This book provides an interesting range of articles that analyze the diverse elements of the Russian justice system. The book progresses logically starting with the least political and most routinely-administered cases in dispute resolution and ending with an analysis of the politically charged Khodorkovskii case, where state interference in the legal process was most in evidence. In between these two diametrically different styles of operation of the Russian justice system, there are analyses of bias in the criminal justice system, the implementation of new laws on human trafficking, and the difficult situation that migrants often face in the courtroom.
The contributors to this collection are well-known specialists in Soviet law. Many of the contributors have written for decades on the operation of the Soviet legal system, whereas others are younger specialists whose work will not be as well known. What will be particularly attractive to readers of this volume is that it combines analyses from scholars who are working in Russia with highly knowledgeable western specialists. The two editors, now at Oxford, have roots in the Soviet Union and Poland. Therefore, they have an innately comparative perspective, having lived and worked in the socialist world and yet are now leading scholars in the west. Not only do they provide a strong cross-cultural analytical perspective but they have gotten the authors of the selective chapters to place the contributions in a strong historical context.
Many of the contributors from Canada, the US, and the UK present arguments that will be familiar to readers who have read earlier and possibly longer works by the chapter contributors. For example, Kathryn Hendley's well-documented and readable chapter on the evolution of disputes in Russia will be familiar to those who have read her fine 2017 book on Everyday Law in Russia. There as well as here, she makes the point that for ordinary citizens, they can often have reasonable responses to their everyday disputes with neighbors and others in their community. This is a world very different from that described by Jeffrey Kahn in “The Richelieu Effect: The Khodorkovsky Case and Political Interference with Justice.” Here Kahn, as in his earlier writings on the Khodorkovskii case, reveals how there is an absence of freedom of expression and rule of law when a powerful individual contravenes the interests of the central state.
A complement to Kahn's piece is the chapter by Maria Popova on “Journalists, Judges, State Officials: Adjudicate Defamation.” This article, which supports its arguments with strong quantitative analysis, suggests that “Siloviki often sue after articles allege that they have connections to underworld figures whom they are supposed to be investigating and prosecuting” (159). The author concludes that the major business owners do not fare significantly better in the courts than those with much lesser financial resources. Differential outcomes are not determined by the ability to hire better lawyers, rather the advantages enjoyed by regional and federal officials as well as members of the power structure “is more likely to flow from their access to administrative resources than from their access to good lawyers” (164). This powerful conclusion suggests that legal skills are not necessarily a key determinant of outcome, but rather the ability to access the tools and resources of the state.
For someone who has had a long-term interest in human trafficking, I was pleased to see the inclusion of Lauren McCarthy's chapter on the subject. Like her excellent book, Trafficking Justice: How Russian Police Enforce New Laws, from Crime to Courtroom, she focuses on this new area of law where investigators, procurators, and judges have had to learn to adjust to a new criminal statute that needs to be enforced. But as she aptly points out, the introduction of this new crime reveals “key features of the Russian criminal justice system, including its conservative nature and its general lack of openness to new legal claims” (205). This statute had been on the books only fifteen years, but has been in place long enough to help us understand the incentive structures that motivate participants in the justice system. The requirement that law enforcement produce cases with high rates of conviction means that law enforcement officials may often be “fighting for their careers” (226) rather than the rights of victims.
The weakest element of the collection is the fact that its focus on the operation of the legal system within Russia fails to consider why so many powerful and wealthy individuals within Russia seek access to international arbitration and legal systems in foreign countries, particularly the United Kingdom. Several of the authors lack an international perspective. The chapter on Arbitrazh courts in Russia by Timur Bocharov and Kirill Titaev states that the arbitration courts have a “relatively high level of their financial and administrative independence” (121). Yet many oligarchs insist on having their cases heard in arbitration courts in London and Sweden because they do not trust the objectivity or the autonomy of Russian arbitration courts. Although many courts outside of Russia have difficulty in understanding the very murky elements of high-level Russian business activity, nonetheless wealthy businessmen and oligarchs choose to have their major disputes adjudicated out of Russia because they perceive these institutions as fairer.
In conclusion, this collection has a wide range of interesting and novel articles that will introduce the reader to the differential impact of legal institutions on the lives of Russian citizens. As was true in the Soviet era, the closer one gets to the personal interests of a powerful individual or the perceived interests of the state, the less likely are they to have access to justice. But for many individuals, Russian law and justice can solve their problems in a satisfactory manner.
