Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.40 N° 73
Julio
Diciembre
2022
Recibido el 28/02/2022 Aceptado el 15/05/2022
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 40, Nº 73 (2022), 483-494
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
The legal framework of the foreign
policy of the Byzantine in the era
of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
(945-959)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4073.26
Volodymyr Kuzovkov *
Kyrylo Нorbenko **
Oleksandr Smyrnov ***
Leonid Smyrnov ****
Abstract
The aim of the article is to determine the legal foundations.
The methodological basis of the study is analysis and synthesis,
systems approach, genetic and comparative methods.
Conclusions: The Byzantine law can be traced to the legislation
of Basil I and Leo VI. However, jus gentium (law of nations)
did not have sucient representation in their codes. Therefore, the legal
basis of Byzantine foreign policy consisted of customs and traditions that
had been formed in diplomatic practice in ancient times. The system of
international relations of Byzantium was hierarchical. The legal status of
each participant in this system was determined by military power, political
potential, tradition and religious identity. The relations between Byzantine
and Kievan Rus’ can serve as a model of the application of international
legal norms, which were based on the treaty of 944, which regulated the
legal status of merchants, property rights, mutual military assistance and
the use of territories on the coast of the Dnieper River estuary, Beloberezhye
and the island of Saint Epherius (Berezan).
Keywords: international law; politics of the Byzantine Empire; Byzantium;
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus; Kievan Rus.
* PhD of History, Scientic Head of the Scientic Research Laboratory, V.O. Sukhomlynskyi Mykolaiv
National University, Mykolaiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7263-6137
** Senior lecturer at the Department of History, V.O. Sukhomlynskyi Mykolaiv National University,
Mykolaiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0510-3792
*** Senior lecturer at the Department of History, V.O. Sukhomlynskyi Mykolaiv National University,
Mykolaiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7849-3840
**** Research Ocer at the Research Laboratory, V.O. Sukhomlynskyi Mykolaiv National University,
Mykolaiv, Ukraine. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1955-9117
484
Volodymyr Kuzovkov, Kyrylo Нorbenko, Oleksandr Smyrnov y Leonid Smyrnov
The legal framework of the foreign policy of the Byzantine in the era of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
(945-959)
El fundamento jurídico de la política exterior bizantina
en la época de Constantino VII Bagriano (945-959)
Resumen
El objetivo del artículo fue determinar los fundamentos jurídicos de
la política exterior del estado bizantino a mediados del siglo X. La base
metodológica del estudio es el análisis y la síntesis, el enfoque de sistemas,
los métodos genéticos y comparativos. Todo permite concluir que, el
derecho bizantino se remonta a la legislación de Basilio I y León VI. Sin
embargo, el jus gentium no tuvo suciente representación en sus códigos.
Por lo tanto, la base legal de la política exterior bizantina consistía en
costumbres y tradiciones que se habían formado en la práctica diplomática
en la antigüedad. El sistema de relaciones internacionales de Bizancio era
jerárquico. El estatus legal de cada participante en este sistema estaba
determinado por el poder militar, el potencial político, la tradición y la
identidad religiosa. Las relaciones entre la Rus bizantina y la de Kiev pueden
servir como modelo de aplicación de las normas jurídicas internacionales,
que se basaron en el tratado de 944, que regulaba el estatuto jurídico de los
comerciantes, los derechos de propiedad, la asistencia militar mutua y el
uso de los territorios en la costa del estuario del río Dnieper, Beloberezhye
y la isla de Saint Epherius (Berezan).
Palabras clave: derecho internacional; política del Imperio Bizantino;
Bizancio; Constantino VII Porphyrogenitus; Rus de
Kiev.
Introduction
The reign of the emperors from the Macedonian dynasty (867–1056) is
rightly considered the era of the “Byzantine encyclopedism” or “Macedonian
Renaissance”, which is characterised by the ourishing of literature and
science. The peak of this epoch takes place during the reign of Constantine
VII Porphyrogenitus (945-959). He is credited with authoring, or at least
partly concerned with, a series of works on Byzantine relations with
neighbouring states and people.
