Legality and Human Rights: Administrative Justice in Russia 1862-1917

The question of how far pre-revolutionary Russia was from the ideal of a lawful state has received little academic attention, particularly as relates to the legal regulation of relations between person, society and state within the state administration. Pravilova explored the methods of settling disputes between individuals and the administration, and the emergence of legal controls of the administration, analysed projects for the organisation of administrative justice and studied the particular nature of concepts from Russian administrative justice. The idea of an organisation of special bodies examining complaints by private persons against the actions of officials and state bureaucratic organs first appeared in the early 1860s. In the 1870s-1890s various projects for the reform of administrative justice (reorganisation of the Senate and local administrative institutions) were proposed by the Ministries of Justice and Finance, but none of these was put into practice, largely due to resistance from the bureaucracy. At the same time, however, the rapid development of private enterprise, the activities of the zemstvo and self-government produced new norms and mechanisms for the regulation of authorities and social relations. Despite the lack of institutional conditions, the Senate did consider complaints from private persons against illegal actions by administrative officials, playing a role similar to that of the supreme administrative courts in France and Germany. The spread of concepts of a 'lawful state' aroused support for a system of administrative justice and the establishment of administrative tribunals was seen as a condition of legality and a guarantee of human rights. The government was forced to understand that measures to maintain legality were vital to preserve the stability of the system of state power, but plans for liberal reforms were pushed into the background by constitutional reforms. The idea of guarantees of human rights in relations with the authorities was in contradiction with the idea of the monarchy and it was only when the Provisional Government took power in 1917 that the liberal programme of legal reforms had any chance of being put into practice. A law passed in June 1917 ordained the organisation of local administrative justice bodies, but its implementation was hampered by the war, the shortage of qualified judges and the existing absolute legal illiteracy, and the few administrative courts that were set up were soon abolished by the new Soviet authorities. Pravilova concluded that the establishment of a lawful state in pre-revolutionary Russia was prevented by a number of factors, particularly the autocratic nature of the supreme authority, which was incompatible with the idea of administrative justice as a guarantee of the rights of citizens in their relations with the state.

Changing Values in a Transitional Period

This project examined the change in values in the still unfinished transitional period in Serbia during the 1990s and compared it with Greece in the same period. During this period the social and political transition affected the ruling value system primarily through changes in the modes of the production and representation of reality. The most remarkable trait of this period in Serbia is the parallel and interweaving existence of different value systems. The very perception of reality has been blurred by the emergence of a very complex technical and ideological structure. Reality is presented by and through extensions and additions, the models of which are language and media. With the development of media technology and global communication and information systems, representation has become the only available reality. This enables the media to overtly and unlimitedly intervene in reality, to manage and change it without constraint and thus have a direct impact on values. The difference between public and private is abolished, so the media start promoting exclusive collective values. However, since the collective thus loses its counterpart, it itself needs to be redefined. This confusion of values make the possible results of their change uncertain. It will either open up a space for multiculturalism and social pluralism and thus completely replace the old systems of values, or result in an indefinite survival of different, often contradictory, value systems and conceptions of reality, which often lead to all forms of exclusivity and intolerance.