Butler , William E. Russian Law and Legal Institutions (review)

Abstract

SEER, 99, 4, OCTOBER 2021 790 to sit around and discuss ideas; they were more likely to be attracted to pacifism and spirituality. A completely new wave appeared in the 1980s. Generational divide is identified further in the conflict between Soviet acculturated parents and their disaffected children, but perhaps less so between hippies and their revolutionary-era grandparents. The book also explores the association of hippie nonconformism with the emerging political dissident movements of the 1970s. It points out in several places that there was very limited connection or commonality between the two. Fürst makes some bold broad claims in the second part of the book and its epilogue without always providing sufficient evidence to justify them. She argues, for example, that ‘Hippies did not contradict late socialist reality. Rather, they made it. […] And late socialism would also not have been what it was if not for hippies and the like. They were a motor for change’ (p. 183); and that hippies ‘became active agents of perestroika’ (p. 219). Whilst hippies were undoubtedly able to use and manipulate Soviet socialism and the opportunities it provided to their own ends, it is hard to see how they could have been so instrumental in its later adaptation and collapse. This is a book that many undergraduate students are likely to find appealing, though it may be difficult to persuade many of them to read it in full. In the broader field of Soviet history, it serves to reshape our understandings of late Soviet society and culture, and Fürst should be applauded for that. University of Gloucestershire Melanie Ilic Butler, William E. Russian Law and Legal Institutions. Third edition. Studies in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Law. Talbot Publishing, Clark, NJ, 2021. vii + 516 pp. Further Reading. Constitution of the Russian Federation. Index of Names. $135.00. Extremely welcome in the light of the significant amendments in 2020 to Russia’s 1993 Constitution, this third edition of William E. Butler’s book includes those changes within the context of Russia’s legal heritage and contemporary development. As with the first two editions (with a different publisher) the scope is the legal system, not substantive law, so covers: The Russian Legal System in Context (Russian Law in Comparative Legal Studies; Russian Law and Legal Translation); The Foundations of Russian Law (The Pre-Revolutionary Heritage; Russian Legal Theory; Sources of Law); Legal Profession and Legal Education; The Administration of Russian Legality (ministries of justice, judicial system, procuracy, notariat, registry for acts of civil status, REVIEWS 791 administrative commissions, law enforcement agencies, investigative agencies, arbitration and the role of non-State entities); and the State Structure of the Russian Federation (Presidency, Federal Assembly, Government, Subjects of the Federation, Local Self-Government). Having a clear and comprehensive understanding of these institutions, including their historical development, is essential for appropriate interaction with the Russian legal system. This book succinctly sets out the legal position for the agencies it covers. It helpfully includes entities sometimes ignored in other texts, such as jurisconsults (employed lawyers); by far the most common type of lawyer in Russia (p. 223). As Butler notes, ‘Three of the last four Presidents of the USSR and Russian Federation have a higher legal education and experience as jurisconsults (Presidents M. S. Gorbachev, V. V. Putin, and D. A. Medvedev)’ (p. 227). One important effect of the 2020 constitutional reforms is consolidation of international law’s status in Russia. Initially the 1993 Constitution transformed this through explicit recognition in article 15(4) of ‘generally-recognised principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation’ as an integral part of the Russian legal system. Butler includes (at p. 157; see also p. 147) a precise translation of an extract from a significant Constitutional Court Decree of 14 July 2015, carefully explaining the interrelation of Russia’s treaty commitments with her Constitution. The Court emphasized the priority of Russia’s Constitution and sovereignty. This led to a 2015 amendment to the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court (not discussed) giving that Court jurisdiction to rule on the ‘possibility’ of applying decisions of interstate agencies (such as the European Court of Human Rights). This...