In Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: The Strasbourg Effect, Lauri Mälksoo and Wolfgang Benedek bring together fifteen established European European lawyers, judges and human rights scholars to explore interactions between Russia and the European Court of Human Rights in the twenty years since Russia ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. Anyone interested in human rights, legal thinking and issues of sovereignty in Russia will welcome the insights found in this valuable, well-researched volume, writes Camille-Renaud Merlen

Merlen, Camille-Renaud

LSE Research Online

Book	Review:	Russia	and	the	European	Court	ofHuman	Rights:	The	Strasbourg	Effect	edited	by	LauriMälksoo	and	Wolfgang	BenedekIn	Russia	and	the	European	Court	of	Human	Rights:	The	Strasbourg	Effect,	Lauri	Mälksoo	and	WolfgangBenedek	bring	together	fifteen	established	European	lawyers,	judges	and	human	rights	scholars	to	exploreinteractions	between	Russia	and	the	European	Court	of	Human	Rights	in	the	twenty	years	since	Russia	ratified	theEuropean	Convention	on	Human	Rights.	Anyone	interested	in	human	rights,	legal	thinking	and	issues	of	sovereigntyin	Russia	will	welcome	the	insights	found	in	this	valuable,	well-researched	volume,	writes	Camille-Renaud	Merlen.	Russia	and	the	European	Court	of	Human	Rights:	The	Strasbourg	Effect.	Lauri	Mälksoo	and	WolfgangBenedek	(eds).	Cambridge	University	Press.	2017.Find	this	book:	In	1998,	Russia	ratified	the	European	Convention	on	Human	Rights	(ECHR),	therebysubmitting	itself	to	the	jurisdiction	of	the	European	Court	of	Human	Rights	(ECtHR),widely	seen	as	the	most	far-reaching	international	human	rights	framework.	The	movereflected	the	country’s	aspirations	to	become	a	‘normal’	European	country	and	wasgreeted	as	a	hopeful	event	for	the	promotion	of	human	rights	and	the	rule	of	law.	Whathave	been	the	consequences	of	‘Russia’s	almost	twenty	years	under	the	jurisdiction	ofthe	European	Court	of	Human	Rights’	(xiii)?	Has	there	been	a	‘Strasbourg	effect’,	inthe	way	that	the	1975	Helsinki	Final	Act	produced	a	‘Helsinki	effect’	on	the	SovietUnion?	And	vice	versa	–	has	there	been	a	‘St.	Petersburg	effect	on	the	ECtHR’	(xiv)?These	are	the	main	questions	this	volume,	edited	by	Lauri	Mälksoo	(University	ofTartu)	and	Wolfgang	Benedek	(University	of	Graz),	tries	to	answer	by	bringingtogether	fifteen	established	European	lawyers,	judges	and	human	rights	scholars,many	of	them	from	Russia	itself.	The	contributions	are	grouped	in	four	thematicsections:	in	addition	to	more	general	introductory	and	concluding	parts,	one	looks	atthe	interaction	between	Russia,	and	particularly	its	Constitutional	Court	(RCC),	and	the	ECtHR,	and	anotheranalyses	a	number	of	case	studies.	The	larger	academic	debates	the	book	engages	with	include	the	relationshipbetween	the	national	constitution	and	international	human	rights	law;	the	universality	of	human	rights;	and	the	degreeto	which	supranational	institutions	such	as	the	ECtHR	can	socialise	states.It	is	no	secret	that	Moscow’s	engagement	with	Strasbourg	has	grown	more	contentious	over	the	years.	As	thechapters	on	LGBT	rights,	property	rights	and	human	rights	violations	in	Chechnya	show,	Russia	frequently	continuesto	fall	short	of	key	ECHR	standards,	sometimes	to	the	frustration	of	the	Council	of	Europe	(CoE),	the	Court’soverlaying	international	organisation.	But	it	is	the	recent	efforts	to	limit	the	scope	of	authority	of	the	ECtHR	itself	inRussia	that	have	sparked	the	gravest	concerns	amongst	observers.	In	July	2015,	the	RCC	declared	that	judgmentsfrom	international	bodies	that	contravened	the	Constitution	could	not	be	implemented,	a	direct	affront	to	the	bindingnature	of	ECtHR	judgments.	