The foreign-policy realities and motives of diplomatic actions described
in Constantine VII’s writings are often used as classic examples of the
development of these spheres of life in the Byzantine state. However, the
middle of the X century for international relations within the boundaries
of the imperial ecumene was quite a transitional time because the old
structures were abandoned while new ones were being formed. In Western
Europe, the Carolingian Empire had ceased to exist, and its successor, the
Holy Roman Empire, had still not emerged.
485
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 483-494
In the East, the Abbasid Caliphate lost its political authority and ceased
to play the role of a centre of attraction for the Islamic emirates. A few
months after the beginning of the independent rule of Constantine VII, the
real power in Baghdad was taken by the Shiite Buyid dynasty. These events
led to the breaking of familiar political ties within the Muslim world and
caused the need for a legal understanding of the changes that had occurred.
The area north of the Black Sea in Eastern Europe was on the scene
as well. Khazar Khaganate gradually lost its inuence here. At the same
time, the relations with the Kievan Rus’ underwent sucient changes in all
spheres - political, economic, religious, and military. And therefore, their
importance had increased dramatically.
Despite the continuing interest in the study of the foreign policy and
diplomacy of Byzantium, as well as the literary legacy of Constantine VII,
many of their aspects still cause lively discussions. The problem of the legal
norms on which Byzantine foreign policy was based in this era received little
attention from scholars. Neither the origins of international law, the extent
of its codication, nor the role of custom had been thoroughly addressed.
Therefore, this study aims to determine the legal foundations of the
foreign policy of the Byzantine state in the middle of the X century. In this
regard, the authors plan to solve such problems as identifying the sources
of legal norms of the Byzantine foreign policy and considering the features
of their practical application in relations with neighbours, in particular with
the Kievan Rus’.
1. Methodology of the research
The methodological basis consists of both general scientic and specic
scientic research methods. In considering international relations of the
middle of the 10th century, a systematic approach is applied. According
to the principles of this approach formulated by L. von Bertalany and R.
Aron, the Byzantine Empire can be considered as the centre of a particular
international system, the “Byzantine Commonwealth of Nations” by D.
Obolensky (Obolensky, 1998).
Analysis and synthesis are used in the process of researching historical
sources. The analysis detects references to the facts of the application of
ordinary legal norms and legal traditions in the treatises of Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus. Synthesis makes it possible to systematise the identied
facts.
The genetic method is practised to examine the origins of the legal
norms on which the Byzantine elite relied in decision-making in foreign
policy. This method traces the evolution of Byzantine international law
from antiquity to Constantine VII.
486
Volodymyr Kuzovkov, Kyrylo Нorbenko, Oleksandr Smyrnov y Leonid Smyrnov
The legal framework of the foreign policy of the Byzantine in the era of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
(945-959)
The comparative method allows drawing parallels between the legal
norms used in international relations in dierent epochs. The study
compares the development of the principles of jus gentium (law of nations)
in Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire.
2. Results and discussion
Legislative reforms became a landmark phenomenon during the reign of
the rst emperors of the Macedonian dynasty —Basil I (867–886) and Leo
VI the Wise (886–912)—grandfather and father of Constantine VII. The
codes “Basilika”, as well as the “Epanagoge” and “Procheiros”, represented
the revision of the Code of Justinian. Since the X century, it is “Basilika”
that has become the main legislative body, although Corpus juris civilis
were still being used for educational needs.
The elements of international law were reected even in Justinian’s
Digest. The statements concerning the existence of jus gentium (the law of
people) and the possibility of their application not only in relation to the
peoples within the empire, but also to the neighbours of Pax Romana are
contained in the quotations of Ulpian and Gaius (Merezhko, 2010).
However, the Code of Justinian regulated relations within a state, and
therefore the rules it contained had little to do with the Roman Empire’s
relations with its neighbours. It is signicant that the extended treatment
of jus gentium of Ulpian’s as the legal basis for international relations has
survived in the West in the “Etymology” of Isidorus and has remained
unknown to the Byzantine East (Grabar, 1901:15).
