The politics of the ECHR in the Post-Soviet space: the cases of Belarus and Russia”

If the ECHR is no longer the final word on the ECHR’s meaning, then the international legal obligations undertaken by the Council of Europe’s 47 member states become pie-crust promises: easily made and easily broken. On the other hand, how should national courts resolve conflicts between the State Constitution and the ECHR?On July 4, 2015, the decision of the Constitutional Court of Russian Federation (RCC) No. 21-P was adopted, which stated the following:“As follows from the Constitution of the Russian Federation, its articles 4 (part 1), 15 (part 1) and 79 embodying Russia's sovereignty, supremacy and Supreme legal force of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the inadmissibility of the implementation in the legal system of the state of treaties, which may limit the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, or prevent any attacks on the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, nor the Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as an international Treaty of the Russian Federation, neither the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights based on it, containing assessments of national legislation or concerning the need to change its provisions, do not cancel the priority of the Constitution of the Russian Federation for the Russian legal system and therefore are subject to implementation within this system only if the Constitution of the Russian Federation is recognized as the highest legal force.”The Law provides two options for the actions of authorized State bodies.First, the Ministry of Justice has the right to apply to the Constitutional Court with a request about the possibility of implementing the ECHR decision. The Constitutional Court makes a decision on the possibility of executing in whole or in part, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the decision of the interstate body for the protection of human rights and freedoms.Secondly, the President and the Government of Russia have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court with a request for the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, if there is a contradiction between the provisions of the international treaty of the Russian Federation in the interpretation of the ECHR and the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.If the Constitutional Court finds that the ECHR decision cannot be enforced, or interprets that the ECHR decision contradicts the Constitution, no action will be taken to enforce it.According to some Russian researchers, the Court proceeded from the logic that according to the Constitution, it is the person, his rights and freedoms that are the highest value and this provision is above any international treaty.Conflict of the humanitarian interventionTalking about humanitarian intervention Russia identifies itself with those who believe that the world community or an individual state cannot refrain in the event of a systematic violation of the humanitarian rights of thousands of people, genocide committed by State authorities against the peoples living in the country, war waged against the population of the country or part of the population. The conflict with the ECHR in this case is how this intervention occurs. “When some countries judge others and act in circumvention of the internationally agreed mechanisms, without taking into account the position of other countries, it results in an atmosphere of permissiveness rather than in effective help and assistance to a population, or the establishment of peace and stability.”According to rules of the UN Charter, humanitarian intervention without a UN mandate is illegal. And these rules serve important purposes: minimizing the use of force as a means of resolving conflicts and thereby promoting stability, protecting State sovereignty and political societies from violent external interference.Conflict of rights and valuesThe Minister of International affairs of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, said once, that to claim validity of the common values, the European civilization should become truly inclusive for all who live there and consider Europe to be their home. This means tolerance in the first place, and respect for identity, including religious feelings.For the Russian society tolerance is a key aspect, as our country is multinational and multi-religious. So, many Russian researcher come to the opinion that classical concept of human rights demands critical approach towards our society, especially a set of rights connected with family values, morality and ethics, including traditions formed under the influence of Orthodoxy, Islam and other religions. The conflict of values is actively discussed in the foreign media, and many researchers come to the conclusion that the essence of the conflict is the discrepancy between the values of Western countries and Russia.As for Russia's position on this issue, the State’s leaders believe that there are no grounds for a conflict. As K. Kosachev stated in the foreign media in 2006-2007 about the gap in values between Russia and the West: “the conflict of values is a matter of propaganda, not ideological, civilizational or psychological realities;therefore, the issue should be addressed from this point of view, and not use this sensitive topic as a political weapon”.In such manner, to overcome these conflicts, which were mentioned above, it is necessary to get rid of the prejudices that exist on both sides, to conduct an effective dialogue, where the views of each of the parties (Russia – from one side, Western countries – from another) would be taken into account. ConclusionSo, in the process of writing