Russia`s Participation in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

INTRODUCTION. The article examines problematic issues of Russia’s participation in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. According to the authors, the form of Russia’s participation in the Convention, associated with membership in the council of Europe, is unacceptable for its sovereignty. When ratifying the Convention, the degree of objectivity and impartiality of the ECHR in relation to the Russian Federation and the properties of the legal norms of the Convention were not taken into account.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials for the research are international agreements, resolutions of international organizations, decisions of the ECHR and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federa- tion, as well as doctrinal sources on the topic. The methodological basis of the article was formed by general scientific and special research methods. The article critically analyzes the arguments in favor of Russia’s participation in the European Convention and examines the reasons why the ECHR can hardly be called an objective court for a country that is not a member of the EU.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The authors believe that the unenforceability of ECHR judgements is only part of the problem of enforcing binding decisions of international organizations. According to the authors, it is necessary to determine the fundamental foundations of Russia’s participation in international organizations that can make decisions legally binding for our country, and to limit their circle to the participants of the integration association with Russia, organizations of strategic partners, as well as organizations in which Russia can influence the adoption decisions. The principles of Russia’s participation in international organizations that make legally binding decisions should be included in the Federal Law “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation”.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The subordination of Russia to the jurisdiction of an interstate human rights body must meet a number of conditions that the ECHR does not meet. Because of this, problems arise with the implementation by Russia of the decisions of the ECHR. The authors share the point of view that the ECHR is an effective mechanism for the protection of rights and freedoms, but only for a group of states – European integration participants bound by common interests, values, and coordinated foreign and domestic policies. Therefore Russia needs to return to the rules of cooperation in the field of human rights with European states, set out in the Helsinki Final Act on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

1. Барциц И.Н. 2018. Конституционная мифология: воз-

2. никновение, предназначение и практика применения

3. (часть 1). – Государство и право. № 12. С. 56-70. DOI:

4. 31857/S013207690002200-2.

5. Гончаров В.В. 2017. Государственный суверенитет и

6. глобальный конституционализм: вопросы соотноше-

7. ния. – Юридическая наука. № 3. С.37-44.

8. Дорская А.А., Дорский А.А. 2016. Международные ин-

9. теграционные организации и проблема формирова-

10. ния наднационального права. – Юридическая наука.

11. № 4. С.105-110.

12. Косачев К.И. 2016. «Мягкая сила» с жесткими послед-

13. ствиями. – Российский журнал правовых исследований.

14. Т.3. № 1. С.15-20.

15. Маркс К. 1961. Капитал. Критика политической эко-

16. номии. Том 3. Книга III: процесс капиталистического

17. производства, взятый в целом. Часть первая (главы

18. I—XXVIII). – Сочинения. Т. 25. Ч. 1. М.: Политиздат. 548 с.

19. Марченко М.Н. 2017. События 90-х годов XX века в

20. России и их последствия для страны. – Государство и

21. право. № 4. С.17-23.

22. Назаретян А.П. 2003. Агрессивная толпа, массовая

23. паника, слухи: лекции по социальной и политической

24. психологии. СПб.: Питер. 192 с.

25. Новосельцев А.Ю., Степанюгин К.В. 2021. О пробле-

26. мах, возникающих из членства России в Совете Евро-

27. пы и обязательств по исполнению решений ЕСПЧ. –

28. Международное публичное и частное право. № 1.

29. С. 16-19. DOI: 10.18572/1812-3910-2021-1-16-19

30. Талалаев А.Н. 1985. Хельсинки: принципы и реаль-

31. ность. М.: Юридическая литература. 191 с.

32. Черниченко С.В. 2018. Европейский суд по правам че-

33. ловека: проблема неисполнимости постановлений. –

34. Московский журнал международного права. № 3.

35. С. 6-17. DOI: 10.24833/0869-0049-2018-3-6-17.

36. Эфраимсон В.П. 1971. Родословная альтруизма (этика

37. с позиций эволюционной генетики человека). – Но-

38. вый мир. № 10. С. 193-213.

39. Bogdandy A, Venzkel I. 2014. In Whose Name?: A Public

40. Law Theory of International Adjudication. Oxford: Oxford

41. University Press. 304 p. DOI: DOI:10.1093/acprof:o

42. so/9780198717461.001.0001

43. Constitutional Courts and International Law: Revising

44. the Transatlantic Divide. – Harvard Law Review. 2016. Vol.

45. No. 5.URL: https://harvardlawreview.org/2016/03/

46. constitutional-courts-and-international-law-revisitingthe-

47. transatlantic-divide/ (accessed 12.01.2021).

48. Martinico G. 2012. Is the European Convention Going to

49. Be «Supreme»? A Comparative-Constitutional Overview

50. of ECHR and EU Law before National Courts. – European

51. Journal of International Law. Vol.23. No. 2. P. 401-424. DOI:

52. 1093/ejil/chs027

53. Rackow J. 2015. From Conflict to Cooperation: The Relationship

54. between Karlsruhe and Strasburg. – The UK

55. and European Human Rights: A Strained Relationship?.

56. Ed. by K. S. Ziegler, El. Wicks and L. Hodson. Oxford;

57. Portland; Oregon: Hart Publishing. P. 379-400. DOI:

58. 5040/9781782257905.ch-019

59. Tushnet M. 2010. How Do Constitutions Constitute Constitutional

60. Identity?. – International Journal of Constitutional

61. Law. Vol.8. Issue 3. P. 671-676. DOI: https://doi.

62. org/10.1093/icon/moq025