This article aims to compare legislative practices of two socialist revolutions in Finland and Russia (the Bolshevik revolution) in late 1917–1918. Notwithstanding considerable differences of social, political, and economic conditions in Finland and Russia, in both countries the revolutionaries used quite similar legislative means of politics. The revolutionary legislative politics had the same ends - to secure the success of the revolutions, and, eventually, to build a new and better society. This article seeks to demonstrate the history of revolutionary lawmaking as a juncture of two main tendencies - the emergence of new ‘revolutionary’ features of legislative politics and the preservation of prerevolutionary law.
Contextual analysis of both the Russian and Finnish political backgrounds of lawmaking is applied in this work, which leads to the conclusion that the similarity of revolutionary ends defined certain similarity of means used in legislative politics.
This article investigates eighteenth-century Russian legal thought on the criminalisation of sex and sexualities in light of Western European scholarship on the same themes. It reveals the background to and preconditions for the transfer of knowledge and intellectual frameworks that structured societal understandings of sexuality and, at the same time, created the mechanisms of social and legal control over such behaviour. The study shows that the absence of developed Russian legal philosophy did not prevent the development of a criminal law with the same goals as more developed jurisdictions. Commentaries on and classification of sex crimes in Russia followed patterns familiar to Western Europe and used similar definitions rooted in Christian moral philosophy and canon law. The concern with the proper, rational and orderly development of state and society, central to the era, meant that laws relating to the criminalisation of sex and sexuality were not liberalised.