One feature of the turn to history in international law has been the adoption of ‘national’ traditions (here using ‘national’ very loosely) as a lens through which to explore a broader picture. This focus on national traditions has converged with rich work styled as comparative international law, exploring how international law operates as a fragile common language even as governments deploy its grammar and vocabulary in quite different ways. In this episode we take up the question of whether there is a distinctive Russian approach to or use of international law. This takes us to reflections on the terrain from which we judge this, particularly today. What are the comparators and from which perspective are we taking a view? It also takes us to the stakes of thinking in terms of these long-range continuities in national legal styles in the first place. How does that shape our perspective on the broader system and how it might develop in future? Megan Donaldson is joined by Lauri Mälksoo (University of Tartu), Erika de Wet (University of Graz) and the political scientist Gulnaz Sharafutdinova (Director of the Russia Institute, King’s College London).

Scholarship discussed in the episode includes Lauri Mälksoo’s recent book, Russia, the Soviet Union, and Imperial Continuity in International Law (2025); and Gulnaz Sharafutdinova’s The Red Mirror: Putin's Leadership and Russia's Insecure Identity (2020) and The Afterlife of the ‘Soviet Man’: Rethinking Homo Sovieticus (2023). Erika de Wet expands on themes in ‘Is the future for collective security regional? Assessing current challenges to regional and sub-regional security frameworks in Africa’, forthcoming Japanese Yearbook of International Law (2026).