Minnesota Journal of International Law

"{W]e have had enough revolutions": International Advocacy Strategies through the Lens of Russian Political Prisoners

Abstract

Authoritarian states are not known for promoting freedom of expression. In order to maintain power, successful authoritarian governments must restrict oppositional voices to survive. However, as a matter of institutional legitimacy in the eyes of their people, many regimes still superficially hold elections, request opinions from their constitutional courts, and even incorporate human rights protections into national laws. Such is the case in the Russian Federation, where the government strives to appear democratic despite its widespread repression.

Behind the arguably feeble appearance of a legitimately elected government with constitutional safeguards, the Russian legal system systemically punishes and incarcerates political dissidents. Russian authorities target conduct ranging from social media posts critical of President Vladimir Putin to public speeches condemning the Russian government. The right to freedom of expression in Russia is increasingly restricted every year, in large part due to the rise of the internet. Two years after opposition leader Alexei Navalny was poisoned and imprisoned, Amnesty International’s Russia Director, Natalia Zviagina, proclaimed that “not one critic, human rights defender or independent journalist is safe from the threat of persecution, reprisals and repression” in Russia. In this political environment, the founder of the Institute for Modern Russia, Pavel Khodorkovsky, asserted that “[I]t’s [not] an over-dramatization to say that Putin is longing for a return to Soviet Union times . . . not only in geopolitical power but in terms of total control inside the state.”

This Note analyzes the legal contradictions between international law and Russian law in the context of political prisoners and the violation of their legal right to freedom of expression. With this backdrop, the Note proceeds to examine human rights advocacy strategies to determine potential paths of action that outsiders can use to promote human rights abroad.

Part I provides context of the recent Russian political system, international and national laws that protect and limit freedom of expression, and the inseparable link between Russian law and politics. It also introduces the four advocacy strategies that will be explored in the Note: economic sanctions, corporate pressure, moral condemnation raised by non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”), and Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) at the United Nations. Part II analyzes two methods used by the Russian government to detain political prisoners: consistently targeting and detaining outspoken opposition leaders like Alexei Navalny under the guise of countering extremism and terrorism and bringing a quick succession of charges against dissidents to supposedly counter foreign influence, as befell activist and author Vladimir Kara-Murza. Part II subsequently examines the strengths and weaknesses of advocacy strategies in relation to Russian political prisoners.

The Note concludes that, to successfully raise issues of human rights violations under authoritarian regimes in the twenty-first century, a combination of condemnation and engagement-based strategies is critical. The Note also emphasizes that it is necessary for the U.S. and other countries to continue to diplomatically engage with states like Russia in order to avoid isolationism and encourage international cooperation on global issues such as climate change or the proliferation of nuclear weapons. While human rights advocacy strategies are imperfect, it must be emphasized that human rights advocacy is not a zero-sum game and that it is still worth advocating for fundamental rights even if states do not alter their damaging behavior.

Volume

Issue

Recommended Citation

Macomber, Elena (2024) ""{W]e have had enough revolutions": International Advocacy Strategies through the Lens of Russian Political Prisoners," Minnesota Journal of International Law: Vol. 33: Iss. 2, Article 6.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/minn-jrnl-intl-law/vol33/iss2/6