Газета «Право» и цензура в конце XIX – начале XX в.
The article considers the history of the legal newspaper Pravo and its censorship history. The newspaper was an influential Russian liberal periodical of the early 20th century. It was published without pre-censorship but underwent pressure from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, received administrative warnings for its “harmful direction” and was on the verge of administrative closure. Pravo published articles about the state of Russian legislation, government administration and the court system, giving special attention to press legislation. It criticized the censorship system in Russia for administrative arbitrariness and advocated freedom of the press based on the rule of law. The history of censorship against the newspaper itself is indicative of the arbitrary character of Russian law on freedom of the press.
The chapter takes the case of the formation of the Constitutional Democratic party (the Kadets) in the context of emerging mass politics, 1905 revolution, and political reforms. Going against the genealogical approach, the author stresses the contingency and novelty of party liberalism in the early twentieth century. In particular, the chapter explores the heterogeneity of the Kadet ranks, the concept of rupture and pluralism in self-representation of the nascent liberal party, and techniques of compromise and negotiation in the pluralist political setting that allowed the party and its platform to cohere. The author also argues that the pluralism of political and ideological context of the Kadet party formation was also matched by pluralism of mobilized space of imperial diversity, that included national, regionalist, and autonomist voices. The context of mobilized imperial diversity is shown to be not only inhibiting, but aiding the liberal politics in the Russian Empire.
Abstract. The history of Russian liberalism reflects the transformation of intellectual and political culture that took place in Russia from the eighteenth to the beginning of the twentieth century. The legacy of the Russian liberal thinkers requires close attention and study because it allows us to formulate the most important and relevant question: is the liberal project even possible in Russia? This chapter attempts to analyze the main ideas of the political philosophy of Russian liberalism and considers different national models of liberalism, such as those allowing for traditional cultural values, among other things. This analysis proposes a new intellectual tradition of Russian liberalism, as distinct from the Soviet version, and also introduces the reader to the historical-philosophical tradition of research on Russian liberalism from the eighteenth to the beginning of the twentieth century.Abstract The history of Russian liberalism reflects the transformation of intellectual and political culture that took place in Russia from the eighteenth to the beginning of the twentieth century. The legacy of the Russian liberal thinkers requires close attention and study because it allows us to formulate the most important and relevant question: is the liberal project even possible in Russia? This chapter attempts to analyze the main ideas of the political philosophy of Russian liberalism and considers different national models of liberalism, such as those allowing for traditional cultural values, among other things. This analysis proposes a new intellectual tradition of Russian liberalism, as distinct from the Soviet version, and also introduces the reader to the historical-philosophical tradition of research on Russian liberalism from the eighteenth to the beginning of the twentieth century.
This article argues that the history of Russian constitutional and parliamentary reform in the early 20th century can be cast in a new light in view of the global transformation of political life under the challenge of imperial diversity and mass politics. The article points out that imperial diversity as a challenge to democratic government was not unique to the Russian Empire. The character of the Russian Empire was marked by peculiarities; it was shaped by composite and hybrid imperial space, which placed the challenge of imperial diversity at the center of political practices and imaginaries. The article traces the history of political reform in the Russian Empire in the early 20th century focusing on the reform of the Sejm of the Grand Duchy of Finland and the novel practices and political imaginaries of imperial diversity in the first and second State Duma. The exploration of the history of the constitutional reform in the Russian Empire of early 20th century demonstrates that rather than being absolute antagonists to representative government, Russian imperial politics and traditions of imperial sovereignty nested possibilities of compromise and redefinition of political solidarity in the space of diversity.
Keywords History of the Russian Empire, history of the State Duma, global history of parliamentarism, pseudo-constitutionalism, Russian liberalism
After decades of dominant Marxism-Leninism, the post-Soviet Russian political space offers a multiplicity of discourses associated with the contemprary state and its various organs - such as the party, the presidential administration, the burocracies and media - or with the different places of ideological production revealing plurality and fluidity within Russian political languages and evoking many of the neo-conservativist ideological constructs promoted by the Kremlin. The apparent demise of Russian notions of Liberalism, its polymorphism, the influence of the Soviet experience, perestroika, the effects of the turbulent 1990s, in addiction to the effect of Western thought and foreign policies on Russia's liberal ideas and expectations, determine the role of the remaining institutions and actors that promote political , economic, and constitutional liberalism and manifest an alternative discourse that, although weakened, is still credible.
