Russia and International Law Principles

Constitutional Foundation of International Law

The relationship between Russian domestic law and international law is defined by Article 15(4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (1993), which establishes that universally recognised principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation form an integral part of its legal system. Where an international treaty establishes rules different from those provided by domestic law, the rules of the international treaty apply. This constitutional monist provision, introduced after the Soviet collapse, signalled Russia’s integration into the international legal order.

However, the practical application of Article 15(4) has been subject to significant qualification. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has asserted the authority to review the constitutionality of international treaty provisions before ratification (Article 89 of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court). More controversially, in a series of rulings beginning in 2015, the Constitutional Court asserted its power to assess whether decisions of international human rights bodies — including the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) — are consistent with the Russian Constitution.

The Sovereign Democracy Doctrine

The sovereign democracy (suverennaya demokratiya) doctrine, articulated during President Vladimir Putin’s second term, conceptualises Russia’s legal order as one in which state sovereignty is the supreme value that cannot be subordinated to external legal authority. The doctrine was formally expressed in the 2008 Amendments to the Constitution and was reinforced by the 2020 constitutional amendments. The 2020 amendments introduced Article 79(1), which expressly provides that decisions of inter-state bodies adopted on the basis of international treaty provisions are not subject to enforcement in Russia if they conflict with the Constitution.

This constitutionalisation of sovereign democracy has direct implications for international law. The Constitutional Court, applying the margin of appreciation doctrine from within Russian constitutional law, has developed a jurisprudence of selective implementation of international human rights rulings. The Court’s 2015 resolution on the Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia ECHR judgment established that Strasbourg decisions requiring amendments to the Russian Constitution cannot be implemented directly and must be resolved through constitutional mechanisms.

The Yukos Dispute

The Yukos dispute represents the most significant confrontation between Russian law and international arbitration. The Yukos Universal Limited v. Russia case, arising from the 2003–2004 tax reassessments and subsequent bankruptcy of the Yukos oil company, resulted in an award of approximately USD 50 billion by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 2014 under the Energy Charter Treaty. The Russian Federation challenged the award before the Dutch courts; the Hague District Court initially set aside the award in 2016, but the Hague Court of Appeal reinstated it in 2020, and the Dutch Supreme Court upheld the award in 2021.

The Russian Constitutional Court addressed the Yukos enforcement question in a 2017 ruling, holding that Russia could not be compelled to pay compensation in violation of constitutional principles of sovereignty. The Court declared that the Constitution has supremacy over international obligations and that compensation payments must respect the national budget process and public interest. Concurrently, Yukos shareholders pursued enforcement proceedings in multiple jurisdictions, creating a transnational legal conflict that has tested the limits of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

The ECHR and Strasbourg Dialogue

Russia’s relationship with the European Court of Human Rights has been characterised by a pattern of formal adherence and selective compliance. Russia ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1998 and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ECHR. By 2022, Russia was the subject of the largest number of pending applications before the Court, with the highest volume of judgments finding violations. Leading cases include Ilyushkin and Others v. Russia (2012) on pre-trial detention, Oao Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (2011) on the proportionality of tax penalties, and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia (2013) on prisoner voting rights.

The Constitutional Court’s 2015 Law on Compensation for Violation of the Right to Trial within a Reasonable Time established a legal mechanism for implementing ECHR judgments, but the Court’s 2015 ruling on the Anchugov and Gladkov case set a precedent for non-implementation where constitutional values are at stake. This jurisprudence culminated in the 2022 Federal Law on the Termination of the ECHR Convention in Relations with Russia, following Russia’s expulsion from the Council of Europe. The law provides that ECHR judgments delivered after 15 March 2022 are not subject to enforcement in Russia, and pre-exclusion judgments are enforced only if consistent with the Constitution.

UN Charter Obligations

As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, Russia bears obligations under the UN Charter, including Article 2(4) on the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states, Article 25 on the obligation to accept and carry out Security Council decisions, and Article 103 on the primacy of Charter obligations over other international agreements. The Russian Constitutional Court in its 2014 and 2015 rulings on the admission of Crimea and the application of Security Council resolutions has emphasised that UN Charter obligations are implemented within the framework of Russian constitutional procedures.

The doctrine of peremptory norms (jus cogens) is recognised in Russian international legal scholarship but has not been extensively developed in judicial practice. The Supreme Court has referenced peremptory norms in cases involving immunity of states and their officials, declining to extend immunity where violations of peremptory norms are alleged. The Russian legal system continues to maintain a formal commitment to the primacy of international law while developing constitutional mechanisms that permit selective implementation in practice.