On Defining and Registering the Indigenous Peoples of The North, Siberia and the Far East: Legal Process Documentation and Ramifications

This essay provides insights into studies on citizens' engagement with human rights in Russia through its focus on a relatively under-researched area, namely, the ways in which women perceive the role of human rights in daily life contexts. This essay argues for the importance of analysing how women's perceptions of human rights are formed in situ in order to understand the ways in which location and gender create particular constraints for women in terms of their perceived and actual access to rights protection and ability to use rights to resolve their problems. Drawing on data generated during in-depth interviews conducted with women living in the provincial Russian city of Ul'yanovsk in 2005, this essay reveals women's complex engagements with the meaning and role of human rights in their daily lives. In particular, this analysis shows how women's perceptions of their positionalities in a post-Soviet provincial city informs how they think about where, when and why human rights apply to women.

The connection between Soviet authoritarianism and human rights violations once seemed unassailable, as did the belief that a transition away from communist rule would lead to better protection of human rights. Challenging these assumptions, Jonathan Weiler argues that the tumultuous processes associated with political and economic reform have, in important instances, eroded human rights in post-Soviet Russia. Weiler argues that, while Russia has moved rapidly toward a market-based economy, the social and legal elements of democratization have lagged behind. Examining the country's human rights record since 1991, he finds that the victims have changed--to the socially disadvantaged rather than the politically suspect--but the realities of life for the most vulnerable have in fact become worse. His work draws much-needed attention to this darker side of the post-Soviet transition.

SEER, 94, 2, APRIL 2016 380 McAuley, Mary. Human Rights in Russia: Citizens and the State from Perestroika to Putin. I. B Tauris, London and New York, 2015. xiii + 353 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Dramatis Personae. Further Reading. Index. £68.00. There are few people more qualified to write about the evolution of the human rights movement in post-Soviet Russia than Mary McAuley, director of the Ford Foundation’s Moscow office for seven years from 1995–2002. Her book, Human Rights in Russia: Citizens and the State from Perestroika to Putin traces the history of various strains of the human rights movement from the early years of perestroika to the state-led attack on non-government organizations in 2013. Part memoir, part scholarly inquiry, it is a book written for students, scholars and a broader readership interested in human rights questions in Russia, as well as themes that relate to the global human rights regime. It is a contribution that complements more recent publications by Samuel Greene and Valerie Sperling on the role of Russian social movements in a transitional regime. McAuley’s key arguments circle around three themes. Firstly, she questions the extent to which the Russian human rights community has been able to act collectively in the face of political and social challenges. Secondly, she analyses whether the community has influenced politics and policy making over the course of the past twenty years. Finally, she aims to determine whether any particular historical legacies have made the task of defending human rights in Russia unusually difficult. The search for a common purpose among the human rights community in Russia and the debates surrounding it are central to McAuley’s book. As she argues, ‘as disillusionment with the politicians grew, the defence of human rights became the ground on which people of very different persuasions set up their tents’. The important aspect of McAuley’s contribution is the historical chart she provides of the arguments around this challenge and the various strategies that were adopted. The first attempt to find a common purpose was pioneered by the Moscow Helsinki Group (MHG) when it sought to strengthen the relationship between large Moscow-based entities and regional organizations. Clearly, McAuley’s knowledge of the regional landscape makes this section particularly important, as well as illustrating that while the structures may not have been long-lasting — regional organizations gained a great deal from access to Moscow-based seminars, workshops and grant making bodies, as well as professional experience in reporting. These early attempts by MHG to coordinate the centre with the regions also illustrates how anathema MHG was to vertical power structures, preferring more democratic forms of governance, a reality that complicated subsequent attempts to work with the Russian state. REVIEWS 381 Of course, this search for collective action has been challenged not only by the regional differences that define Russia, but the very question of the relationship between the state and civil society itself. Undoubtedly, getting agreement on what constitutes a ‘right’ and moving away from the civil/political rights dynamic to a more-inclusive understanding of the scale of rights issues in Russia has been a victory for the community itself. Yet McAuley shows how conflicted many activists have been around promoting cooperation between government bodies and civil society organizations while key activists, such as Ludmilla Alekseeva, have led the charge, arguing for the importance of cooperation with the state, however marginal the effects might be. McAuley’s coverage allows us to witness how formidable the personal and professional obstacles to productive cooperation have been, showing first the Civic Forum of 2001 in which civic activists and government officials sat down very tentatively to discuss issues and plan dialogue for the future. The question, over time, became less about the morality of cooperation, but more about ensuring proper representation on such bodies as the President’s Council for the Advancement of Civil Society and Human Rights, set up in 2004, and the Civic Chamber, set up in 2005, each of which opened very slight cracks in the door for discussion with state officials. Much of this relationship between civil society and the state has emerged as a result of the marginalization...