A	law	to	the	same	effect	was	passed	in	December	2015,	and	in	April	2016,	the	RCCdeclared	an	ECtHR	judgment	over	prisoner	voting	rights	impossible	to	implement	on	the	basis	of	this	new	legislation.In	January	2017,	the	RCC	similarly	ruled	that	the	€1.9	billion	sum	awarded	to	former	Yukos	shareholders	by	theECtHR	was	to	be	rejected.LSE Review of Books: Book Review: Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: The Strasbourg Effect edited by Lauri Mälksoo and WolfgangBenedekPage 1 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-08-28Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/08/28/book-review-russia-and-the-european-court-of-human-rights-the-strasbourg-effect-edited-by-lauri-malksoo-and-wolfgang-benedek/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/Image	Credit:	Courtroom	of	the	European	Court	of	Human	Rights	(Adrian	Grycuk	CC	BY	SA	3.0)Pointing	to	a	qualitative	change	that	has	taken	place	in	Russia’s	relationship	with	the	ECtHR,	this	development	andits	implications	are	discussed	at	length	in	the	volume.	As	Mälksoo	notes,	the	danger	is	now	that	of	a	‘Europeanhuman	rights	protection	system	“with	two	speeds”’	(25)	in	which	Russia	–	possibly	soon	followed	by	others	–	cannow	choose	to	implement	rulings	à	la	carte.	More	generally,	the	current	situation	ultimately	leaves	both	partiesunsatisfied	and	can	therefore	hardly	be	considered	sustainable	in	the	long	term.	The	prospect	of	Russia	leaving	theCoE	altogether	has	already	been	mooted,	although	this	is	also	due	to	fallout	from	the	2014	Ukraine	crisis.Accordingly,	many	of	the	authors	break	the	twenty-year-old	relationship	down	into	different	phases,	with	the	currentone	characterised	by	a	sense	of	confrontation.Yet,	as	this	book	simultaneously	seeks	to	make	clear,	there	is	much	more	to	the	relationship	between	Moscow	andStrasbourg	than	tension	and	mutual	disappointment.	As	put	by	the	former	president	of	the	CoE’s	ParliamentaryAssembly:	‘Russia	needs	us	and	we	need	Russia’	(46).	For	the	CoE,	keeping	its	largest	member	state	on	board	istantamount	to	securing	its	own	relevance,	while	for	Russia,	membership	of	the	human	rights	body	is	a	way	ofreturning	‘to	the	core	of	European	civilization	in	the	wake	of	the	Communist	detour’	(135).In	an	insightful	chapter,	Alexei	Trochev	further	observes	that	the	ECtHR	and	its	rulings	have	been	used	by	the	RCCto	expand	its	own	jurisdiction	in	the	context	of	a	‘dual	state’	that	demands	a	fair	dose	of	‘political	literacy’	from	judgesin	order	to	navigate	between	a	‘constitutional	regime’	and	an	‘administrative	regime’	entailing	arbitrary	rule.	He	alsonotes	that	both	the	RCC	and	the	ECtHR	seek	to	reduce	the	number	of	complaints	before	the	Strasbourg	court.	Thiskind	of	overlapping	interest	indicates	that	there	is	some	common	ground	for	pragmatic	cooperation.	Thus,	while	theECtHR	is	recurrently	and	harshly	criticised	in	Moscow,	Russian	officials	also	emphasise	the	need	to	maintain	aconstructive	dialogue	with	Strasbourg.	But	it	remains	to	be	seen	how	this	could	be	given	form	under	the	currentconditions	and	none	of	the	authors	venture	to	spell	out	what	such	a	scenario	might	look	like.Many	authors	also	highlight	the	ECtHR’s	positive	influence	on	Russia,	although	none	of	them	attempts	to	measurethis	‘Strasbourg	effect’.	Although	this	could	leave	room	for	cautious	optimism,	the	fact	remains	that	Russia	hasspectacularly	failed	to	conform	to	the	‘spiral	model’,	according	to	which	states	are	socialised	through	interaction	andeventually	internalise	international	norms.	Indeed,	the	phases	identified	by	different	contributors	do	not	align	with	thesocialisation	theory.	