Paul Goble
Staunton,
November 3 – It is still far from clear, legal experts say, what the outcome of
the legal case involving the border agreement between Chechnya and Ingushetia,
whether the Russian Constitutional Court will take up the issue, and what that
court might decide if it in fact does so.
The
Ingush Constitutional Court on October 30 held that Yunus-Bek Yevkurov had
violated that republic’s constitution by submitting the border agreement he
reached with Chechnya’s Ramzan Kadyrov not to a referendum as the republic
constitution requires but only to the republic parliament where he pushed the
matter through.
Despite
that decision, however, Yevkurov continues to insist that the border agreement
remains in force; and the Kremlin has indicated that the entire matter is now
before the courts so that Vladimir Putin and his administration will not
intervene. But five Russian legal
specialists say the role of the courts in this situation is complicated.
Elena
Lukyanova, a specialist on constitutional law at Moscow’s Higher School of
Economics, says “in general, a decision by any Constitutional Court must be
fulfilled. The Constitutional Court of Ingushetia held the law on the
ratification of the agreement to be unconstitutional. This means this law no longer
is in effect” (kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/327484/).
She points out that the republic
court did not rule on the border accord per se but rather on the law adopted by
the republic parliament that Yevkurov insists ratified the agreement. According to Lukyanova, this decision can’t
be disputed by anyone, “including the Constitutional Court of the Russian
Federation.”
The Moscow court, she says, “could reach
another decision on this issue if there is an appeal, but it cannot overturn
the decision” of the republic constitutional court on such a matter. The only
way things could proceed in that direction is if the Constitutional Court of
Chechnya rules that the agreement is legitimate, and then the Moscow court
could be asked to decide between them.
Yevgeny Chernousov, a lawyer who
served in the interior ministry, offers a somewhat different legal
analysis. He says those in Ingushetia
unhappy with the republic court’s decision can appeal to the Russian
Constitutional Court and that court can overrule the republic one, with the
consequences extending to all the subjects of the federation as a result.
According to him, either those in
Ingushetia who are unhappy with the decision or the federal government can
appeal to the court in such cases. And
once the Russian Constitutional Court rules, its decision is final. He expects
the Ingush side to appeal and the Chechen side to continue to act as if the
border accord remains in force.
A third specialist, lawyer Igor
Trunov, says that a major problem in the current case is that the sphere of
responsibilities of regional Constitutional Courts is “not entirely clear.” They
were created as a mark of respect to democratic procedures but so far have not
taken enough actions to define their true role within the Russian system.
The current case, he suggests, may
help to resolve that problem.
A fourth specialist, Dmitry Timchenko
of the firm Trunov, Ayvar and Partners, says that it is important to remember
that the current case is not about changing borders between federal subjects
but about establishing them. Procedures for the former task are well defined
legally; those for the latter are not.
In this situation, the decision of
the Constitutional Court of Ingushetia “must be implemented.” There is no need
for the involvement of Moscow courts or the Federation Council. He also argues that Yevkurov does not have
standing to bring any case anyway since he is responsible for ensuring the laws
are obeyed and would be appealing against himself.
But a fifth specialist,
Aleksandr Balobanov of the Russian Academy of Economics and State Service, argues
that the issue of the procedures of ratifying any border accord “must be
considered by the Federal Center with the final decision taken by the
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.”
Unfortunately, he continues, the
substantive issue, that of the border agreement itself, is beyond the purview
of the courts. “My position is that this
is already not a judicial issue but a political one” and thus must be solved by
the executive and legislative branches not by the judicial one.
In short, there are enough differing
opinions about this case that its resolution is likely to be lengthy and
difficult – and that any decision about the border accord will not be accepted
by everyone regardless of who makes it.
No comments:
Post a Comment