Russian Legal Culture: An Analysis of Adaptive Response to an Institutional Transplant

Abstract

This article is an inquiry into Russian legal culture and is based on the assumption that any institution transplanted from one social environment to another will be reinterpreted and reshaped, so that it can be accepted into the receiving society. The process of adaptation creates an opportunity to examine the receiving society's established practices and way of thinking. To demonstrate their effects, this article explores the author's research findings carried out in two Russian towns where institutions of media self‐regulation were set up. The findings are analyzed comparatively in order to identify how the key players in the two towns interpreted the initial ideas, established procedures and rules for the newly set up institutions, and defined the roles that were attributed to them. The results of the two‐city case study are then used to interpret some specifics of the internal logic of the local legal culture.

Spiral effect of the law: migrants’ experiences of the state law in Russia – a comparative perspective

“…These accounts and academic reports confirm, for some, long-established assumptions about Russia's exceptionalism, in terms of the lack of the rule of law, corruption and legal nihilism (Ledeneva, 1998; 2006; Kurkchiyan, 2003; 2009; McAulley et al , 2006). Much of the academic literature, analytical reports, mass media and even common wisdom suggest that the justice system in Russia is unreliable – it does not provide equal access to justice, it does not treat its litigants fairly, law enforcement is fortuitous and ‘telephone law’ still prevails in different court settings (Pastukhov, 2002; Solomon, 2005; Ledeneva, 2006; Transparency International, 2007; Sakwa, 2009; 2010).…”

Resolving Problems among Neighbors in Post‐Soviet Russia: Uncovering the Norms of the Pod”ezd

“…In contrast to most research on Russian law, my study focuses on a problem that Russians confront in their daily lives with the goal of understanding how Russians think about law 46 rather than exploring how Russians use (or avoid) particular laws (Kewinbuk 2009) or legal institutions (Kurkchiyan 2009). The nonrepresentative nature of the sample makes definitive conclusions impossible, but certain patterns have emerged that deserve more systematic exploration.…”

How gun control policies evolve: Gun culture, ‘gunscapes’ and political contingency in post-Soviet Georgia

“…True, extensive literature on the region document non-gun vigilantism, official mobilization of citizens for criminal justice and other self-help in both the Soviet and post-Soviet periods (Favarel-Garrigues, 2011, 2015; Favarel-Garrigues and Le Huérou, 2004; Gorlizki, 1998). Other studies address post-Soviet citizens’ anomie and disaffection from law (Hendley, 2007, 2009; Kurkchiyan, 2009). In contrast, like Brooke and Gans-Morse (2016), we find post-Soviet people do not reject regulation.…”