Contemporary Russian Legal Theory

Post-Soviet Jurisprudence and Legal Positivism

Contemporary Russian legal theory has undergone a profound transformation since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, departing from the Marxist-Leninist legal theory that had dominated Soviet jurisprudence. The Soviet approach, grounded in the works of Evgeny Pashukanis and Andrey Vyshinsky, treated law as an instrument of class domination and a superstructural phenomenon determined by economic relations. The post-Soviet period has seen a revival of natural law thinking, the integration of European legal concepts, and a distinctive Russian approach to legal philosophy that draws on both Western and indigenous traditions.

The positivist tradition remains influential in Russian legal education and practice, particularly through the work of Sergey Alekseev (1924–2013), whose textbooks on the theory of state and law shaped the first generation of post-Soviet lawyers. Alekseev’s concept of law as a normative system grounded in the state’s regulatory authority, combined with a recognition of fundamental human rights as a constraint on legislative power, provided a transitional framework between Soviet and post-Soviet jurisprudence. His later work emphasised the principle of the rule of law (verkhovenstvo prava), though the concept was adjusted to accommodate the strong presidential system established by the 1993 Constitution.

Natural Law Revival

The post-Soviet period has witnessed a significant revival of natural law (estestvennoe pravo) theory in Russian legal philosophy. Contrasting with the Soviet rejection of natural law as a bourgeois concept, contemporary Russian natural law theorists argue that law is not merely a product of state will but is grounded in objective moral principles and human dignity. The Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences has been a centre for natural law research, publishing works that seek to reconcile natural law with Russia’s legal traditions and Orthodox Christian heritage.

The natural law revival has had practical consequences in constitutional adjudication. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has invoked natural law concepts in several landmark decisions, including Ruling No. 2-P of 1995, which held that human rights belong to individuals by virtue of their humanity and are not granted by the state, and Ruling No. 10-P of 2000, which recognised the right to human dignity as a fundamental principle of constitutional order. The Court has held that constitutional rights must be interpreted in accordance with the values of justice and humanism (printsipy spravedlivosti i gumanizma), reflecting a move beyond strict textual positivism.

V.D. Zorkin’s Judicial Philosophy

Valery Zorkin, Chairman of the Constitutional Court since 1991 (with a brief interruption in 1993–1994), has developed a distinctive judicial philosophy that has profoundly influenced Russian constitutional interpretation. Zorkin’s approach combines elements of legal positivism (respect for the constitutional text), natural law (recognition of fundamental rights as pre-positive), and Eurasian legal thought (emphasis on Russia’s unique civilisational identity). In his academic writings, Zorkin has articulated a theory of constitutional justice as a mechanism for maintaining the balance between individual rights and state authority, and between Russia’s obligations under international law and its constitutional sovereignty.

Zorkin’s jurisprudence is evident in key Constitutional Court decisions. In the MKR-1 case (2001), he authored the opinion holding that constitutional amendments must comply with the fundamental principles of the constitutional order, which are not subject to revision. In the Chechnya cases (1995–2005), he articulated a deferential approach to executive authority in matters of national security while insisting on minimum procedural guarantees. More recently, in Ruling No. 12-P of 2015, Zorkin wrote the opinion holding that the Constitutional Court may review the constitutionality of international court decisions for compliance with the Russian Constitution, effectively asserting constitutional supremacy over decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

Constitutional Interpretation in Contemporary Russia

Russian constitutional interpretation under the 1993 Constitution has developed distinctive features. The Constitution is characterised by a strong presidential system, with Article 80 defining the President as the guarantor of the Constitution (garant Konstitutsii), a role that has been interpreted broadly to encompass authority to take measures to preserve constitutional stability even where not explicitly authorised by the constitutional text. The Constitutional Court has generally deferred to the President’s interpretation of this role, notably in the Unity of Power decision (1995) and the Constitutional Reform decision (2020).

The constitutional amendments of 2020 (approved by referendum in July 2020) significantly altered the constitutional framework. The amendments: (1) introduced a provision asserting the supremacy of the Russian Constitution over international law (Article 79.1); (2) provided that marriage is a union of a man and a woman; (3) enshrined the role of the State Council as a constitutional body; (4) amended presidential term limits (allowing Putin to serve two further terms); and (5) introduced provisions on social state (sotsialnoe gosudarstvo) obligations, including minimum wage guarantees and pension indexation.

Eurasian Legal Thought

Eurasian legal thought (evraziyskaya pravovaya mysl) has emerged as a distinctive Russian contribution to comparative legal theory. Drawing on the intellectual traditions of the early 20th-century Eurasian movement (Nikolay Trubetskoy, Pyotr Savitsky, Lev Karsavin), contemporary Eurasian legal theorists argue that Russia’s legal system reflects its unique geopolitical and civilisational position between Europe and Asia. Key themes include: (1) the primacy of the collective over the individual in legal ordering; (2) the organic relationship between law and the spiritual-moral foundations of society; and (3) the rejection of universalist claims for Western legal models.

Eurasian legal thought has influenced policy discourse, particularly in the context of Eurasian economic integration and the development of the EAEU legal order. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have sponsored research on Eurasian legal harmonisation, and the concept of Eurasian law as a distinct legal family has been debated at scholarly conferences and in academic publications. Critics argue that Eurasian legal thought risks justifying authoritarian governance and suppressing individual rights in the name of cultural particularism. The debate reflects deeper tensions in Russian legal theory between universal human rights standards and claims of legal sovereignty and civilisational distinctiveness.