Russia’s human rights problem has been pronounced for a number of years. The European Court of Human Rights found that it had violated human rights 1,948 times up to 2016. Its decisions are often improperly executed. Furthermore, the Russian Constitutional Court has obtained a power to overrule them. However, most discussion on human rights in Russia focuses on all types of rights in general with no specification, or personal and political rights in particular. Other rights, such as socioeconomic rights, are often excluded from the discourse. This chapter aims to fill this gap in scholarship. While the Soviet Union has inspired many socioeconomic rights developments, modern Russia, surprisingly, is unable to catch up with these rights demands in the present, set out primarily by the European Convention of Human Rights. The chapter argues that this paradox was not accidental. Its hypothesis is that the Russian approach to human rights has, from the early twentieth century, been suited to a particular type of human rights cases: positive economic rights which are collective in nature. Formed using Marxist scholarship, this view of human rights was distinct from the western approach, and hence the Russian assimilation into western model has proven to be difficult. While social rights have gained in importance, the development of them was distinct from that envisaged by the Soviets. The current model represents a mixed approach influenced by liberalism and the ideas of the free market, which has resulted in confusion in relation to both political rights and some social rights in modern Russia. This theoretical struggle between individualist and collectivist, capitalist, and socialist understandings of the role of socioeconomic rights in the legal system has led to practical difficulties in application of human rights law in modern Russia.

Александр Леонардович Нездюров – кандидат физико-математических наук, доцент, Департамент прикладной политологии, Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики» (Санкт-Петербург). Адрес: 190008, Санкт-Петербург, ул. Союза Печатников, д. 16. E-mail: nezdyurov@gmail.com Александр Юрьевич Сунгуров – доктор политических наук, профессор, Департамент прикладной политологии, Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики» (Санкт-Петербург). Адрес: 190008, Санкт-Петербург, ул. Союза Печатников, д. 16. E-mail: asungurov@mail.ru Цитирование: Нездюров А.Л., Сунгуров А.Ю. (2018) Права человека в России: общественные дискуссии и институт государственного правозащитника // Мир России. Т. 27. № 3. С. 61–81. DOI: 10.17323/1811-038X-2018-27-3-61-81 Статья посвящена процессу институционализации прав человека в современной России, причем основное внимание уделяется развитию института Уполномоченного по правам человека как на федеральном, так и на региональном уровнях. После краткого введения в саму концепцию универсальности прав человека и ее роли в современном мире формулируются четыре основных направления исследования институционализации прав человека: 1) анализ состояния нормативного поля, насколько концепция универсальности прав человека инкорпорирована в российское позитивное право; 2) степень включения концепции прав человека в широкую общественную дискуссию; уровень развития собственно правозащитных структур, как 3) государственных (прежде всего института Уполномоченного по правам человека), так и 4) общественных правозащитных организаций. Этот текст сфокусирован на втором и третьем из перечисленных выше направлений. В рамках второго направления анализируется реакция правозащитного сообщества на инициативу Митрополита Кирилла представить православную трактовку обсуждаемой концепции. Далее в тексте освещаются основные этапы развития института Уполномоченного по правам человека, а также проводится краткий социологический анализ сообщества региональных российских омбудсманов. В заключение рассматриваются особенности работы трех Уполномоченных по правам человека: в Самарской и Свердловской областях и в Пермском крае.

