Academic literature on the topic 'Kuchuk Kainarji, Treaty of, 1774'

During the 17th–18th centuries, the fortress of Azov played an extremely important role in the geopolitics of the Russian state and the Ottoman Empire. During the period of the “Azov sitting” (1637–1642) Azov was the base of the Don Cossacks, and under Peter I (1696–1711) it provided Russia with control over the Azov basin and gave access to the Black Sea. Under the terms of the Treaty of the Pruth, in 1711 Azov returned to the power of Turkey. In 1736 it was recaptured by Russian troops. Azov finally passed to Russia in 1774 under the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji, and in 1775–1782 it was the center of the Azov province. Cultural layers of Azov of 17th––18th– centuries considerably damaged as a result of repeated destruction of a fortress and its subsequent reconstruction. Among the findings, a relatively small series of gunflints, parts of tinderbox and lead bullets are revealed by the authors.

In the last third of the eighteenth century, the foreign policy of the Russian Empire was oriented towards the Ottoman Empire and, as part of it, towards the Balkans and the Black Sea region. The aspirations of Russian foreign policy under Catherine II were shaped not only by the weakening of the government in Constantinople and the acquisition of new territories, but also by the creation of Russian economic, cultural, and political presence in southeastern Europe. The creation of official diplomatic representations was one of the main tools used by Russia to establish its presence in the Balkans. The establishment of permanent embassies and the creation of the necessary political and infrastructural background became a decisive segment in the development of European diplomacy from the Peace of Westphalia to the Napoleonic Wars. The steps taken by the government in St. Petersburg with the creation of permanent embassies in the leading European courts were in line with the abovementioned trend, but while this kind of “catching up” process gradually moved towards Central and Western Europe, Russia applied a completely different set of conditions to maintain diplomatic relations in the case of the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman diplomacy operated as a “one-sided diplomatic relation”: there were permanent Russian envoys at the Constantinople court, but no representatives were delegated by the Porte to St. Petersburg. Russia had to adapt to this special situation in the eighteenth century. This closed system was broken by the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainardji, which closed the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774 and included a clause according to which Russia had the right to establish consulates in the Ottoman Empire and thus in the Balkans, a key area. The other key element of the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainardji was the right of the reigning Russian tsar to be the protector of Christians in the Ottoman Empire, which was also fixed in this agreement. The “authority” acquired at this time was not unprecedented, as the Porte had acceded to such requests in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries through capitulations with other states (such as France, Austria, or the Venetian Republic), thus establishing the “protégé” system. At the same time, the Russian government took the protection of Christians under the jurisdiction of the Porte to a new level and made it an integral part of its foreign policy. In my study, I examine how the Russian Empire applied the results of the Peace of Kuchuk Kainardji to diplomatic advocacy in the Balkans.

Введение: в статье рассмотрен процесс зарождения российской полиции в Восточном Приазовье, пролонгированный по времени на период со второй половины XVIII в. до начала XIX в., что стало следствием закрепления за Россией суверенитета над этой территорией и необходимости устройства в регионе отечественных органов публичной власти. Однако данный процесс оказался более длительным, поскольку в Приазовском крае, освобожденном от владычества Оттоманской Порты и Крымского ханства, практически не было оседлого населения, компенсировавшегося за счет интенсификации миграции армян, греков, евреев, итальянцев, русских, сербов под защиту учрежденных военных крепостей: Святого Димитрия Ростовского, Троицкой (Таганрог), Азовской и Ейского укрепления. Кроме того, часть Приазовья была передана Донскому казачьему войску, разместившему в Миусской земле, для обеспечения правового режима природопользования. Материалы и методы: в процессе подготовки научной статьи использовались тексты международно-правовых договоров, регулировавших вопросы установления суверенитета над Восточным Приазовьем: Андрианопольский мирный договор 1713 г., Белградский 1739 г., Константинопольский 1700 и 1720 гг., Кючук-Кайнарджийский 1774 г. и Прутский 1711. В дальнейшем использовались нормативные правовые акты, на основе которых проходило за-рождение российской полиции в данном регионе, причем с учетом того, что указанный процесс был сложен, а порою противоречив. В этой связи на рубеже XVIII–XIX вв. многократно изменялось административно-территориальное устройство региона, что отражалось на структуре местной полиции. В процессе подготовки статьи использовался комплекс общенаучных и частнонаучных методов, среди которых представляют особый интерес: анализ, синтез, индукция и дедукция, а также формально-логическая и историко-правовая методология, позволившая прийти к определенным выводам по результатам проделанной работы. Результаты исследования: в завершении научной статьи авторы обоснованно подчеркивают важность выбранной тематики, поскольку в XVIII столетии происходил процесс за-рождения полиции на территории, недавно вошедшей в состав России, но и для современности характерна тождественная ситуация, связанная с суверенным выбором граждан ряда административно-территориальных образований жить в одном государстве с Россией. Кроме того, авторы определяют историко-правовой период зарождения российской полиции в Приазовье, а также отмечают, что этот процесс имел дуалистический характер, связанный с созданием Екатеринославской губернской администрации и Донской казачьей войсковой в разных частях Восточного Приазовья. Выводы и заключения: важным итогом проведенного научного исследования стала экспликация факта, что зарождение российской полиции в досоветский период происходило в провинции самобытным путем, не характерным для обеих столиц и великорусских губерний Российской империи. Сформировавшийся облик сил правопорядка обусловливался объектив-ной действительностью, которая была предопределена различными обстоятельствами из сферы внутренней политики и международно-правовых отношений. До 1775 г. Приазовье являлось приграничным слабозаселенным краем, и в течение последующих десятилетий законодатель пытался урегулировать актуальные вопросы, связанные с заселением края российскими поданными и организацией работы органов публичной власти в местах их проживания. Introduction: The article considers the process of Russian police in the Eastern Azov region, prolonged in time for the period from the second half of the XVIII century to the beginning of the XIX century, which was a consequence of consolidation of Russia's sovereignty over this territory and the need to establish in the region of domestic public authorities. However, this process was longer, as there was practically no settled population in the Azov Region, freed from the domination of the Ottoman Porte and the Crimean Khanate, which was compensated by the intensive migration of Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Italians, Russians, Serbs under the protection of the established military fortresses: Saint Dimitry of Rostov, Troitsk (Taganrog), Azov and Yeisk fortification. In addition, part of the Azov region was given to the Don Cossack Army, stationed in Miussk Land, to provide a legal regime for the use of natural resources. Materials and Methods: During the preparation of the scientific article, texts of international legal treaties regulating the issues of establishing sovereignty over the Eastern Azov Region were used: the Andrianopol Peace Treaty of 1713, the Belgrade Peace Treaty of 1739, the Constantinople treaties of 1700 and 1720, the Kuchuk Kainarji treaty of 1774 and the Prut treaty of 1711. The legal acts on the basis of which the Russian police had originated in the region were then used, with the understanding that the process was complex and at times contradictory. In this respect, the adminis-trative-territorial structure of the region changed repeatedly at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, which was reflected in the structure of the local police. During the preparation of the article a complex of general scientific and special scientific methods was used, among which are of particular interest: analysis, synthesis, induction and deduc-tion, as well as formal-logical and historical-legal methodology, which allowed to come to certain conclusions on the results of the work done. The Results of the Study: in the conclusion of the scientific article the authors justifiably emphasize the importance of the chosen topic, because in the XVIII century there was a process of birth of police in the territory, recently incorporated into Russia, but also for the present is character-ized by an identical situation, associated with the sovereign choice of citizens of several administra-tive-territorial entities to live in the same state with Russia. In addition, the authors define the histor-ical and legal period of the origin of the Russian police in the Azov Sea region, and note that this process had a dualistic character associated with the creation of the Ekaterinoslav province admin-istration and the Don Cossack army administration in different parts of the Eastern Azov Sea region. Findings and Conclusions: An important outcome of this research is the explication of the fact that the birth of the Russian police in the pre-Soviet period took place in the provinces in a distinctive way, not characteristic of both capitals and the great Russian provinces of the Russian Empire. The formed shape of the forces of law and order was conditioned by objective reality, which was predetermined by various circumstances from the sphere of domestic politics and international legal relations. Until 1775, the Azov Sea coast was a sparsely populated border region, and during the following decades the legislator tried to regulate the topical issues concerning the settlement of the region by Russian subjects and the organization of public authorities in the places where they lived.