this paper, we have considered the issues of the international politics of human rights, the ECHR as a primary human right instrument, the absence of Belarus, the conflicts of Russia. Throughout the world community, respect for human rights is the most important guarantee of building international relations on a truly humane, moral basis, preserving and consolidating peace. There is a direct correlation between respect for human rights by an individual State and its foreign policy. The outbreak of wars, the gross violation of international law, is usually associated with the violation by the government of the rights of its own citizens. With this in mind, the ECHR participating States do not view the observance of human rights as a purely internal matter for each individual country, but as a matter of their common concern and collective responsibility.The European Court of Human Rights plays a special role in the protection of human rights in the post-Soviet space. The decisions adopted by the European Court of Justice serve as a necessary guide for public authorities in the process of bringing national legislation in the field of human rights and the practice of its application to citizens to the standards set out in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950.For example, in its decisions, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly given a legal assessment of a number of the most acute problems of modern legal reality in countries in the post-Soviet space: the conditions of detention in pre-trial detention centers, the duration and validity of detention before a court verdict, etc. A careful analysis of the decisions taken by the European Court of Justice can conclude that they not only contribute to the restoration of the violated rights of the applicants, but also affect the legal situation in the States as a whole.The analysis of the interaction between the countries of the former Soviet Union and the European Court of Human Rights allows us to conclude that the main problem is the violation of articles protecting human rights and freedoms.In this regard, it seems that the activities of States in the post-Soviet space in the field of protection of human and civil rights and freedoms should be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950. Compliance with its provisions is one of the conditions for building truly democratic legal states in the post-Soviet space. The solution to this problem depends on the States and their officials, as well as the desire and will of civil society in the post-Soviet countries to monitor the effectiveness of measures aimed at respecting human and civil rights and freedoms.Respect for the rights of the individual contributes to the strengthening of trust between peoples, creates a favorable atmosphere for diverse human contacts and cooperation, and brings a moral foundation to international relations. Without a common humanistic value and legal framework created by respect for human rights, it is impossible to bring peoples closer together and integrate themAt the same time, in assessing the observance of human rights, a unilateral approach, double standards, and the use of this issue to justify aggressive actions against undesirable States are unacceptable.To avoid such situations, it is necessary to develop a dialogue between countries, to understand the culture and religion of different nations. And already based on national traditions that have a century-old history, to implement an international model of the treaty on the protection of human rights, taking into account the fact that these rights should first of all be respected within the state.ReferencesAndrei Makovsky, “Belarus Leader Pardons Six Jailed Opposition Figures”, AP, August 23, 2015 A persistent crisis in Central America. The Editors. Friday, Jan. 8, 2021.“Belarus and Eastern Partnership: National and European Values”, ODB-Brussels, 2013, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.European Court of Human Rights, Annual Report 2009.Current Time. Stefanovich about Belarus crisis.DariaTrenina and Mark Entin. Russia’s Approach to the Universality of Human Rights. Springer.David J. Kramer, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Statement Before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Sept., 2008.Democracy, Human Rights, Refugees: On Democracy and Human Rights in Belarus. State Department Press Release. September 16, 2008.Francesco Paris, Nita Ghei. The Role of Reciprocity in International Law. Cornell International Law Journal, 2003.Jeffrey Kahn. The Relationship between the ECtHR and the RCC. The European Journal of International Law Vol. 30 no. 3. 2019.Kosachev, K. 2007. Russia and the West: Where the differences lie. Russia in Global Affairs, No 4 October-December 2007.Lavrov, S. 2008. The future of European cooperation: A view from Moscow. UNECE Discussion Paper 2008.3. August 2008.Makey o coglashenii s ES: K sozhaleniyu, partneryvkliuchilinekotoryepassazhi” [Makiej on the agreement with the EU: Unfortunately, the partners have included some new passages], TUT.by, December 2, 2017.Morgenthau H. Scientific Man and Power Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946.Nickel J. W. Making Sense of Human Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.Petro, N. 2006. Russia is part of the West. Honest. Asia Times Online, Speaking Freely, June 8, 2006. Philippa Runner, “Brussels to Recognise ‘European Aspirations’ of Post‐Soviet States”, EUobserver, November 24, 2008.Rainer Arnold. The Universalism of Human Rights. University of Regensburg Regensburg, Germany. 2013.Russia & CIS Presidential Bulletin; Moscow [Moscow]24 Jan 2014.YuryDrakakhrust, “Whose Side is Belarus on Anyway?”,Open Democracy, May 12, 2016.