Sergei Kovalyov is a central figure in the struggle for human rights in Russia. He was a leading Soviet biology academic and, in the 1970s after becoming active in dissident circles, was arrested by the KGB, tried, imprisoned and subjected to internal exile. After his release, he continued to work for human rights, eventually becoming chairman of the Soviet Human Rights Committee and chairman of the Presidential Human Rights Commission, in which positions he was extremely influential in framing human rights provisions in post-Communist Russia. He subsequently took President Yeltsin to task for human rights failings, eventually resigning in protest. This book, by tracing Kovalyov's political career, shows how human rights developed in Russia in late Soviet and post Soviet times.

This Note examines two of Russia's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): the Article 5 right to liberty and security, and the Article 6 right to a fair trial to gauge Russian compliance with European human rights norms. These articles lie at the heart of systematic legal reform in the Russian Federation. This Note defends the thesis that the agonizingly slow progress of judicial reform and the advancement of human rights in Russia is a function of the inevitable lag of conceptual norms behind institutional reform. Part I explores the weak place of the rule of law as an institutional force in Soviet and post-Soviet Russian history and emphasizes the power of conceptual legacies as well as the path dependency of prior institutional choices. Part II presents the current legal architecture of the Russian Federation as it relates to the ECHR, discussing first the position of international treaties in Russia ' hierarchy of laws and, second, domestic Russian criminal law and criminal procedural law. Part III focuses on the conceptual and legal distance that separates Russian domestic law from the human rights obligations that Russia has undertaken in international treaties with the Council of Europe. Part IX analyzes the steadily growing docket of complaints lodged against Russia for alleged violations of the ECHR. Finally, Part V advocates a variety of educational reforms at every level of Russian society by both foreign and domestic actors. The Note concludes on a note of alarm, predicting the weakening of institutional legal structures absent conceptual and attitudinal changes.

With Russia outside the Council of Europe, the possibilities for successful litigation against the state by Russian citizens have become limited. In more ways than one, Russians made the Strasbourg court their own. Russia was among the states with the most applications against it. At the same time, victims of Russia’s abuses, dissenters, and human rights defenders were among the ECtHR’s main beneficiaries. Despite Russia’s mixed record of compliance, the Court provided a singular avenue for accountability, and served as a catalyst for domestic mobilization. Expulsion appears to have accelerated authoritarian decline. Although it is hard to know how much stronger respect for human rights would have been had Russia remained, in the absence of European Court, human rights in Russia face massive challenges. The cost of expulsion raises questions about how human rights institutions should balance institutional legitimacy and condemnation of states with responsibility to the people living within them.

The article examines the challenges of establishing constitutionalism and human rights in Russia. It holds particular significance in the context of shaping the doctrine of national constitutional identity. The author explores the origins, sources and features of domestic constitutionalism as a socio-cultural and political-legal phenomenon, as well as a system of relations based on formal equality and subordinate сharacter of authority’s actions. Following the abolition of serfdom, Alexander II’s judicial reform enshrined the principle of equality for all Russian subjects before the law and the courts. Simultaneously, the emperor’s power relinquished its prerogatives in the sphere of justice. Russia’s subsequent progress toward strengthening constitutional order and advancing human rights was marked by the enactment of the October 17, 1905, Manifesto and amendments to the Basic State Laws in 1906. The article characterizes Russian constitutionalism as an intra-system reformist movement that facilitated the gradual transition of Russian society to a higher level of legal culture.

The purpose of the study. In this article, based on the analysis of constitutional and legal provisions and theoretical sources, the law-making function of the Commissioner for Human Rights in Russia is considered. The purpose of the study was to identify the content of the legislative function of the Ombudsman, as well as to develop proposals and recommendations aimed at modernizing the constitutional and legal regulation of the designated function of the Commissioner. Conclusions. In the course of the study, it is concluded that it is advisable to give the right of legislative initiative to those commissioners who are appointed by legislative (representative) bodies at both the federal and regional levels, regardless of whether they perform the functions of “general competence” or belong to specialized ombudsmen. It is noted that the function of the Ombudsman to improve legislation (legislative function) in the field of human rights is important in the process of eliminating shortcomings and gaps in existing legislative acts and bringing them into line with international standards.

