Suchergebnisse

The Doctrine of Information Security of the Russian Federation was one of the first policy documents issued by President Vladimir Putin's Security Council. The Doctrine, ostensibly drafted as a security policy document, was severely criticized by the Russian press and civil libertarians for its undue attention to the mass media and the prominence of politicized symbols of identity. The document extends the conventions of security policy discourse into the domain of information, thus legitimizing state intervention in the production of social knowledge. The Doctrine's textual representation of threat, or "discourse of danger," delimits the boundaries of national identity and legitimizes the exercise of control over the principal agent of the cultural production—the mass media. Employing identity politics in the service of a "strong state," the Kremlin has intensified its regulation of the communications infrastructure to ensure the uniformity and stability of the nation's locus of meaning. This translation provides selected sections of the Doctrine to reveal the discursive strategies employed to legitimatize the role of the state in the reproduction of identity, and the accompanying analysis seeks to demonstrate the Kremlin's active performance of this role by subsuming "independent" television under the charge of the state.

This Article represents recent scholarship in Russian jurisprudence concerning the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures. It was written by a professor who is an active participant in law reform projects addressing the problems of elaborating legislation to articulate the rights and duties of parties involved in economic and other disputes. This Article covers three forms of dispute resolution—negotiations, claims-based dispute resolution, and mediation—and identifies characteristics of these procedures that are peculiar to the Russian context. By reviewing the forms of conflict resolution employed in Soviet-era command economy and exploring the contours of contemporary Russian "legal culture," the Article attempts to reconcile new procedural norms dictated by today's market economy with historical patterns of legal consciousness. The Article offers a unique insight into the progress of legal reforms in a narrow category of adjudication. It should prove interesting to readers seeking to understand the political and social factors that influence the adoption of new legal institutions, implementation of legislation, and the revision of law school curricula. Practitioners involved in business relationships with Russian enterprises will also find this Article a valuable survey of dispute resolution procedures in the Russian Federation.