Russia in the Council of Europe

• 1. Accession And Early Membership

  ›

  Russia joined the Council of Europe on the 28th of February 1996. This date marked a significant moment in international relations, yet it occurred despite clear warnings from experts. In 1994, a commission appointed by PACE determined that Russia was unfit for membership. The report cited deficits in Russia's legal order regarding constitutional rights and freedom of movement. It also highlighted issues with national minorities and political freedoms. The death penalty remained a point of contention during these discussions.

  The First Chechen War triggered further scrutiny. PACE suspended Russia's membership application later in 1994. They cited the indiscriminate use of force by the Russian military as contrary to Council values. Despite this, Russia signed the European Convention on Human Rights in 1996. Irina Busygina and Jeffrey Kahn noted that no serious observer believed Russia met the criteria at that time. British delegate David Atkinson argued that Russia could be suspended if obligations were not met.

  In 1998, the Civil Code of Russia entered into force around the same time as the Criminal Code. The Council noticed this development favorably. However, the underlying belief was that joining would help improve democracy. President Boris Yeltsin had worked hard for the Russian Federation to join after the Soviet Union dissolved. The hope was that membership would lead to behavioral change.

• 2. Human Rights Implementation Records

  ›

  By 2008, more than 25 percent of ECtHR cases concerned Russia. This volume clogged the court's docket and created a significant backlog. The flood of cases revealed systematic flaws in human rights protection within the country. Many judgments resulted against Russia, yet implementation remained poor. A chart from August 2021 showed an average implementation rate of 53% across all members. Russia sat at just 10%, while Azerbaijan fell to 4%. Luxembourg, Monaco, and Estonia achieved 100% compliance.

  The argument for admitting Russia rested on the belief that it would change its behavior. Initially there was great optimism about legal reforms. Russia changed several laws to bring them into compliance with requirements. These changes appeared on paper but often lacked substance. Strasbourg could act as a last hope of justice for Russians according to some advocates. Membership did result in successful outcomes for low-profile cases not politically sensitive.

  It became common for the state to simply pay complainants without any reform. Since 2000, the country experienced autocratization and a decline in freedoms. This trend accompanied increasing distance from the Council of Europe. International law scholars Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou and Donal K Coffey concluded that ECtHR judgements are not effective if there is no political will to implement them.

• 3. Ideological Conflicts Over History

  ›

  In September 2005, Göran Lindblad presented a revised report on condemning communist crimes to the PACE political commission. The resolution aimed to restore historical justice by condemning totalitarian regimes. Russian politicians perceived this as an insult to their nation. They viewed it as an attempt to revise history rather than seek truth. Foreign communists and socialists expressed indignation at the proposal to condemn communist ideology itself.

  The debate led to partial changes in the report text. Instead of crimes of communism, the wording used was crimes of totalitarian communist regimes. On the 25th of January, the PACE adopted resolution 1481 with 99 votes for and 42 against. The Russian delegation united in opposition despite internal ideological differences. Vladimir Zhirinovsky stood alone among Russians supporting the measure.

  Parallel work began on reports condemning the Franco regime in Spain. Mikhail Margelov presented findings on the danger of Nazism revival. The resolution on preventing Nazism adoption occurred on the 12th of April 2006. Russian deputies believed balance had been achieved through these combined actions. The condemnation of communist crimes accompanied confirmation of inadmissibility regarding any totalitarian regimes.

• 4. Escalating Geopolitical Tensions

  ›

  Russia has carried out wars of aggression against other Council of Europe member states since 2000. In 2008, it invaded Georgia. This conflict marked a turning point in relations between Moscow and Strasbourg. Four years later, Russia launched conflicts in parts of Ukraine and annexed Crimea. These events eroded trust within the organization significantly.

  A 2019 paper by Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou and Donal K Coffey cited Russia as showing persistent disregard for CoE values. They noted that occupying other member states undermined institutional credibility. Sponsoring separatist movements further damaged standing. The fact that Russia remained a full member while ignoring ECtHR judgements created tension. Many argued this situation threatened the integrity of the entire institution.

  In February 2006, the EU Commissioner for Human Rights visited Chechnya. He presented a report in March detailing conditions there. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance published its third periodic report on Russia in May. A special statement followed in December regarding people of Georgian origin in the Russian Federation. These documents highlighted ongoing human rights concerns amidst rising geopolitical friction.

• 5. Suspension And Voting Privileges

  ›

  Russia was suspended from voting rights in PACE from 2000 to 2001 because of the Second Chechen War. This suspension demonstrated the Council's willingness to enforce consequences for violations. Later actions included demands for withdrawal following the annexation of Crimea. The assembly condemned Russia's war of aggression through nonbinding resolutions.

  To avoid potential exclusion, Russia's delegation did not attend meetings in 2016, 2017, or 2018. The country also withheld membership dues during this period. In 2019, the suspension was dropped after negotiations. Many human rights activists in Russia argued against expulsion to preserve petition rights. They feared losing access to the ECtHR would leave citizens vulnerable to government abuses.

  The Secretary General told the Financial Times that expulsion would be negative for Europe. He stated it would create a Europe without Russia. Such a development represented a big step back for the continent. Greece had been the only other member state to leave the institution before, doing so in 1969 due to the Greek case.

• 6. Final Expulsion And Withdrawal

  ›

  On the 25th of February 2022, forty-two of forty-seven member states voted to immediately suspend Russia's voting privileges. Armenia stood alone besides Russia opposing the motion. Serbia and Azerbaijan did not attend while Turkey abstained from the vote. This decision followed a day after Russia invaded Ukraine with full-scale force. Human rights scholar Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou called the invasion unprecedented within the organization.

  Hours before an expulsion vote on the 15th of March, Russia filed notice of voluntary withdrawal. Membership was scheduled to terminate on the 31st of December 2022 if left untouched. However, the procedure was already underway making the note legally ineffective. On the 16th of March, the Committee of Ministers decided to expel Russia with immediate effect. The Council concluded its relationship with Moscow after decades of engagement.

  After expulsion, former President Dmitry Medvedev endorsed restoring the death penalty in Russia. His tenure spanned from 2008 to 2012 as president and 2012 to 2020 as prime minister. This statement reflected a hardening stance following the loss of international oversight mechanisms available through Strasbourg.