The Limits of Russian Democratisation: Emergency Powers and States of Emergency by Alexander Domrin (review)

Abstract

584 SEER, 86, 3, JULY 2008 There ismuch that is new and interesting in this book. The author in corporates a broad knowledge of the comparative research on constitution making, and his approach is creative and ambitious. Unfortunately, the cen tral thrust of the argument is often hidden by over-elaborate comparative examples, and many of the subtleties of the argument are lost in the English translation of the text. Most surprisingwas the limited use made of the con siderable documentary, stenographic and interview evidence that is available on the post-Soviet period. This may lead the reader to question some of Medushevsky's empirical claims, as well as his assertion that 'since informa tion on the constitution drafting is restricted,we stilldo not know much about the motives and nature of major borrowings in the Russian Constitution' (p. 203). Yet, as an interpretive analysis of Russian constitutionalism from a Russian perspective, it isan important contribution to scholarship in this field. For Western students and scholars who are not familiar with Russian political science, itwill provide an insight into the tools of analysis used by one of the leading Russian authorities in this field. StAntony'sCollege Paul Chaisty UniversityofOxford Domrin, Alexander. The Limits ofRussian Democratisation: EmergencyPowers and States of Emergency. BASEES/Routledge Series on Russian and East European Studies, 22. Routledge, London and New York, 2006. xiv +188 pp. Notes. Index. ?60.00. Commendable as much for the interesting information in forty-fivepages of endnotes as for its main text, thiswork is a worthy addition to theBASEES/ Routledge Series on Russian and East European Studies. The subtitle ? 'Emergency Powers and States of Emergency' ? ismore illustrative of itscontent than the headline title.One of themain strengthsof the book is its review of the differentprovisions world wide required for the imposition of a state of emergency (or equivalent; the range of nomenclature is almost as broad as the variety of required procedures). In the Introduction there are also some astonishing revelations about the uses of 'states of emergency'. 'It came as a shock to many members of US Congress in 1971 to learn that the United States had been in a state of national emergency since 9March 1933' (p. 5). 'The US Senate Special Committee [...] stated in 1973: "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency'" (p. 6). The US is not unique in its derogation of constitutional rights: 'Leandro Despouy, Special Rapporteur of theUN Sub-Committee [...], listed 80 [!] states that had, since 1 January 1985 "taken measures which constituted the proclama tion, extension, maintenance or termination of emergency relations in various forms'" (p. 6). Clearly this book is timely in highlighting a frequent phenomenon, both dejure and de facto. reviews 585 The firstchapter gives an historical account of the development of the concept, including discussion of Hampden's case in seventeenth-century England. Alexander Domrin's thesis is that 'Evolution of "emergency powers", as a legal institution, inEuropean countries (first of all, inEngland) is inseparable from the development of the Rule of Law' (p. 17).The sec ond chapter overviews world practice and international legal considerations. Domrin notes that the 'Siracusa principles' formulated in 1984 at a presti gious conference of international experts considering the 'grounds for per missible limitations and derogations enunciated in the ICCPR' [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] were mistranslated intoRussian ? or was substituted for and in the definition of a threat to the life of a nation, diminished the cumulative requirement of 'affecting the whole of the population and either thewhole or part of the territory' (p. 52). In the third chapter 'Legal regulation of emergency powers in Imperial Russia' Domrin cogently argues that Imperial Russian penal law was 'one of themildest in Europe' (p. 70, quoting Albert Heard in 1887/8) and that Russia was comparatively enlightened in its treatment of dissent. 'In the whole body ofRussian Imperial legislation [. . . ] one can hardly find a statute that has been as much misinterpreted and misrepresented [. . .] as the emergency law of...