This article focuses on the widely discussed apparent contradictions between traditional Russian Orthodox values and modern secular European values as these contradictions can be observed in the Russian legal system. On the one hand, the 1993 Russian Constitution—in particular, the provisions declaring the highest values of human rights—requires observance of secular European values. On the other hand, the ideas of the ‘Russian way’ (osobyi put’ Rossii) and cultural specificity are very influential in Russian politics and society today. This article examines how this value dualism appears in legal documents, which can be seen when the Russian legislative, executive, or judicial branch reaches a decision in which they seem to be guided by Orthodox dogma. Although examples are to be found by monitoring Russian media, the Internet, and most importantly via online databases of Russian judicial decisions, I argue that these instances are not significant enough to enable one to draw a broad conclusion. In fact, they are quite rare and non-systematic. Arguably, factors other than religious motives can be seen as the grounds in which these decisions are rooted. Nonetheless, a tendency toward strengthening the influence of Orthodoxy on the Russian ‘law in books’ and ‘law in action’ is obvious. One result likely will be a sharpening of the divide between Orthodox and secular European values in the Russian legal system in the future.

No abstract

In Russian legal texts there are many various language-based phenomena identified by lawyers as “cases of indeterminacy.” Looking at these phenomena from a linguistic point of view allows one to offer their meaningful classification. This article presents such a classification. It is based on the traditional distinction between ambiguity (we discuss only lexical, structural, and referential ambiguity) and vagueness, namely: vagueness in the narrow sense, fuzziness (we distinguish between referential fuzziness, classificatory fuzziness, and lexical fuzzy expressions including hedges, fuzzy quantifiers etc.), and lack of specification. In addition to the classification itself, the article provides some semantic tests and a variety of examples that illustrate the different types of ambiguity and vagueness, including those from Russian legal texts. We particularly argue that the cases of syntactic and referential ambiguity are periodically encountered in Russian language of law. Among them, for example, the cases of coordination ambiguity, the cases of relative clause attachment ambiguity and others. At the same time, the found examples of vagueness are expectedly much more numerous. The article aims to provide lawyers with tools for the systematic search and analysis of cases of linguistic ambiguity and vagueness in Russian texts.

Informed consent to medical intervention represents the principle of individual autonomy, recognized in Russian law and medical practice nearly 30 years ago, but it is still viewed as controversial and even rejected. The purpose of informed consent is to provide obligatory prior notification about the consequences and risks of a medical procedure to be performed, as well as other possible options of treatment. Based on the results of anthropological and legal studies, the article focuses on issues concerning obtaining informed consent and its interpretations, comparing the meanings attributed to the document by lawyers, government agencies, courts, as well as doctors and patients. The legal nature of the consent consists in expressing a person’s will for medical intervention and his decision which cannot be made by anyone else. The meaning that patients and doctors attribute to informed consent, as shown by results of a survey and interviews, is shifting risks and responsibility for negative consequences from the medical organization to the patient. Stylistic features of the document influence its perception by ordinary citizens, resulting in fear and doubts about the doctor’s qualifications. Russian courts usually follow a formal approach when judging whether the signature reflects the patient’s real expressed will. Failure to understand the meaning of the document being signed, a circumstance that is sometimes cited when justifying an error in a transaction, is usually not recognized as sufficient. Although the document is formulated on behalf of the patient, he receives a ready-made text, containing information of a professional nature. This causes difficulties in the patient’s understanding of the document that has been drawn up on his behalf. However, when a person argues that he signed an informed consent without understanding its content, courts often do not consider his words sufficient, thus failing to stimulate medical organizations to provide a document that is catered to ordinary people’s medical and linguistic competences.

While the communicative approach to the law is spread widely today, characteristic of legal communication are still purely described and weakly researched. Linguists and experts in theory of communication are not involved in discourse of legal notions and practice of law, whereas jurists are not ready to step out of this discourse. This article represents an attempt to overcome these difficulties and to find in law necessary parameters (focusing on the figure of addressee), being equipped with the methodology of communication theory. Resuming analysis of the substance and conditions of legal communication, the author concludes that recognized in the contemporary linguistic interaction model of communication with some limits are applied to the legal communication. Law does not suppose that content of legal acts (messages of legal communication) is determined solely by intention and will of addresser. Interpretation of legal acts is an important part of the mechanism of law and it needs active involvement of addressee, though unlike in communication of other types, the addressee cannot enjoy the full freedom of interpretation of text, aliened form the addresser. In law, this would raise a risk of violation the equal protection — fundamental principle of law. Addressees of legal acts are either executors or enforcers of legal prescriptions. Interpretation of enforcers tends to be coordinated and unified, leading to forming of collective enforcing addressee. Anyway, the execution of legal prescriptions is to be volitional and conscious, therefore the executors should keep the role of direct addressees as well, though their interpretation of legal acts will be subordinated to that of enforcers. The non-normative acts in the most cases (excluding non-reception one-sided deals and private applications to public authorities) have one main addressee, while the circle of potential addressees remains indefinite.