Modernization of the Russian Federation Constitution: A Regulatory Model and Practice

Abstract

The article examines four modes of modernization of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: the Constitution revision (provisions of Chapters 1, 2 and 9), adoption of amendments to Chapters 3-8, introduction of amendments to Part 1 of Art. 65 concerning the composition of the Russian Federation and changes in the names of constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The paper carries out an in-depth analysis of Art. 134-137 of the Constitution that establish the basis of normative models of modernization regimes, express judgments concerning what form the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Assembly may take, as well as on some elements of the structure of this body. The paper informs about the drafts of the law in question put to the vote in the State Duma. The author believes that the adoption of the Constitution by popular vote should not be considered solely as an auxiliary method applied when a draft law is not approved by the two-thirds of the members of the Constitutional Assembly. The article deals with the provisions of the Federal Law On the Procedure for the Adoption and Entry Into Force of Amendments to the Constitution of the Russian reveals the key contradictions that appeared during its adoption, and examines the legal regulation of the law on amendments carried out by the RF constituent entities of the Russian Federation, draws attention to the shortcomings of the federal and regional regulation (in particular, legislation of the RF constituent entities of the Russian Federation provides for different majority decisions by which the legislative authority approves the constitutional amendment), focuses on specific features of legal and technical perfection of laws on amendments. The article focuses on the procedure of introducing draft constitutional amendments (more than 30 initiatives), their adoption, approval by legislative bodies, as well as making amendments to Art. 65 of the Constitution. The author draws conclusions with regard to efficiency of the existing models of the second-fourth regimes of modernization, that, under the conditions of the existing political realities that permit adoption and approval of amendments on a fast-track basis, inflexibility of the legal framework of the second regime of modernization is nominal.