Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Russia / History / Politics and law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
WikiProject Law (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Old talkEdit

  • This article contains some incorrectly information. Enacting and promulgating of "Stalin's Constitution" of the USSR in 1936 discontinued an existence of such legal act form as decree in Russian legal system. Since 1936 all acts of Supreme Council of the USSR were named Ukaz (Ukase) or Постановление- Postanovleniye (Decision) and all acts of the Soviet Government were named Postanovleniye or Распоряжение - Rasporyazhenie (Order).-- (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ukase of 1799 and Ukase of 1821Edit

I'm doing background for a rewrite of the Alaska boundary dispute article and have come across mention of the Ukase of 1799, which was issued under Paul; see here for one reference to its terms, among which claims in Russian America were asserted to 55 degrees north; the Ukase of 1821 tried to extend that to 44-50 N or so but was quickly challenged by Britain, leading to the Treaty of St. Petersburg (1825). The 1821 Ukase had lots of other items in it, including ecclesiastical decrees, so it seems clear the Ukase of 1799 probably had a lot more in it than just territorial assertions in North America. Anyone here familiar enough with Russian history/specifics or the Ukases to help out?Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's some possible sources that could be used, via Google Books (old and fully viewable sources). I don't have the time to do more now--maybe later.
The actual text of the Ukases of 1799 and of 1821 can be found on pages 23-28 of this 1903 report by the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal. There are actually two Ukases of 1821. The names given in this report are: 1. Ukase of July 8, 1799, Granting Privileges to the Russian American Company (grants company rights north of 55th parallel). 2. Ukase of September 4, 1821 (not specific to the Russian American Company; this Ukase forbids ships from coming within "100 Italian miles" of the "whole of the north-west coast of America" from "Behring Straits" to the 51st parallel, and even farther south in Asia; the Ukase which the US and Britain immediately protested). 3. Ukase of September 13, 1821, Renewing Privileges of the Russian-American Company. "Second Charter of the Russian American Company" (grants company rights "from the northern point of the Island of Vancouver, under 51 north latitude.."). There are later Ukases from 1829 and 1844 relating to the Russian American Company and the Pacific Northwest printed on the following pages, and much else that relates to the topic. Apparently the report is about the Portland Canal area boundary dispute between the US and Britain (Canada now).
There's more information on the general topic starting on page 41 of The Alaska boundary (1903). The section titled "The Ukase of 1821" starts on page 43.
Also, some stuff about the Ukase of 1821 in International environmental law reports, Volume 1, pages 45-46. Mainly about it forbidding non-Russian vessels from even approaching Russian American territory within "a hundred Italian miles", and how both the US and Britain immediately protested, resulting in the 1824 and 1825 conventions with each (highlighted points of the conventions given, including demarcation of territories). Pages 60, 69, and, with more detail, page 86 say the Russian claim of marine jurisdiction was reduced to "the reach of a cannon shot from the shore" during the convention negotiations. Why is this in a book about international environmental law? The effort to save the sea otter from extinction in the late 19th century, I think. The "Fur Seal Controversy" of 1892, whatever that was. Pfly (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing name to UkazEdit

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ukaseukaz – I suggest to change the name to Ukaz since its the most accurate translation to the Russian word указ, the letter з=z in english, and this is the common writing in all sources both academic (Britanica) and non-academic. any resistance? Superzohar   Talk 22:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, oppose. This is not a transliteration of a Russian word but rather the spelling adopted in the English language. I no longer have access to the OED to check, but "ukase" is what Merriam-Webster prescribes, and a cursory gbooks search shows it as a more common spelling.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2012; 18:43 (UTC)
    • I checked the OED and it uses "ukase" for both "a decree or edict, having the force of law, issued by the Russian emperor or government" and "any proclamation or decree; an order or regulation of a final or arbitrary nature". There is no listing for ukaz. —  AjaxSmack  01:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I was expecting to oppose and put "tsarist ukase" vs "tsarist ukaz" into GBooks as proof, then was very surprised to find 143 to 166, still in favour of the (admittedly inaccurate) old spelling but not by much. And, this is what swayed me, on the very subjective look of what were more relevant-to-Russian-law sources in Google Scholar ukaz is gaining or has gained ground. The problem with ukase is immediately obvious, it could lead to the pronunciation "ukeiz", wheras ukaz is immediately clear what the pronunciation is, and what the Cyrillic would be. Plus, though this is a very minor point searches in GNews on Medvedev come up more with ukaz. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    You should, however, realize, that while "ukase" is indeed more common in a historical context (like with the "Tsarist ukase" you used in your search), the seeming commonality of "ukaz" in modern sources is heavily influenced by numerous transliterations of those ukazs' titles? Things like Ukaz ob Obrazovanii Soveta Obshchestvennoy Bezopasnosti Sverdlovskoy Oblasti are all too common, inflate the counts quite a bit, and are by no means a representation of modern use in English. In modern contexts, the term "decree" is far more common than "ukaz"; the latter (along with "ukase") is only used occasionally. In historical texts, "ukase" flat out wins (try gbooks for "Tsarist|Czarist ukaz" vs. "Tsarist|Czarist ukase").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2012; 12:14 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'll stick with my conclusions above. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose - a convincing argument of ezhiki is that the russian word "ukaz" is adequately translated by the word "decree", which is commonly used in modern contexts, as readily verified by search of phrases such as "Medvedev's decree" vs. "Medvedev's ukaz". Hence the word's usage is for rendering an adequate historical/cultural atmosphere, archaism, so to say, like "thou art" or 'ye olde songe' (the latter being parody usage). "tsar's ukase" (800 in googe books vs 200 for tsars' ukaz). So we better stick with historical usage, unless one can find a linguistic reference which specifically advices to use otherwise. - Altenmann >t 14:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.