Экспертные заключения по делам о «словесном экстремизме» в России: спор о методах
The practice of mandatory recourse to linguistic experts’opinions in cases pertaining to the racial, ethnic, and other types of hatred and enmity, has caused the vastdevelopment of different approaches to the analysisof the texts. During last ten years, the numerous me-thodic recommendations of how to identify the “verbal extremism” have occurred. The author gives a critical re- view of the main approaches used by experts in Russiain cases where the prosecution seeks a proof of “verbal extremism”. The article reveals the controversies in theusage of analyzed approaches and concludes that there are enough grounds to challenge the appropriateness ofexisting methods of analysis of the “verbal extremism”phenomenon, as well as their relevance in the contextof analysis of texts of special pragmatics.
The goal of the expert search task is finding knowledgeable persons within the enterprise. In this paper we focus on its distinctions from the other information retrieval tasks. We review the existing ap- proaches and propose a new term weighting scheme which is based on analysis of communication patterns between people. The effectiveness of the proposed approach is evaluated on a collection of e-mails from an organization of approximately 1500 people. Results show that it is possible to take into account communication structure in the process of term weighting, effectively combining communication-based and document-based approaches to expert finding.
The practice of mandatory recourse to linguistic experts’ opinions in cases pertaining to racial, ethnic, and other types of hatred and hostility, has caused the vast development of different approaches to the analysis of the texts. During last ten years, numerous methods for identifying “verbal extremism” have been recommended. It has been suggested that the evolution of Russian legal linguistics has not yet resulted in a “common theoretical basis for linguistic investigation in court that is shared by all experts”. The current status of the proposed approach to studying texts in order to identify “hostility and hate” demonstrates both the difficulty of establishing a general theoretical basis for forensic linguistics as a whole and the contradictions that arise in applying the numerous methodologies that exist in Russian science for studying “extremist” texts.
This article contributes to the growing body of research on the increasing role of judicial systems in regulating politics and religion (‘judicialization of politics and religion’) across the globe. By examining how academic expertise is deployed in anti-extremist litigation involving Russia’s minority religions, this article reveals important processes involved in this judicial regulation, in particular when legal and academic institutions lack autonomy and consistency of operation. It focuses on the selection of experts and the validation of their opinion within Russia’s academia and the judiciary, and identifies patterns in the experts’ approach to evidence and how they validate their conclusions in the eyes of the judiciary. Academic expertise provides an aura of legitimacy to judicial decisions in which anti-extremist legislation is used as a means to control unpopular minority religions and to regulate Russia’s religious diversity. As one of the few systematic explorations of this subject and the first focused on Russia, this article reveals important processes that produce religious discrimination and the role that anti-extremist legislation plays in these processes.
This article aims to analyze a new phenomenon, taking place in the sphere of human rights protection. Companies have a responsibility to respect human rights, which means to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others. This is the message the UN Human Rights Council sent to all actors in 2008 as part of adopting unanimously the Protect, Respect and Remedy policy framework for business and human rights put forward by John Ruggie, the UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights. The protection of human rights, including where it relates to business, is the primary obligation of the state. However, in many parts of the world, and in specific contexts, governments continue to be unable or unwilling to live up to all their duties. Companies have the responsibility to respect human rights, but there have been several instances where companies have failed to live up to international standards or expectations. In cases of state inability and failure, the onus increasingly falls on companies to be more proactive in the field of human rights. It is against this background that the UN Human Rights Council sought to clarify the obligations for states and the responsibilities of business by adopting the Special Representative’s framework.