Paul
Goble
Staunton, February 20 –Konstantin
Aranovsky, a judge on Russia’s Constitutional Court, says that the Soviet Union
was “an illegally established state” whose authorities bear responsibility for
numerus rimes and that the Russian Federation must not be considered the legal
successor of the ‘repressive-terrorist actins’ of the USSR.”
The judge’s view, reported by Kommersant
three days ago, has no legal force by itself; but it does challenge Vladimir
Putin’s insistence on the continuity of Russian statehood from tsarist times
through the USSR to the Russian Federation of today and highlights the internal
inconsistency of Russian legal opinion about this issue (kommersant.ru/doc/4258690).
Indeed, even Aranovsky wants to have
it both ways, arguing that Russia must not be viewed as the legal successor of
the USSR with regard to any crimes it committed and for which compensation may
be sought but that it should enjoy the benefits of continuity when it comes to
things like its seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Russia may compensate victims of the
Soviet system, the judge says, but it does so not as a continuation of the USSR
but as a new state that is acting mercifully rather than because f legal
liability. His words have sparked debate, with the sides selecting out of his
argument what they view as best and rejecting the rest (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=5E4CDD944CC3E).
But because his argument does not
have legal force and because he like many of his opponents wants to have it both
ways, with Russia a continuation of the USSR for some purposes but not for others,
it is far from clear whether Aranovsky has opened a real debate or simply
raised an issue that is unlikely to go anywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment