1. Makarov, 1933, pp. 134–135 et seq. See also Makarov, 1931, p. 511.
2. There were even Soviet writers inclined to exclude the public policy concept altogether rather than to admit that the latter was the basis of all their laws. A suggestion of similar effect was made for instance by Raevich in a study before the last war. Raevich promptly admitted that the scope of application of foreign laws in the USSR was much narrower than was the case in the “bourgeois” States. Therefore, Soviet courts seldom need to have recourse to the public policy clause in order to frustrate the appUcation of a repugnant foreign law. This concept, according to him, can be dispensed with altogether without any prejudice to the principles of the Soviet system. He explains this by the fact that Soviet judges may refuse the appUcation of a foreign law on one of the following two grounds: 1. Soviet substantive rules are of a predominantly imperative character. 2. If in exceptional cases foreign law is admitted by a Soviet conflict rule, the latter must be disregarded where it is contrary to “revolutionary expediency”. (Raevic, 1934, pp. 67–68.)
3. Pisar, pp. 621–622.
4. Grzybowski, pp. 155–156.
5. See: Fleishits, pp. 398, 405.