Therefore, the idea of jus gentium did not get further development
in “Basilika”. The main task of the legislative codes of Basil I and Leo VI
the Wise was to clear the law of obsolete norms. In addition, these codes
covered a range of issues related to social and economic life (Kazhdan,
1958). It is also worth noting the works of Ukrainian researchers Roman
Oleksenko, Yevhenii Bortnykov, Stanislav Bilohur, Nina Rybalchenko,
Natalia Makovetska (2021) and Demian Smernytskyi, Kostiantyn Zaichko,
Yurii Zhvanko, Malvina Bakal, Tetiana Shapochka (2021) which was
published in 2021.
Foreign policy and diplomacy of Byzantium were practically not
reected in “Basilika”. Constantine VII’s work on international relations is
based more on the tradition and experience of foreign policy existing since
antiquity.
A certain stage of systematization of foreign policy experience and
norms of the legal tradition of relations with other peoples is the treatise
“About embassies” or “About Roman Ambassadors to Peoples”. The treatise
487
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 483-494
is included in the compendium of extracts (excerpts) from works of ancient
literature, united thematically. The work on the collection had probably
been completed until 945 when the independent rule of Constantine VII
began.
Much of the excerpt “About embassies” was taken from the works of
authors of the Late Roman Empire (IV-VI centuries). Some of them had
diplomatic experience. The most famous in this sense was the author of
“Gothic history”, Priscus, known for his participation in the East Roman
embassy under the Hun chief Attila (448), and Peter the Patrician, the head
of the Roman embassy who made peace with the Sasanids in 562.
Apparently, the purpose of writing the treatise “About embassies” is to
create a database of information on the history of diplomacy and the legal
aspects of foreign policy. The Treatises “On the Governance of the Empire”
and the “De Ceremoniis”, written during Constantine’s VII independent
rule, are thematically oriented to modern diplomatic needs and are intended
for a small group of readers.
The place of the Emperor and Empire in the surrounding world is
determined on the basis of biblical tradition in the form of quotations from
the Old Testament. For this reason, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus,
while teaching his son and heir, Roman I, asserted the divine origin
of the authority of the Byzantine Emperors, to whom foreigners must
pay tribute and bow to: “The ones who inhabit the land” (Constantinus
Porphyrogenitus, 1967: 46-47). The power of the Byzantine Emperor is
universal. The ruler is to make “the best decisions” for the “common good”
(Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, 1967:44-45).
The concept of the “Gob blessed” world leadership of the Byzantine
Emperor, which was explained to us by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus,
puts him at the head of an extensive international hierarchy. This hierarchy
has the characteristics of an international system. Its peculiarity lies in the
existence of “hierarchically organized” sovereignty, i.e., the sovereignty
divided between representatives of dierent hierarchy levels (Merezhko,
2010:63).
Certain ideas about the international hierarchy, headed by the
Byzantine Emperor, are given in 48 chapters of the treatise the “De
Ceremoniis” (Сonstantine Porrogenito, 1828: 686- 692). It contains
a list of introductory formulas to ocial messages sent by emperors to
other rulers and ecclesiastical hierarchies. The list includes more than 60
recipients. The materials of the chapter allow us to distinguish several types
of hierarchies of international partners of the Byzantines.
The rst type of hierarchy is based on the principle of the spiritual
kinship of the Byzantine emperor with other addresses. The Pope is seen as
the spiritual father of the emperor. A number of rulers of Western Europe –
488
Volodymyr Kuzovkov, Kyrylo Нorbenko, Oleksandr Smyrnov y Leonid Smyrnov
The legal framework of the foreign policy of the Byzantine in the era of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
(945-959)
the kings of Gallia (France), Saxony (Germany) and Bavaria are considered
spiritual brothers of the emperor. According to Naumenko, the “king
of Bavaria” in this very case is Henry II, Duke of Bavaria (948-955), the
younger brother of Otto I, King of Germany (939-973) (Nazarenko, 2001:
256). The status of a spiritual brother, apparently, meant a kind of equality
among Christian rulers. However, bearing the title of the emperor already
placed the ruler of Byzantine on a higher level in the international hierarchy
compared to the kings of Western Europe.
