Interethnic Interaction Dynamics in the Russian Federation

The collapse of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1990s also meant the end of the idea of a common soviet identity incarnated in the "soviet man" and the new "historic community of the soviet people". While this idea still lives on in the generations of the 1920s to 1940s, the younger generations tend to prefer identification with family, profession, ethnic group or religion. Ms. Alexakhina set out to investigate different interethnic interaction strategies in the multi-ethnic context of the Russian Federation, with an emphasis on analysing the role of cultural and ethno-demographic characteristics of minority ethnic groups. It aimed to identify those specific patterns of interaction dynamics that have emerged in response to the political and economic transformation at present under way. The basic supposition was that the size and growth of an ethnic population are defined not only by demographic features such as fertility, mortality and net migration, but are also dependent on processes interethnic interaction and ethnic transition. The central hypothesis of the project was that the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural composition of Russia is apparently manifesting itself in the ethnic minority groups in various forms, but particularly in the form of ethnic revival and/or assimilation. The results of these complex phenomena are manifested as changes in ethnic attachments (national re-identification and language behaviour (multi-lingualism, language transition and loss of the mother tongue). The stress of the political and economic crisis has stimulated significant changes in ethnographic, social and cultural characteristics of inter-ethnic dynamics such as the rate of national re-identification, language behaviour, migration activity and the spread of mixed marriages, among both those minorities with a long history of settlement in Russia and those that were annexed during the soviet period. Patterns of language behaviour and the spread of mixed marriages were taken as the main indicators of the directions of interethnic interaction described as assimilation, ethnic revival and cultural pluralism. The first stage of the research involved a statistical analysis of census data from 1959 to 1994 in order to analyse the changing demographic composition of the largest ethnic groups of the Russian Federation. Until 1989 interethnic interaction in soviet society was distinguished by the process of russification but the political and economic transformation has stimulated the process of ethnic revival, leading to an apparent fall in the size of the Russian population due to ethnic re-identification by members of other ethnic groups who had previously identified themselves as Russian. Cross-classification of nationalities by demographic, social and cultural indicators has shown that the most important determinants of the nature of interethnic interaction are cultural factors such as religion and language affiliation. The analysis of the dynamics of language shift through the study of bilingualism and the domains of language usage for different demographic groups revealed a strong correlation between recognition of Russian as a mother tongue among some non-Russian ethnic groups and the declining size of these groups. The main conclusion from this macro-analysis of census data was the hypothesis of the growing importance of social and political factors upon ethnic succession, that ethnic identity is no longer a stable characteristic but has become dynamic in nature. In order to verify this hypothesis Ms. Alexakhina conducted a survey in four regions showing different patterns of interethnic interaction: the Karelian Republic, Buryatiya, the Nenezkii Autonomous Region and Tatarstan. These represented the west, east, north and south of the Russian Federation. Samples for the survey were prepared on the basis of census lists so as to exclude mono-Russian families in favour of mixed and ethnic-minority families. The survey confirmed the significant growth in the importance of ethnic affiliation in the everyday lives of people in the Federation following the de-centralisation of the political and economic spheres. Language was shown to be a key symbol of the consciousness of national distinction, confirmed by the fact that the process of russification has been reversed by the active mastering of the languages of titular nationalities. The results also confirmed that individual ethnic identity has ceased to be a fixed personal characteristic of one's cultural and genetic belonging, and people's social adaptation to the current political, social and economic conditions is also demonstrated in changes in individual ethnic self-identification. In general terms, the dynamic nature of national identity means that ethnic identity is at present acquiring the special features of overall social identity, for which the frequent change of priorities is an inherent feature of a person's life cycle. These are mainly linked with a multi-ethnic environment and high individual social mobility. From her results Ms. Alexakhina concludes that the development of national languages and multi-lingualism, together with the preservation of Russian as a state language, seems to be the most promising path to peaceful coexistence and the development of the national cultures of different ethnic groups within the Russian Federation.