Aleksandr Ostrovskii, the best known and very prolific Russian playwright of the nineteenth century, interacted constantly with the officials responsible for dramatic censorship, considered by most of Ostrovskii’s contemporaries the most brutal branch of the censorship apparatus. The censor and, independently, Nicholas I personally, did not allow Ostrovskii to stage his first major play. A similar fate awaited some of his later plays. By the mid-1850’s, Ostrovskii had accumulated significant symbolic capital and officials from the Censorship Department started avoiding conflicts with him. Instead, they tried to draw him to their side by interpreting his works in a light that would render them suitable to the requirements for dramatic works. Ostrovskii, from the beginning of his career, tried not so much to avoid conflicts with the censorship and cuts to his plays as to provide the censor with a way to interpret his works that would not require them to be banned. The present article analyzes both the history of such attempts by Ostrovskii and his censors to find common ground, and the reasons why these attempts turned out to be not entirely effective. Using material from the censorship archives, I attempt to demonstrate that such attempts changed the playwright’s status. Available
Liberalism in Russia is one of the most complex, multifaced and, indeed, controversial phenomena in the history of political thought. Values and practices traditionally associated with Western liberalism—such as individual freedom, property rights, or the rule of law—have often emerged ambiguously in the Russian historical experience through different dimensions and combinations. Economic and political liberalism have often appeared disjointed, and liberal projects have been shaped by local circumstances, evolved in response to secular challenges and developed within often rapidly-changing institutional and international settings. This third volume of the Reset DOC “Russia Workshop” collects a selection of the Dimensions and Challenges of Russian Liberalism conference proceedings, providing a broad set of insights into the Russian liberal experience through a dialogue between past and present, and intellectual and empirical contextualization, involving historians, jurists, political scientists and theorists. The first part focuses on the Imperial period, analyzing the political philosophy and peculiarities of pre-revolutionary Russian liberalism, its relations with the rule of law (Pravovoe Gosudarstvo), and its institutionalization within the Constitutional Democratic Party (Kadets). The second part focuses on Soviet times, when liberal undercurrents emerged under the surface of the official Marxist-Leninist ideology. After Stalin’s death, the “thaw intelligentsia” of Soviet dissidents and human rights defenders represented a new liberal dimension in late Soviet history, while the reforms of Gorbachev’s “New Thinking” became a substitute for liberalism in the final decade of the USSR. The third part focuses on the “time of troubles” under the Yeltsin presidency, and assesses the impact of liberal values and ethics, the bureaucratic difficulties in adapting to change, and the paradoxes of liberal reforms during the transition to post-Soviet Russia. Despite Russian liberals having begun to draw lessons from previous failures, their project was severely challenged by the rise of Vladimir Putin. Hence, the fourth part focuses on the 2000s, when the liberal alternative in Russian politics confronted the ascendance of Putin, surviving in parts of Russian culture and in the mindset of technocrats and “system liberals”. Today, however, the Russian liberal project faces the limits of reform cycles of public administration, suffers from a lack of federalist attitude in politics and is externally challenged from an illiberal world order. All this asks us to consider: what is the likelihood of a “reboot” of Russian liberalism?
Introduction: The many dimensions of Russian liberalism 1. Reassessing liberalism in a conservative framework 2. The historical dimensions of Russian liberalism 3. Liberalism under pressure in post-Soviet Russia
The article focuses on the institutional interactions between the literary field and the institutions of the Ministry of Public Education in 1824–1826. In this context, the author explores the editorial and censorial background of the first chapter of Eugene Onegin (1825) and Poems by A. Pushkin (Stikhotvoreniia Alexandra Pushkina, 1826), and argues that Minister Shishkov played a significant role in the emergence of both editions. Moreover, the newly discovered official letter by Shishkov, regarding the unwelcome publication of Pushkin’s Poems at the departmental printing house, allows to clarify the censorial history of one more prominent edition of the period — Eda and The Feasts (Piry) by E. Baratynskiy (1826).
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/