A separate group of “spiritual sons” of the Byzantine emperor were
the rulers of Armenia, Alanya, and Danube, Bulgaria. However, their full
titles had dierences, in which, evidently, one should see the disparity of
relationship between the Byzantine emperor and each of them.
The second type of hierarchy was reected in the value of gold seals
(bulls), which were attached to imperial messages. Out of the total number
of addresses, such seals are mentioned in relation to 31 rulers. In this
group, the Emir of Egypt stands out separately for having received a seal
worth 18 solidi. This seal signicantly exceeds the cost of the seals for
other addressees and, perhaps, is explained by the emperor’s attempts to
establish closer relations with this ruler (Lugovoi, 2018).
The Caliph of Baghdad with the title of the First Counsellor is mentioned
to have received a seal of 4 solidi. The group of rulers who received the
message with the seal that cost 3 solidi were the patriarchs of Alexandria
and Antioch, the kings of Greater Armenia and Vaspurakan, and the Khazar
Khaganate.
The largest group consisted of rulers who received messages with seals
worth 2 solidi. This group included 23 recipients from Eastern and Central
Europe, Transcaucasia, the Balkans, and Italy.
An important criterion of the ruler’s independence or dependence
on the empire was the status of the message he received. Messages to
independent agents had the status of a letter (grammata). This fact is stated
in the context of the description of the empire’s contacts with the Pechenegs
(Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, 1967: 50-53).
The letters to conquered peoples had the status of an “order” (keleusis)
(Stephenson, 2004: 35). Such letters were received by 38 addressees, i.e.,
almost two-thirds of the total number in the list.
To consider the whole complex of legal norms in their practical
application, one can use the example of the relations between Kievan Rus’
and Byzantine of the middle of the X century. Contacts of Byzantine with
Rus’ have a long history, which can be traced back to the rst half of the IX
century.
489
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 483-494
According to written sources, the campaigns of the troops of Rus’
princes targeting the territories of the empire, as well as its capital, took
place in 860, 907 and 941 (The successor of Theophane, 2009: 129-130,
262-263; Symeon the Metaphrast and Logothete, 2014: 186; Liudprand of
Cremona, 1930: 185-186;). At the beginning of the X century Leo VI the
Wise reported on the danger that came from the military otillas of the Rus’
(“the Scythians”) going out along the rivers into the Black Sea (Leo VI the
Wise, 2012: 305).
However, the military expeditions of Kievan Rus’ aimed at Constantinople
ended up with meetings of embassies and the conclusion of bilateral treaties.
Kievan Rus’ sought favourable terms of the trade on the route “from the
Varangians to the Greeks”, and its military forced participated in military
operations as part of the Byzantine allied troops.
By the middle of the X century, these complicated relations between
Constantinople and Kiev had been fully established. In 944, a few months
before the beginning of the sovereign reign of Constantine VII, Byzantium
concluded a treaty with Rus’. And it ended the conict that had lasted since
941. The text of the treaty described in the “Tale of Bygone Years” is one
of the most comprehensively preserved international legal documents
compiled since the time of Justinian I (527-565) (Kuzovkov and Gorbenko,
2019).
On the Byzantine side, the agreement was concluded on behalf of
three co-emperors. On the Rus’ part, Prince Igor and his family members
were represented by 25 ambassadors and 26 merchants. The preliminary
statement contained the oaths taken by Rus’ side.
A signicant part of the articles regulated the trade relations between
Rus’ and Byzantium: the order of arrival and stay of Rus’ ambassadors and
merchants in Constantinople was determined, the protection of property
rights (the return of runaway servants, compensation for losses, the
redemption of captives). A separate group of articles dealt with punishments
for crimes.
A number of articles dened the framework of military-political
cooperation. The Prince of Rus’ was not supposed to ght in the Kherson
Thema (in the Crimea). Also, he had to ensure military assistance in the
event of an invasion of the Black Bulgars here. Both sides have pledged to
provide military help to each other.
Separately, they agreed on a special regime of actions of Kievan Rus’ and
the Byzantines in the mouth of the Dnieper and the neighbouring territories
- Beloberezhye and the island of Saint Epherius (modern Berezan island).