Securities: Its Conception and Protection of Interests of its Holders

Theoretical studies of the problems of the securities markets in the Russian Federation incline to one or other of the two traditional approaches. The first consists of comparing the definition of "valuable paper" set forth in the current legislation of the Russian Federation, with the theoretical model of "Wertpapiere" elaborated by German scholars more than 90 years ago. The problem with this approach is, in Mr. Pentsov's opinion, that any new features of the definition of "security" that do not coincide with the theoretical model of "Wertpapiere" (such as valuable papers existing in non-material, electronic form) are claimed to be incorrect and removed from the current legislation of the Russian Federation. The second approach works on the basis of the differentiation between the Common Law concept of "security" and the Civil Law concept of "valuable paper". Mr. Pentsov's research, presented in an article written in English, uses both methodological tools and involves, firstly, a historical study of the origin and development of certain legal phenomena (securities) as they evolved in different countries, and secondly, a comparative, synchronic study of equivalent legal phenomena as they exist in different countries today. Employing the first method, Mr. Pentsov divided the historical development of the conception of "valuable paper" in Russia into five major stages. He found that, despite the existence of a relatively wide circulation of valuable papers, especially in the second half of the 19th century, Russian legislation before 1917 (the first stage) did not have a unified definition of valuable paper. The term was used, in both theoretical studies and legislation, but it covered a broad range of financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, government bonds, promissory notes, bills of exchange, etc. During the second stage, also, the legislation of the USSR did not have a unified definition of "valuable paper". After the end of the "new economic policy" (1922 - 1930) the stock exchanges and the securities markets in the USSR, with a very few exceptions, were abolished. And thus during the third stage (up to 1985), the use of valuable papers in practice was reduced to foreign economic relations (bills of exchange, stocks in enterprises outside the USSR) and to state bonds. Not surprisingly, there was still no unified definition of "valuable paper". After the beginning of Gorbachev's perestroika, a securities market began to re-appear in the USSR. However, the successful development of securities markets in the USSR was retarded by the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework. The first effort to improve the situation was the adoption of the Regulations on Valuable Papers, approved by resolution No. 590 of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, dated June 19, 1990. Section 1 of the Regulation contained the first statutory definition of "valuable paper" in the history of Russia. At the very beginning of the period of transition to a market economy, a number of acts contained different definitions of "valuable paper". This diversity clearly undermined the stability of the Russian securities market and did not achieve the goal of protecting the investor. The lack of unified criteria for the consideration of such non-standard financial instruments as "valuable papers" significantly contributed to the appearance of numerous fraudulent "pyramid" schemes that were outside of the regulatory scheme of Russia legislation. The situation was substantially improved by the adoption of the new Civil Code of the Russian Federation. According to Section 1 of Article 142 of the Civil Code, a valuable paper is a document that confirms, in compliance with an established form and mandatory requisites, certain material rights whose realisation or transfer are possible only in the process of its presentation. Finally, the recent Federal law No. 39 - FZ "On the Valuable Papers Market", dated April 22 1996, has also introduced the term "emission valuable papers". According to Article 2 of this Law, an "emission valuable paper" is any valuable paper, including non-documentary, that simultaneously has the following features: it fixes the composition of material and non-material rights that are subject to confirmation, cession and unconditional realisation in compliance with the form and procedure established by this federal law; it is placed by issues; and it has equal amount and time of realisation of rights within the same issue regardless of when the valuable paper was purchased. Thus the introduction of the conception of "emission valuable paper" became the starting point in the Russian federation's legislation for the differentiation between the legal regimes of "commercial papers" and "investment papers" similar to the Common Law approach. Moving now to the synchronic, comparative method of research, Mr. Pentsov notes that there are currently three major conceptions of "security" and, correspondingly, three approaches to its legal definition: the Common Law concept, the continental law concept, and the concept employed by Japanese Law. Mr. Pentsov proceeds to analyse the differences and similarities of all three, concluding that though the concept of "security" in the Common Law system substantially differs from that of "valuable paper" in the Continental Law system, nevertheless the two concepts are developing in similar directions. He predicts that in the foreseeable future the existing differences between these two concepts will become less and less significant. On the basis of his research, Mr. Pentsov arrived at the conclusion that the concept of "security" (and its equivalents) is not a static one. On the contrary, it is in the process of permanent evolution that reflects the introduction of new financial instruments onto the capital markets. He believes that the scope of the statutory definition of "security" plays an extremely important role in the protection of investors. While passing the Securities Act of 1933, the United States Congress determined that the best way to achieve the goal of protecting investors was to define the term "security" in sufficiently broad and general terms so as to include within the definition the many types of instruments that in the commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of "security' and to cover the countless and various devices used by those who seek to use the money of others on the promise of profits. On the other hand, the very limited scope of the current definition of "emission valuable paper" in the Federal Law of the Russian Federation entitled "On the Valuable Papers Market" does not allow the anti-fraud provisions of this law to be implemented in an efficient way. Consequently, there is no basis for the protection of investors. Mr. Pentsov proposes amendments which he believes would enable the Russian markets to become more efficient and attractive for both foreign and domestic investors.