The treaties are considered as the most important way for the country to promote its foreign policy. In general, it results from military work, so the winner will use it to fulfill its aims that were not achieved through the war. This study deals with a treaty which was signed by the Ottoman and the Russian empires in 1774. This research also shows the terms of the treaty and its effects. It also explains the Fiqhi issues raised in it, and indicates if it is compatible with the legitimate constraints of international treaties in Islamic Fiqh. The constraints include granting political independence to Crimea, paying huge restitution to the Russians, and waving some of their lands, which are not acceptable in Islamic law unless necessary. So, the Hanafi school scholars decided that treaties with a warring party is not acceptable at all unless it could assist Muslims in the war or to increase the state's strength. “It is permitted only as a way to fight, because then it will be a metaphorical way of fighting.” [Al kasaniu: Badayie Alsanayie 7:108] Otherwise, the negotiator should achieve for the state which it would have to achieve by fighting. The study makes it clear that this happened in some terms of the treaty. Although it was widely deemed to be a curse, it is like a treasure for researchers in international relations and legitimate politics

The article is devoted to the analysis of the historical memory of the Grand Duke Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov in the era of Empress Catherine II. During her reign, the relics of the saint were transferred to the Archangel Cathedral of Moscow Kremlin (1774), and that event coincided in time with the conclusion of the victorious for Russia Kuchuk-Kaynardzhiy peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire. But even later, the figure of the Grand Duke attracted the attention of Catherine II. In her “Notes on Russian History”, she adjusted the image of the Grand Duke, smoothing out those parts of his biography which, in her opinion, could damage the reputation of Mikhail – not only the saint, but also the hero who served both the faith and the Fatherland.

The issues of peace have always been important for historical science. However, in recent years, international historiography began to pay attention to Peace congresses' symbolism and socio-cultural design. The symbolic power of "special days" whether it is a Christian holiday or an event of exceptional significance allowed people of early Modernity to express their attitude to reality and power. An analysis of the choice of the dates for the conclusion of Peace by adversary states within the Westphalian system demonstrates three persistent variants of the dates. The first is signing a peace treaty on Saturday, Sunday, or a Christian holiday. The most striking example of this option is the signing of the Peace of Westphalia itself (treaties in Münster and Osnabrück on October 24, 1648), on Saturday the day before the second Sunday after Trinity. The second option involves a reference to an important event in the past. For example, the Peace in Passarovitz between the Holy Roman Empire and Porta (1718) and the Russian-Turkish Peace in Kuchuk-Kaynardzhi (1774) were signed on the same date July 21, the date when Istanbul and Peter the Great signed the Prut Peace Treaty in 1711. Since the age of the Enlightenment, when the "Right of Peace" began to compete with the "Right of War" in political theories, the date of Peace could be directly determined by the end of negotiations. Sometimes the conclusion of the Peace became a Christian holiday. Peter the Great decided to consecrate the day of the conclusion of the Nystad Peace Treaty by transferring the relics of the Holy Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky from Vladimir to the new Russian capital St. Petersburg. Conclusion of the Peace was used as a tool of social constructivism, implemented through modeling. The political idea was symbolically grounded in significant historical or religious dates. Combining the historical precedent, the Christian holiday and the end of the war emphasized the sacred nature of Peace as the highest social value.

The article deals with intermittent homonyms and paromies in the Ukrainian and Rumeika. In 2019, the United Nations announced the International Year of Languages of Indigenous Peoples, and 2022–2032 – an International Decade of Languages of Indigenous Peoples. Rumeika is one of the languages of Greeks of Pryazovia – the indigenous people of Ukraine. Under the terms of the Kuchuk-Carnadzhi Peace Treaty of 1774 between the Ottoman and Russian Empire, the Crimean Khanate became independent. This and the decree of Catherine II caused a wave of the relocation of the Greeks in the Pryazovia. Rumeika has close ties with Modern Greek, while the other language of the Greeks of Pryazovia – Urum – is close to the Crimean Tatar language. For a long time, Rumeika did not have written writing, while in the twentieth century, the efforts of A. Biletskyi for the alphabet developed on the basis of Cyrillic. Despite the fact that in the 20th century Rumeika was an important ethno-forming factor, now it is in a threatening state primarily due to the influence of the Russian language. Ukrainian and Rumeika languages are in close contact, therefore, the emergence of a large number of inter-digit homonyms and parones. Also, the research of Rumeika is important in view of the fact that it is in front of the disappearance, as well as in geopolitical terms through new social challenges to the population of Ukraine. The purpose of the article is to find out the peculiarities of the Ukrainian-Rumeika homonyms and paromies, which involves the following tasks: the creation of a dictionary; explaining the values of words; determination of features of inter-life homonyms and paromies in the case of Ukrainian and Rumeika languages.