The Byzantine side did not claim that these territories were part of its
administrative structures (themes), but shermen from Kherson had the
right to engage in their shing here, and the Rus’ could not prevent them
from doing it. Kievan Rus’ had no right to stay here for the winter.
490
Volodymyr Kuzovkov, Kyrylo Нorbenko, Oleksandr Smyrnov y Leonid Smyrnov
The legal framework of the foreign policy of the Byzantine in the era of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
(945-959)
Perhaps the latter requirement could be explained by the strategic
importance of the region. The unlimited presence of Rus’ in this region
allowed its princes to create a potential stronghold against the maritime
threat of Constantinople. Constantine VII himself tells us that Fr. Saint
Epherius was used by Rus’ travellers on the way “from the Varangians
to the Greeks” to re-equip the ships (monoxyla) before the sea voyage
(Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, 1967: 60-63). In Western Europe, a
similar practice had the Normans who used isles in the river mouths as
bases (Noirmoutier island at the river mouth of the Loire River) (Lebedev,
2005: 40, 46).
At the same time, Byzantium could support Rus’ expeditions to the
Caspian Sea. Probably, a signicant part of these military actions took place
on the Dnieper, through the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, along the Don
and Volga rivers, and nished o the southern coast of the Caspian Sea
(Kuzovkov, 2021).
Archaeological research carried out on Berezan island made it possible
to discover antiquities testifying to the presence of Rus’ merchants and,
probably, military forces here. The Berezan runic stone is an interesting
discovery proving the visit of Scandinavians, who travelled along the trade
route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”. This stone also marked the visits
of the Rus’ ruling elite.
The memorial writings on the stone date back to the second half of the XI
century (Melnikova, 2001:200-202). The Rus’ merchant burial complexes
date back to the XII century. (Smyrnov and Kuzovkov, 2020). Monuments
related to Byzantine-Rus’ contacts in the middle of the X century, have not
been discovered so far, which may be explained by the poor preservation of
the cultural layer of this time.
Apparently, the visit of Rus’ Princess Olga to Constantinople should also
be considered in the legal eld of the treaty of 944. Written sources allow it
to be dated to 955 or 957. (Сonstantine Porrogenito, 1828: 594 - 598; Rus
Primary Chronicle, 1950: 44 - 46). Olga is given the title “Archont” in the
treatise “De Ceremoniis”. She was accompanied at the solemn reception in
the imperial palace by close high-ranking ladies with the titles “archont” or
“relatives of archont”. The total number of participants in the Olga Embassy
was 112 people (Сonstantine Porrogenito, 1828: 597). It is estimated that
the total number of embassy escorts could reach 1,500 (Litavrin. 2001:
201).
The ritual of receiving Princess Olga reected the Byzantium view of
the international legal status of visitors. The receiving sta, apart from the
Emperor and Empress, included courtiers, who were divided into seven
ranks (vigil). Princess Olga and her companions were given the appropriate
rank. Olga was at the reception with women-courtiers of the rst rank
(vigil) - zosts - patriсies.
491
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 483-494
Thus, at the time of the reception, the high guest of the Byzantium rulers
was symbolically included in the imperial court as the host of the highest
rank. The court ritual of the reception emphasized the exclusive status of
the emperor and empress. This procedure reected the Byzantium view of
their ruler as responsible for the fate of the entire ecumene, and occupying
the highest position among other monarchs.
The author of “Rus’ Primary Chronicle” informs us of other aspects of the
visit of Princess Olga to Constantinople (Rus’ Primary Chronicle, 1950: 44-
46). In the centre of his attention is the plot of her baptism, full of folklore
motives. According to the source, Olga, who arrived in Constantinople, was
baptized from the hands of the emperor. Then, the princess was to receive
the title of a god daughter. However, Byzantine sources do not mention
her baptism or receiving the title. A possible explanation can be the semi-
legendary character of the text “Novella”, the author of which exaggerates
the international legal success of Olga’s visit.
In support of this, the Byzantine emperors Constantine VII and Roman
III used the title of the ruler of Rus’ in ocial correspondence— “archon
of Rus” costing 2 solidi (Сonstantine Porrogenito, 1828: 690 - 691).