Improving the mechanism for the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms is a constant task for the legislator in any state. In scientific research, when analyzing existing Russian legislation, law enforcement practice, foreign experience, researchers justify the need to adjust Russian legislation and law enforcement. Some proposals are further reflected in the legislation. New challenges to the Russian state and society require additional measures to improve the activities of human rights commissioners (ombudsmen). These persons actively participate in the implementation of the human rights state function. The purpose of the study is to identify the features of legal regulation and the functioning of the Federal Commissioner for Human Rights in Russia, the implementation of its functions, and the determination of the most acceptable scientific views on improving its status, taking into account modern Russian realities and positive foreign experience. The methodological basis of the study was general scientific methods, as well as special legal methods of cognition, special importance is attached to the comparative legal method. We concluded that the recognition by the human rights commissioners (ombudsmen) of an important place in the state extrajudicial mechanism for the protection of human rights is not without grounds. When changing legal norms, it is necessary to take into account that the functionality of these persons is limited due to the specifics of their status, as well as the subsidiary of their role in protecting human and civil rights and freedoms. These persons contribute to the restoration of the violated right mainly through interaction with public authorities. Consequently, proposals to empower the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation with unusual functions should be assessed for acceptability from the standpoint of the specifics of its status and the importance of ombudsmen in the Russian human rights mechanism.

Human Rights in Russia. By Jonathan Weiler. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2004. 165p. $49.95. This is a revisionist book. Jonathan Weiler breaks with the fundamentally positive vision of post-Soviet “reform and democratization” that prevailed among Western analysts of Russia during perestroika and the Yeltsin years, and still dominates American and European governments' policy.

The article deals with the formation process, the current state and perspectives of the relationship between states that do not respect human rights and basic freedoms. Such states pose a danger to the stable development of international relations and fruitful cooperation between states, and ultimately to international peace and security. The modern world is characterized by the fact that the expansion of human and citizen rights occurs as a result of the development of norms of both national and international law. This bilateral process helps mutual enrichment of legislation and allows raising the bar of human rights to a new level. Speaking of security, the world still ignores the real protection of human rights, replacing it with a formal one. The principle of respect for human rights has a direct and inverse relationship with international and national security: states that systematically abuse human rights are recognized as initiators of aggression. And external aggression itself contradicts the interests of both the aggressor state itself and its population. Aggression entails the application of serious international sanctions, which will hit its citizens hard, in particular, and will also entail a serious restriction of civil rights. And vice versa: an improvement in the situation in the field of human rights protection reduces the probability of an aggressive war. The refusal of a separate state to fulfill the requirements of the corresponding principles of respect for human rights does not cancel their importance for international and national security, and does not eliminate the negative consequences that such a refusal would entail. The attack of the Russian Federation led to serious and massive violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, which had catastrophic consequences for the exercise of almost all human rights in Ukraine. But over the past two decades, the Russian authorities have systematically violated and restricted basic freedoms within their own state, closed down independent mass media, and banned peaceful protests in the country. And the war in Ukraine entails a further deterioration of the state of human rights in Russia: now a new iron curtain is being lowered there, behind which the authorities oppose the exercise of civil rights and a free and independent civil society.

In recent years, the EU's policy on human rights in Russia has been the focus of considerable internal and external attention, much of it being critical. Despite long-standing programmes for funding human rights projects in Russia and the launch of biannual EU–Russia human rights consultations in 2005, the subject of human rights remains contentious within EU–Russia relations. One striking aspect of the EU's policy towards Russia is its focus on issues such as prison reform, freedom of speech and prevention of torture which can broadly be characterised as civil and political rights issues. The purpose of this article is to examine the EU's approach to another aspect of human rights policy which tends to receive very little attention, namely economic and social rights issues such as housing, health, access to social security and workers' rights. Using data gathered from elite interviews with EU officials and representatives of Russian human rights and social non-governmental organisations (NGOs) during fieldwork in Brussels and Russia in 2011, the article will argue that the EU's lack of internal consensus on the importance of economic and social rights issues hinders its ability to raise these issues in its interactions with Russia on human rights. Yet the fact that economic and social rights have traditionally enjoyed a relatively high degree of visibility and importance in Russia has the potential to make this an area where more fruitful engagement on human rights could take place.

Mental health and human rights in Russia—a flawed relationship