One of the main ambitions of the Russian Constitutional Court from the moment of its establishment has been to work as an intermediator between Russian law and the Western legal tradition, reshaping the former by bringing it closer to the latter. Such a role gave to the Court a justification for its existence in Russian law where this Court has never had any real power of constitutional control over the political authorities and their enactments. Human rights have been an important topic in these intermediating activities of the Court which actively utilised the human rights language to change the statist perspective common to Russian legal education, scholarship and practice of law. The topic of human rights turned out to be of great importance for the self-legitimation of the Court in Russian law and for aligning Russia with the European legal standards. Changes in the state ideologies in the 2000s involved for the Court the need to reconsider its approaches and to employ more conservative interpretations of human rights. After a number of discrepancies with the European Court of Human Rights, the Venice Commission and other European institutions, the Court increasingly relied on exceptionalist argumentation. In author’s opinion, with this the Court not only abandons its original function in the Russian legal system, but also could lose its institutional niche in Russian law. Assuming to have the sovereign power of exception, the Court could enter into an indirect normative conflict with the presidential power.
The purpose of this article is to examine the causes and consequences of the formation in a non-democratic state of the digital infrastructure of control and suppression of society. As a research method, a comparative case study was used in the interpretation of A. Lijphart and a cross-temporal comparison, as an analysis of dynamic changes in specific periods of time. It should be noted that the comparison here also serves as a special view at the political phenomenon (in this case, the use of digital technology in autocracies). The theoretical foundations of the emergence of modern autocracies and the reasons for increasing government attention to technology are considered. Specific examples consider the use of digital technologies to control society and strengthen the political regime of autocracies. Both political and socio-economic aspects of the functioning of modern authoritarian systems are revealed on the example of the China and the Philippines. At the end of the text is considered the probability of the spread of such practices in modern Russian Federation. Based on a theoretical and practical analysis, the authors come to the following conclusions: autocracies use digital technological infrastructure to form a system of control over citizens; the technological leader in the formation of such control systems is China, which exports elements of the technological infrastructure to other autocracies through state-owned corporations; In the Russian Federation, after a number of legislative changes in the information sphere, with the support of the China, elements of control over the internet and a system of big data collection subordinate to the state are being formed.
In various world regions, human rights defenders (HRDs) often become targets for smear campaigns that seek to discredit and marginalize them. Russia’s “foreign agent” law, which brands NGOs as “foreign agents”—a phrase that carries Soviet-era connotations of spies or traitors—is just one example of states’ attempts to cultivate an unfavorable image of rights defenders in society. Yet, despite the global context of such stigmatizing campaigns and their potential to put defenders at further risk, there is little systematic knowledge on public perception of rights defenders and the effects of smear campaigns on social attitudes toward them. This article seeks to address this gap and explores attitudes toward HRDs and human rights organizations in Russia. Drawing on representative public opinion data sets from 2015 and 2016, it demonstrates that the respondents largely lack familiarity with actors in the human rights field.
The publication is presented to the attention of readers is the first encyclopaedic dictionary dedicated to human rights in the domestic political and legal science. It contains more than 500 terms and concepts used in the history, philosophy and political science of human rights, the theory and practice of human rights, international human rights law. The dictionary includes the main international human rights standards, as well as the main organizations and institutions for the protection of human rights at the international and national levels. The structure of the dictionary is based on the latest research in human rights science: history, theory, philosophy and political science of human rights, state and non-state mechanisms for the protection of human rights, judicial and international protection of the human being, education and human rights education, etc. For teachers, graduate students, students of higher educational institutions, lawyers of practice, representatives of governmental and non-governmental institutions, organizations, institutions for the protection of human rights, as well as for all those who is interested in problems of theory, history and practice of human rights, legal culture and the rule of law is this edition intended.
The Olympic Games of 1980 and 2014 present a case study in the hosting of sport mega-events by repressive regimes. In both cases, the authoritarian government sought hosting rights in order to enhance their own legitimacy, an aim that was largely met at home but at the cost of incurring damaging criticism abroad about human rights violations. In both cases, the Games sparked debates about how sporting events could be most effectively used to improve human rights overall. These debates revolved around familiar poles: on the one hand, claims that the events could help spur reform, and on the other hand, the argument that hosting would lead to heightened abuses. In 1980 even before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan triggered a large- scale boycott, some voices in Western Europe and the United States were arguing that Moscow should be spurned because of the Soviet Union’s record of repression. In 2014 though some boycott calls were made, boycotting seemed a less compelling tactic. Instead, reformers hoped to achieve results through public pressure. In the final tally, the results of both Games suggest that sports mega-events in repressive regimes are likely to lead to more repression.
The European Yearbook on Human Rights brings together renowned scholars, emerging voices and practitioners. Split into parts devoted to recent developments in the European Union, the Council of Europe and the OSCE as well as through reports from the field, the contributions engage with some of the most important human rights issues and developments in Europe. The Yearbook helps to better understand the rich landscape of the European regional human rights system and is intended to stimulate discussions, critical thinking and further research in this field.
The article is devoted to the problem of comparison between the international human rights law and the international humanitarian law. It is demonstrated on the basis of particular cases from the European Court of Human Rights practice that all attempts to erase the boarders between two spheres of international law are dangerous and counterproductive.
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/