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and his son reigned together from 946
to 959, and their addressee at the time could have been Sviatoslav I, the
son of Olga. Thus, the godfather of Olga was Emperor Constantine VII
himself. This fact did not cause the changes in the legal status of Rus’
in the relationship with the Byzantium. The Rus’ was still regarded as a
pagan state and was not included in D. Obolensky’s conditional “Byzantine
Commonwealth of Nations” by D. Obolensky (Obolensky, 1998).
Conclusion
Thus, there are three sources of legal norms on which the foreign policy
of Byzantine was based. The rst is Roman law, which, through the code of
Justinian, found its reection in the legislation of Basil I (867-886) and Leo
VI (886-912). However, the distinctive feature of these legislative codes was
their focus on internal problems, and they hardly recorded international
law. Jus gentium (law of nations) did not nd signicant development in
Constantinople. It was the source of the division between the Byzantine
legal tradition and the Western European legal tradition, which emerged
in the XII century.
The second and more signicant source of the law of Byzantine foreign
policy is the biblical tradition. Biblical texts were used to legally justify the
divine origin of the authority of Byzantine emperors and their exceptionally
high status in international relations.
492
Volodymyr Kuzovkov, Kyrylo Нorbenko, Oleksandr Smyrnov y Leonid Smyrnov
The legal framework of the foreign policy of the Byzantine in the era of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
(945-959)
The third and most signicant source was the ancient and early
Byzantine traditions of foreign policy, xed in customs and literary texts.
Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus attempted to generalise and
systematize his works on this basis. When it came to foreign policy issues,
his treatises xed legal precedents for the possibility of using them in
diplomatic practice. It allows us to state that the case law can be considered
a signicant basis of Byzantine foreign policy.
The system of international relations that Byzantine diplomats justied
and sought to act within existed in the form of a hierarchy. There laid the
main dierence from the traditional Westphalian system of international
relations, one of the main principles of which was the equality of the
participating states. In the middle of the X century, the Byzantine legal
point of view considered the ruler of another state or nation as unequal to
the Byzantine emperor. Almost two-thirds of the addressees of Constantine
VII Porphyrogenitus received order messages (keleusis), which formally
emphasized their dependent status. Other parameters of inequality were
spiritual kinship, the value of the gold seal attached to the imperial message,
and the title used in relation to the addressee.
The entire complex of the practical application of legal norms in
Byzantine foreign policy can be analysed on the example of the empire’s
relations with Kievan Rus’. The treaty of 944 served as the legal basis of
Rus’- Byzantine relations in the era of Constantine VII. The articles of the
agreement covered a wide range of issues that needed legal regulation.
Most of them were devoted to trade and property protection.
The peculiarities of medieval legal thinking were reected in the special
status of a number of territories along the northern coast of the Black Sea—
estuaries of the Dnieper, Beloberzhya, and the island St. Epheria (Berezan).
They were not administratively a part of Byzantium or Rus’ in terms of
administrative division, but both sides had limited sovereignty over them.
The trade was active on the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”, that
went through these territories. But if relations deteriorated, Rus’ could use
these territories as a springboard for naval attacks on Constantinople.
Another important example of bilateral cooperation, including in the
legal eld, was the visit of the Rus’ princess Olga to Constantinople. The
rituals of her reception emphasised the high status of Emperor Constantine
VII and equated the guest with the highest court rank of the Byzantine court.
The signicant achievements of Byzantine-Rus’ relations in the middle of
the X century can be seen in a long period of peaceful interaction. However,
the unequal legal status of Rus’ in bilateral relations motivated its ruling
elite to change it. In this context, Olga’s baptism can be seen as an attempt
to become part of the so-called “Byzantine Commonwealth of Nations”.
493
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 73 (2022): 483-494
Bibliographic Reference
СONSTANTINUS PORPHYROGENITUS. 1967. De administrando imperio.
Center for Byzantine Studies. Dumbarton Oaks. USA.
СONSTANTINE, Porrogenito. 1828. De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae libri II.
Bonnae.
THEOPHANES CONTINUATUS. 2009. Biographies of the Byzantine Kings.
