保守法理与俄罗斯对欧洲人权法院家庭暴力案件判决的回应

IF 0.7 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Marianna Muravyeva, Yuliya Brin
{"title":"保守法理与俄罗斯对欧洲人权法院家庭暴力案件判决的回应","authors":"Marianna Muravyeva, Yuliya Brin","doi":"10.30965/24518921-00901004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article examines Russia’s record in complying with the European Convention of Human Rights, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the CoE’s policies in relation to the human rights of women – the protection of women from domestic violence in particular. It seeks to explain why Russia has systematically refused to introduce specialized legislation on protection from domestic violence. It argues that human rights of women, especially cases of domestic violence, became the main point of contention between Russia and the CoE for two main reasons: a fundamentally different approach to the human rights of women and equality, inherited from Soviet-era legislation; and a special type of legal reasoning of international legal obligations – conservative jurisprudence – which undermined the understanding of the legal value of protection of human rights of women and led to invoking various arguments of cultural sovereignty. Non-compliance and quiet avoidance of any gender-sensitive legislation, not least on domestic violence, indicate that Russia has never really committed to the rule of law.","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\":\"Conservative Jurisprudence and Russia’s Response to ECtHR Judgements on Cases of Domestic Violence\",\"authors\":\"Marianna Muravyeva, Yuliya Brin\",\"doi\":\"10.30965/24518921-00901004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis article examines Russia’s record in complying with the European Convention of Human Rights, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the CoE’s policies in relation to the human rights of women – the protection of women from domestic violence in particular. It seeks to explain why Russia has systematically refused to introduce specialized legislation on protection from domestic violence. It argues that human rights of women, especially cases of domestic violence, became the main point of contention between Russia and the CoE for two main reasons: a fundamentally different approach to the human rights of women and equality, inherited from Soviet-era legislation; and a special type of legal reasoning of international legal obligations – conservative jurisprudence – which undermined the understanding of the legal value of protection of human rights of women and led to invoking various arguments of cultural sovereignty. Non-compliance and quiet avoidance of any gender-sensitive legislation, not least on domestic violence, indicate that Russia has never really committed to the rule of law.\",\"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/10.30965/24518921-00901004\",\"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/10.30965/24518921-00901004","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

本文探讨了俄罗斯在遵守《欧洲人权公约》、欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)的裁决以及欧洲委员会有关妇女人权--尤其是保护妇女免受家庭暴力--的政策方面的记录。本报告试图解释俄罗斯为何一贯拒绝引入有关保护妇女免受家庭暴力的专门立法。报告认为,妇女人权,尤其是家庭暴力案件,成为俄罗斯与欧洲委员会之间的主要争论点有两个主要原因:从苏联时代的立法中继承下来的对妇女人权和平等的根本不同的态度;对国际法律义务的一种特殊的法律推理--保守法学--破坏了对保护妇女人权的法律价值的理解,并导致援引各种文化主权的论据。不遵守和悄悄回避任何对性别问题有敏感认识的立法,尤其是关于家庭暴力的立法,表明俄罗 斯从未真正致力于法治。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conservative Jurisprudence and Russia’s Response to ECtHR Judgements on Cases of Domestic Violence
This article examines Russia’s record in complying with the European Convention of Human Rights, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the CoE’s policies in relation to the human rights of women – the protection of women from domestic violence in particular. It seeks to explain why Russia has systematically refused to introduce specialized legislation on protection from domestic violence. It argues that human rights of women, especially cases of domestic violence, became the main point of contention between Russia and the CoE for two main reasons: a fundamentally different approach to the human rights of women and equality, inherited from Soviet-era legislation; and a special type of legal reasoning of international legal obligations – conservative jurisprudence – which undermined the understanding of the legal value of protection of human rights of women and led to invoking various arguments of cultural sovereignty. Non-compliance and quiet avoidance of any gender-sensitive legislation, not least on domestic violence, indicate that Russia has never really committed to the rule of law.
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