Decisions Of International Bodies Research Articles

A Changed Constitutional Perception of International Law: Demonstrating the Move Ahead With a Turned Back Head?

Abstract Russia has entered a new epoch in its attitude to international law by adopting two small amendments to the Constitution. The 2020 Law “On an Amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation” introduced a package of numerous modifications. A few key ones deal with international law. Formally, they relate to the very particular issue on the possibility of refusing to comply with the decisions of international jurisdictional bodies, but in essence, they reflect a fundamental change in the country’s attitude to its obligations in the international community and the role of international law in general. The article assesses the significance of these amendments for the Russian legal system and shows the origins of such a change which was first indicated by the decision of the Russian Constitutional Court (RCC) and the federal constitutional law in 2015. Now this change is incorporated into the Constitution. Supporters of the changes are trying to assure that Russia follows the experience of western countries that conduct a similar policy towards the international courts. The article asserts that the argumentation used in such statements is incomplete and inexact; the real situation of relations between western countries and these courts is different. Russia is essentially the only country with an approved position on the acts of international jurisdictional bodies. It is shown that ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution by the amendments is senseless from a legal point of view. The true meaning of them is to erect barriers to “inconvenient” decisions of international bodies. Failure to comply with them entails a violation of obligations under international law. The amendments are to illustrate a demonstrative movement forward, presumably in line with current realities but in fact, this is a movement with a head turned back, a returning to the past. This policy has already become one of logical steps to Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe (CoE).

Защита права мигрантов на семейную жизнь в странах Северной Европы

In this study, the authors refer to the migration policy of the Nordic countries and the consolidation in them at the legislative level of the right of foreign citizens to protect and respect family life. The issue under consideration is extremely relevant in this period of time, since there are problems generated by the Scandinavian juvenile justice that are directly related to the systematic violation of the rights of foreign citizens. The novelty of the article lies in the fact that it analyzes judicial practice, as well as decisions of international bodies, in particular the European Court of Human Rights, that reflect the specifics of juvenile justice in the states under consideration. The aim of the study is to carry out a comparative analysis of the legislation of Northern Europe and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in specific cases in the field of protection of the rights of foreign citizens. The study is based on the theoretical material of the works of Russian authors (M.A. Mogunova, E.A. Orlova, N.S. Plevako, O.V. Chernysheva, et al.), the national legislation and international legal acts and decisions. The article analyzes the law enforcement practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which reflects the main principles that make up the objective opinion of this body, taking into account the main provisions of international legal documents, including the norms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement for Legalization of Foreign Public Documents. The methodological basis of the research was the dialectical, comparative legal and formal legal methods. In particular, the use of the dialectical method contributed to the study of legislation that enshrines the rights of foreign citizens to protect and respect family life in the states of Northern Europe. The use of comparative legal and formal legal methods helped to identify trends in the development of legislation on citizenship and the legal status of foreign citizens in the states of Northern Europe. As a result, the authors note a tendency for the authorities of some Scandinavian states to revise their attitude towards children from foreign and mixed families, which is happening under, among other reasons, the “pressure” of international bodies specializing in the protection of individual rights and freedoms. Special instructions are being introduced that explain to guardianship officials the need to cooperate with the immigration authorities if the officials are considering children's documents, and the need to react to requests from foreign authorities (in particular, embassies). Employees of the Scandinavian guardianship services should facilitate the establishment of contact between the family and the embassy of the state with which they have expressed a desire to contact for one reason or another.

The Legal Positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the Execution of Decisions Made by the European Court of Human Rights

Amendments to the Russian take effect on 4 July2020. In Chapter 3, Structure, of the of the Russian Federation there is a provision for a set of amendments specifying the status of constitutional law in the Russian Federation regarding domestic and international/interstate relations as well as relating to questions of Russian national/state identity and guarantees of its preservation and protection. On 15 January 2020 in the Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly a number of constitutional amendments were proposed for discussion, including the introduction of certain changes to the of the Russian Federation. These changes will be guaranteed priority in Russia's legal framework. President Vladimir Putin noted that, requirements of international law and treaties as well as decisions of international bodies can be valid on Russian territory only to the point that they do not restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens and do not contradict our Constitution The topicality of considering the relationship between national and international court jurisdictions is predetermined by the fact that Russia has ratified Protocol No. 15. On 1 May 2017 a federal law-ratifying protocol establishing a subsidiary role of the European Court of Human Rights was signed. Such a role, in addition to the national mechanism of the judicial protection of human rights, is necessary to implement judicial protection, primarily in Russian courts including the Supreme Court (which is the highest court for civil, economic, criminal and administrative cases and which also protects human rights and freedoms by considering cassation and supervisory complaints against final and binding court rulings) and the Constitutional Court (which, as the highest court body of constitutional control, considers cases of citizens' complaints about the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms by a law applied by state bodies). At the current level of legal development, there are both a necessity and practical possibility of altering approaches to the implementation of international rules. This paper considers the correlation of national and international law. On the basis of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the so-called request for the applicability of decisions of the European Court of Human Righ ts, legal views are given on the applicability of international rules by Russian courts, including their interpretation by international court institutions. The revised version of Article 101 of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, which makes it possible to apply to the Constitutional Court contrary to an official ECHR decision, has been in effect since 2014.

The Yukos Arbitration Saga and Russia’s Constitutional Amendments

In February 2020, a Dutch appeals court ruled that the Russian state owed shareholders in the now-defunct Russian company Yukos 50 billion US dollars, one of the largest sums ever awarded. However, no country has yet been able to enforce the Yukos arbitral award issued in 2014 against Russia: while the arbitration tribunal in the Yukos investment case ruled in favour of the company, affirming that provisional application of the Energy Charter Treaty was compatible with Russian domestic law, Russia regards the matter as one of sovereignty and sees its power as being threatened. The article discusses whether non-enforcement of the award on the Russian government’s part would be justified by Article 15 (1) of the Russian Constitution and what impact the currently planned amendments to that foundational law might have with regard to international treaties and decisions of international bodies. The article concludes that the political and theory-oriented debate regarding Yukos will continue and that it will remain hard for the former Yukos shareholders to collect their money under the PCA’s arbitral award.

Unanimous Consent in International Organization

The decisions of international bodies may be based either on the rigid principle of unanimity or on the more convenient doctrine that the majority shall govern. In a world where national sovereignty is so widely stressed, the former method has a natural appeal. The rule of unanimity has, in fact, been treated by many persons as an inevitable corollary of the theory of sovereignty, which, as it is generally understood, would subject no state to any limitation against its will. Such an idea was very probably in the mind of former Secretary of State Hughes when he stated in the opening address of the Conference on Central American Affairs in December, 1922, “ Unanimity is a part of the consequence of the status of states in international law.” Writers on internationallaw have often so defined sovereignty and independence that the requirement of unanimity for any concerted action of a group of nations would follow.