Aletheia. Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
THE RUSSIAN PRIMARY CHRONICLE. 1950. Academy of Sciences of the
Soviet Union. Moscow, Russia.
SYMEON THE METAPHRAST. 2014. “Chronicle”. Russian Foundation for the
Promotion of Education and Science. Moscow, Russia.
STEPHENSON, Paul. 2004. Byzantium’s Balkan frontier: a political study of the
Northern Balkans, 900-1204. Cambridge university press. Cambridge,
UK.
SMYRNOV, Alexander; KUZOVKOV, Volodymyr. 2020. Island Berezan on
the way «from the Varangians among the Greeks» (for materials of
archaeological reports 2007-2016). In: III-IV Congress of Orientalists
(to the 150th anniversary of the birth of Agatangel Krymsky). Tavrida
National V.I. Vernadsky University. Kyiv, Ukraine.
SMERNYTSKYI, Demian; ZAICHKO, Kostiantyn; ZHVANKO, Yurii; BAKAL,
Malvina; SHAPOCHKA, Tetiana. 2021. “Comparative analysis of the
legislative support for law enforcement agencies in the post-soviet space
and Europe” In: Cuestiones Políticas. Vol. 39, No. 70, pp. 524-547.
OLEKSENKO, Roman; BORTNYKOV, Yevhenii; BILOHUR, Stanislav;
RYBALCHENKO, Nina; MAKOVETSKA, Natalia. 2021. “Transformations
of the organizational and legal mechanism of the Ukrainian state policy
in tourism and hospitality” In: Cuestiones Políticas. Vol. 39, No. 70, pp.
768-783.
OBOLENSKY, Dimitri. 1998. Byzantine commonwealth. Janus-K. Moscow,
Russia.
NAZARENKO, Alexander. 2001. Ancient Rus’ in international routes.
Languages of Russian culture. Moscow, Russia.
MEREZHKO, Alexander. 2010. The idea of international low (historical-
sociological essay). Justinian. Kyiv, Ukraine.
494
Volodymyr Kuzovkov, Kyrylo Нorbenko, Oleksandr Smyrnov y Leonid Smyrnov
The legal framework of the foreign policy of the Byzantine in the era of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus
(945-959)
MELNIKOVA, Helena. 2001. Scandinavian Runic Inscriptions: New Finds and
Interpretations. Oriental literature. Moscow, Russia.
LUGOVOI, Oleg. 2018. The political map of the world through the eyes of
the Byzantine intellectual of the 10th century. In: Byzantine Mosaic:
Collection of Public Lectures of the Hellenic-Byzantine Lecture Hall at
St. Panteleimon Church. Kharkov, Ukraine.
LIUDPRAND OF CREMONA. 1930. “The Works”. E.P. Dutton & company.
N.Y., USA.
LITAVRIN, Gennady. 2000. “Byzantium, Bulgaria, Ancient Rus (9th – early 12th
century)”. Aletheia. Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
LEO VI THE WISE. 2012. Tactica of Emperor Leo. Aletheia. Saint-Petersburg,
Russia.
LEBEDEV, Gleb. 2005. The era of the Vikings in Northern Europe and in Rus.
Evraziia. Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
KUZOVKOV, Volodymyr; GORBENKO, Kirill. 2019. Eternal Peace’ in 532: an
attempt at a Roman-Iranian compromise. Modern movement of science:
abstracts of the VI International scientic-practical Internet conference.
Dnipro, Ukraine.
KUZOVKOV, Volodymyr. 2021. “Rus Campaigns in Tabaristan in the Second
Half of the 9th – Early 10th Century: Route and Place in International
Relations (on Materials of Ibn Isfandiyār)” In: Eminak. Vol. 1, No. 33,
pp. 318-327.
KAZHDAN, Alexander. 1958. “Basilika as Primary source” In: Byzantina
Khronika. Vol. 14, pp. 56-66.
GRABAR, Vladimir. 1901. Roman law in the history of international legal
doctrine. Elements of international law in the works of the Legionnaires
of the 12th to 14th centuries. Printers by K. Mattisen. Yuryev, Russia.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en julio de 2022, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.40 Nº 73
