抵制斯特拉斯堡,让莫斯科放心:俄罗斯宪法法院最近的故事

IF 0.7 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Dmitry Kurnosov
{"title":"抵制斯特拉斯堡,让莫斯科放心:俄罗斯宪法法院最近的故事","authors":"Dmitry Kurnosov","doi":"10.30965/24518921-00901003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nRussia’s last decade within the European Convention on Human Rights (up to its exit in 2022) was seen by many authors as an emblematic case of state-led resistance to the authority of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that interprets the Convention. However, they mostly view it from a Strasbourg perspective. This article fills a gap in the literature by adding a perspective of a Russian institution – the country’s Constitutional Court. It argues that it had to walk a fine line by addressing two distinct constituencies – the other state institutions and human rights lawyers. By analysing the case citation patterns, the article claims that the Constitutional Court in practice balanced its public criticism of Strasbourg colleagues by accepting the authority of their judgments.","PeriodicalId":37176,"journal":{"name":"Russian Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Resisting Strasbourg to Reassure Moscow: the Recent Story of the Russian Constitutional Court\",\"authors\":\"Dmitry Kurnosov\",\"doi\":\"10.30965/24518921-00901003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nRussia’s last decade within the European Convention on Human Rights (up to its exit in 2022) was seen by many authors as an emblematic case of state-led resistance to the authority of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that interprets the Convention. However, they mostly view it from a Strasbourg perspective. This article fills a gap in the literature by adding a perspective of a Russian institution – the country’s Constitutional Court. It argues that it had to walk a fine line by addressing two distinct constituencies – the other state institutions and human rights lawyers. By analysing the case citation patterns, the article claims that the Constitutional Court in practice balanced its public criticism of Strasbourg colleagues by accepting the authority of their judgments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Russian Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Russian Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30965/24518921-00901003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Russian Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30965/24518921-00901003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

俄罗斯在《欧洲人权公约》内的最后十年(直至 2022 年退出)被许多作者视为国家主导的抵制斯特拉斯堡欧洲人权法院权威的典型案例。然而,他们大多是从斯特拉斯堡的角度来看待这一问题的。本文从俄罗斯机构--俄罗斯宪法法院--的视角出发,填补了相关文献的空白。文章认为,宪法法院必须面对两个截然不同的群体--其他国家机构和人权律师--才能做到游刃有余。通过分析案例引用模式,文章称宪法法院在实践中通过接受斯特拉斯堡同行判决的权威性来平衡其对斯特拉斯堡同行的公开批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Resisting Strasbourg to Reassure Moscow: the Recent Story of the Russian Constitutional Court
Russia’s last decade within the European Convention on Human Rights (up to its exit in 2022) was seen by many authors as an emblematic case of state-led resistance to the authority of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that interprets the Convention. However, they mostly view it from a Strasbourg perspective. This article fills a gap in the literature by adding a perspective of a Russian institution – the country’s Constitutional Court. It argues that it had to walk a fine line by addressing two distinct constituencies – the other state institutions and human rights lawyers. By analysing the case citation patterns, the article claims that the Constitutional Court in practice balanced its public criticism of Strasbourg colleagues by accepting the authority of their judgments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Russian Politics
Russian Politics Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信