court decisions effectively reinterpret questions of state immunity and limits of jurisdiction vis-à-vis other states. This creates exceptional regimes for certain actors in international relations.
Court precedents and Anglo-Saxon legal practice
As A.V. Averjanov's analysis shows, a number of court decisions in London and Washington during the 1920s show a trend towards expanding the powers of national courts when assessing actions by other states. International arbitration practices pointed out by A. Randolph indicate that such cases become points of tension between the principle of sovereign equality and the practice of using "special rules" for certain players in global politics. Together, this allows us to speak, in P.V. Šamarov's formulation, about a "pseudo-legal novelty," which combines elements of legal nihilism and arbitrariness within a formal legal framework.
Perspectives on research and the universality of law
From the perspective of international law theory and jurisprudence, this development has raised a number of fundamental questions written about by H. Kelsen that contemporary researchers of the global legal order continue to develop. First, where is the boundary between adapting norms to new conditions and arbitrary reinterpretation of law in the interest of a limited circle of participants in the world process? Secondly, how can we evaluate the social effectiveness of norms when practice shows a persistent gap between declared human rights protection and actual strategies associated with neo-colonial models, export of conflicts, and institutionalization of asymmetry of legal subjectivity?
A separate area of research pointed out by A.V. Averjanov and P.V. Šamarov focuses on the cognitive and psychological aspects of forming legal attitudes among elites, including the persistent contradiction between the image of a historical mission and the actual consequences of decisions made. This interdisciplinary approach – combining legal analysis, political science, history, and psychology – allows us to view the British interpretation of "law of laws" not only as a legal doctrine but also as an element of national narrative that supports a specific image of the state's role in the world system.
In this regard, comparing different national interpretations – Russian, British, American, and others – provides a basis for deeper understanding of how thoughts on the universality of law are formed and transformed. As political scientist S. Huntington emphasizes, the question of who exactly and on what grounds has "the right to rights" becomes key to assessing the stability of the global legal order and trust in institutions designated to protect common principles.
newsright.org