Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe is a loss of hope for human rights

March 23, Jeffrey Kahn, law professor at SMU Dallas Dedman School of Law, for a commentary explaining why Russia exiting the Council of Europe is a blow to human rights initiatives in the region. Published in the Dallas Morning News with the heading: Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe is a loss of hope for human rights: https://bit.ly/3L5rMGn or https://perma.cc/T4S3-LEV2

The last light that kindled hope for Russia to be included within Europe burned out last week. Russia withdrew from the Council of Europe. This decision, coinciding with the council’s decision to terminate Russian membership with an eye toward expulsion, is much graver than widely understood.

This is no mere diplomatic rift. It is the snuffing out of hope not only for millions of Russians, but for hundreds of millions of Europeans whose countries remain members of an organization that emerged from the embers of Europe’s last horrible conflagration.

By Jeffrey Kahn

The Council of Europe describes itself as the continent’s leading human rights organization. Its focus, unlike the European Union, has been building democracy and the rule of law more than building commerce. But the two go hand-in-hand, and no member of the EU, nor future member, could remain outside it.

The signal achievement of the Council of Europe is its Convention of Human Rights. From its stunningly beautiful court in Strasbourg, France, the European Court of Human Rights decides cases brought under the convention, a commitment to fundamental human rights that is enforceable against states by their own citizens, often requiring states to pay money damages and make systemic reforms to their legal and political frameworks.

Russia sought membership just months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, desperate to join any international organization that would have it. This presented a dilemma, for Russia in 1992 in no way met the conditions of membership in the Council of Europe: pluralist parliamentary democracy; respect for human rights; and the rule of law. Russia did not help its case by launching a brutal war in Chechnya while its application was pending.

But the leaders of the council saw an opportunity. Membership could catalyze respect for those values, rather than require them a priori. Bending the rules for admission could translate ambitions into practice. As one rapporteur for the Council put it: “Integration is better than isolation; cooperation is better than confrontation.”

Admitting Russia was the gamble. And for 25 years, beginning with Russia’s acceptance into the council in 1996, the game was worth the candle. Advised by experts from the council and elsewhere, and driven to meet the conditions of membership, Russian began to change. Legislation emerged like mushrooms after the rain. New codes for civil and criminal law and procedure, the backbone of any legal system, were passed to meet council standards. Russia put a moratorium on the death penalty. The country established a professional bar, with a commissioner for human rights, and passed laws protecting religious organizations and national minorities.

And Russia ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, opening its legal system to inspection by the Strasbourg Court. Surprising many skeptics, Russia paid the judgments it lost and, with less regularity but some progress, responded to requests to reform its practices to prevent similar violations in the future.

To be sure, there were tremendous difficulties. The candle sputtered. Many found the original sin to be Russia’s premature admission without adherence to the principles that the council’s statute insisted were “the common heritage” of the “like-minded countries of Europe.” Russian cases clogged the court’s docket.

As Russian strength and confidence grew, its leaders grew emboldened to challenge the constraints of membership. War against Georgia. Annexation of Crimea. And, domestically, laws clawing back from Strasbourg the final word on human rights.

The candle has now gone out. Former President Dmitry Medvedev found what he called “a good opportunity to restore … the death penalty” in Russia. Over 17,000 Russian cases are pending in the European Court of Human Rights. Those that aren’t outright abandoned have virtually no hope that judgments against Russia will be effectuated. Those include cases by leading dissidents like the imprisoned opposition leader Alexei Navalny and ordinary pensioners, students and citizens with grievances that run the gamut of human experience.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it leaves “without regret.”

The hope that Russian membership offered possibility for improvement is gone. And the loss of hope should be mourned. The world will suffer for years to come the effects of isolation instead of integration; confrontation instead of cooperation.

Jeffrey Kahn is a law professor at Southern Methodist University. He wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News.