On	the	contrary:	as	Benedek	highlights,	‘the	number	of	“wrong”	or	“impossible”	cases	is	growing’(398-99).LSE Review of Books: Book Review: Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: The Strasbourg Effect edited by Lauri Mälksoo and WolfgangBenedekPage 2 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-08-28Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/08/28/book-review-russia-and-the-european-court-of-human-rights-the-strasbourg-effect-edited-by-lauri-malksoo-and-wolfgang-benedek/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/For	Bill	Bowring,	it	is	the	model	itself	that	should	be	questioned,	notably	since	it	fails	to	appreciate	the	‘significantly	in-depth	and	serious	engagement	between	Russia	and	the	CoE,	lasting	for	two	decades’	(212).	Tracing	back	theorigins	of	the	socialisation	thesis,	he	argues	that	‘the	problem	may	well	lie	in	the	attempt	to	explain	Russia	as	adifficult	teenager’	(199).	Instead,	he	sees	more	worth	in	exploring	Russia’s	approaches	to	international	law	andhuman	rights	through	its	internal	debates,	a	critique	picked	up	by	Mikhail	Antonov’s	analysis	of	RCC	ChairmanValery	Zorkin’s	legal	philosophy,	which	seeks	to	reconcile	exceptionalism	and	universalism.	These	contributionsserve	as	timely	injunctions	against	essentialising	Russia	and	its	complexities.It	might	be	worthwhile	to	explore	several	issues	raised	in	the	book	further	from	a	more	comparative	angle.	Althoughobservers	note	a	general	human	rights	backlash	in	other	ECHR	signatory	states	and	indeed	beyond,	there	is	littlereflection	on	how	the	Russian	case	fits	in	this	broader	development.	This	seems	a	particularly	pertinent	issue	sinceRussia	is	frequently	presented	as	an	exponent	of	this	process.	It	would	also	be	interesting	to	see	how	the	positedopposition	in	Russia	between	sovereignty	and	international	law	plays	out	with	regards	to	other	supranationalinstitutions,	such	as	the	World	Trade	Organisation	and	the	International	Criminal	Court.To	be	sure,	there	is	much	to	say	for	devoting	exclusive	attention	to	this	pressing	issue,	and	anyone	interested	inhuman	rights,	legal	thinking	and	issues	of	sovereignty	in	Russia	will	welcome	this	volume	for	its	many	valuableinsights	and	thorough	research.	Readers	will	appreciate	the	fact	that	no	rigid	model	of	analysis	was	imposed	on	theauthors,	leaving	room	for	nuance	and	a	host	of	different	perspectives.	Finally,	the	analysis	of	a	number	of	keyprimary	sources	will	be	of	particular	value	to	non-Russian	speakers	interested	in	the	topic.Camille-Renaud	Merlen	is	a	PhD	Candidate	in	International	Relations	at	the	University	of	Kent,	Canterbury.	Hisdoctoral	research	focuses	on	Russian	approaches	to	sovereignty	and	Russia’s	attachment	to	supranationalinstitutions.	He	previously	studied	in	Amsterdam,	Paris	and	Moscow.	Twitter:	@crmerlenNote:	This	review	gives	the	views	of	the	author,	and	not	the	position	of	the	LSE	Review	of	Books	blog,	or	of	theLondon	School	of	Economics.	LSE Review of Books: Book Review: Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: The Strasbourg Effect edited by Lauri Mälksoo and WolfgangBenedekPage 3 of 3		Date originally posted: 2018-08-28Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/08/28/book-review-russia-and-the-european-court-of-human-rights-the-strasbourg-effect-edited-by-lauri-malksoo-and-wolfgang-benedek/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/

Book review: Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: the Strasbourg effect edited by Lauri Mälksoo and Wolfgang Benedek

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/91443/1/Merlen_Russia-and-the-European-Court_Author.pdf

Book review: Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: the Strasbourg effect edited by Lauri Mälksoo and Wolfgang Benedek

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online