Influence over the Ottoman Christians was the single most important manifestation of Imperial Russia’s “soft power.” In the context of the Russian-Ottoman wars of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, appeals of the Eastern Christian elites to Moscow and St. Petersburg for protection met with the attempts of the tsars and their commanders to rally the support of the co-religionists. However, Russia’s relations with the Orthodox subjects of the sultan were fraught with great ambiguity. Temporary Russian occupations of particular territories of Turkey-in-Europe during the wars incited among the local Christians the hopes for independence that subsequent restoration of the Porte’s authority would all but destroy. In order to maintain Russia’s standing among the co-religionists, the peace treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji of 1774 and subsequent Russian-Ottoman agreements included certain guarantees in favor of the Christian population of the returned territories. The present paper offers a comparative perspective on these arrangements, which served the basis for trilateral relations between Russia, the Porte and the elites of Moldavia, Wallachia, the Archipelago and Serbia in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The difference in attitudes and behaviour of the Romanian, Greek and Serbian leaders arguably explains varying degrees of autonomy that the territories in question enjoyed on the basis of the Russian-Ottoman treaty stipulations. More broadly, the paper seeks to problematize the notion of Russia’s protectorate over the Orthodox co-religionists. It shows that the legal basis of this protectorate remained very uneven, and, that for a long time, the makers of Russia’s Eastern policy dealt with particular Christian elites of Turkey-in-Europe rather than with the entire Orthodox community of the Ottoman Empire.

The treaties are considered as the most important way for the country to promote its foreign policy. In general, it results from military work, so the winner will use it to fulfill its aims that were not achieved through the war. This study deals with a treaty which was signed by the Ottoman and the Russian empires in 1774. This research also shows the terms of the treaty and its effects. It also explains the Fiqhi issues raised in it, and indicates if it is compatible with the legitimate constraints of international treaties in Islamic Fiqh. The constraints include granting political independence to Crimea, paying huge restitution to the Russians, and waving some of their lands, which are not acceptable in Islamic law unless necessary. So, the Hanafi school scholars decided that treaties with a warring party is not acceptable at all unless it could assist Muslims in the war or to increase the state's strength. “It is permitted only as a way to fight, because then it will be a metaphorical way of fighting.” [Al kasaniu: Badayie Alsanayie 7:108] Otherwise, the negotiator should achieve for the state which it would have to achieve by fighting. The study makes it clear that this happened in some terms of the treaty. Although it was widely deemed to be a curse, it is like a treasure for researchers in international relations and legitimate politics.

The treaty signed on 10/21 July 1774 in Kuchuk-Kainarji forced the Ottoman empire to accept Russia’s peace conditions that expanded its borders to the south and abolished the Turks’ centuries long domination in the Black sea and their absolute control over the Turkish Straits. The treaty enabled offensive policy as a result of which St.Petersburg gained exceptional territorial and strategic positions. The main issues in the relations between the two empires connected with the situation of the sultan’s Orthodox subjects in the interwar period included above all Russia’s right to patronize the Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire and the related amnesty for the participants in the Russo-Turkish war; fulfilment of the provisions enacting restoring of Orthodox churches, Russian support to higher Orthodox clerics as well as construction of a Russian church in Pera. The rights of the Turkish subjects to use Russian merchant flag and to migrate to Russia, still remaining within the sphere of trade relations between the two empires turned out to be a significant and hard to solve problem. The issues concerning St.Petersburg’s policy towards the Danubian Principalities, Montenegro and the Adriatic were still important issues in the Russia-Turkey relations. Most issues in the bilateral relations were a follow-up to the relations during the 1760s and the war of 1768–1774. In the following years the new situation in the Black sea basin, the Turkish Straits opening to merchant vessels under the Russian flag, the Danubian Principalities gradually slipping from Constantinople’s control and of course annexation of the Crimea by the Russian Empire would intensify the crisis in the Russia-Turkey relations and war would become inevitable. But also fatal for the Ottoman Empire.