The Judicial System of Russia paints a portrait of the courts of the Russian Federation under Putin, how they work in practice, and what shapes the behaviour of its judges. It stresses the dual nature of a judicial system, where ordinary cases are for the most part handled fairly, but where cases of interest to powerful persons are subject to influence—a common situation in authoritarian states. In so doing, the authors trace the origins of some contemporary practices to the Soviet past, but also identify novelties. They pay close attention to the struggles of reformers to make the courts fairer and more efficient, along with the measures taken to ensure that judges conform to the expectations of their political masters. This means dealing with the evolution of judicial governance, including the selection, promotion, and disciplining of judges. In studying the actual operation of the courts, the authors take a socio-legal approach, emphasizing how different players (petitioners, respondents, lawyers, prosecutors, accused, judges) behave and why. This means dealing with the full gamut of courts from justices of the peace through the Supreme and Constitutional Courts and analysing their conduct in ordinary civil disputes, criminal cases, business disputes, administrative justice (claims against state officials), and constitutional matters. The authors also examine the relation of the public to the courts, including its readiness to litigate disputes despite generally negative views of the courts. This analysis of the administration of justice in Russia covers both the Constitutional Amendments of 2020 and developments relating to the first months of the 2022 War in Ukraine. It is a must read for academics, practitioners, and all those with an interest in comparative courts and Russia's judicial system.

The Judicial System of Russia paints a portrait of the courts of the Russian Federation under Putin, how they work in practice, and what shapes the behaviour of its judges. It stresses the dual nature of a judicial system, where ordinary cases are for the most part handled fairly, but where cases of interest to powerful persons are subject to influence—a common situation in authoritarian states. In so doing, the authors trace the origins of some contemporary practices to the Soviet past, but also identify novelties. They pay close attention to the struggles of reformers to make the courts fairer and more efficient, along with the measures taken to ensure that judges conform to the expectations of their political masters. This means dealing with the evolution of judicial governance, including the selection, promotion, and disciplining of judges. In studying the actual operation of the courts, the authors take a socio-legal approach, emphasizing how different players (petitioners, respondents, lawyers, prosecutors, accused, judges) behave and why. This means dealing with the full gamut of courts from justices of the peace through the Supreme and Constitutional Courts and analysing their conduct in ordinary civil disputes, criminal cases, business disputes, administrative justice (claims against state officials), and constitutional matters. The authors also examine the relation of the public to the courts, including its readiness to litigate disputes despite generally negative views of the courts. This analysis of the administration of justice in Russia covers both the Constitutional Amendments of 2020 and developments relating to the first months of the 2022 War in Ukraine. It is a must read for academics, practitioners, and all those with an interest in comparative courts and Russia's judicial system.

Everyday Law in Russia challenges the prevailing common wisdom that Russians cannot rely on their law and that Russian courts are hopelessly politicized and corrupt. While acknowledging the persistence of verdicts dictated by the Kremlin in politically charged cases, Kathryn Hendley explores how ordinary Russian citizens experience law. Relying on her own extensive observational research in Russia's new justice-of-the-peace courts as well as her analysis of a series of focus groups, she documents Russians' complicated attitudes regarding law. The same Russian citizen who might shy away from taking a dispute with a state agency or powerful individual to court might be willing to sue her insurance company if it refuses to compensate her for damages following an auto accident. Hendley finds that Russian judges pay close attention to the law in mundane disputes, which account for the vast majority of the cases brought to the Russian courts. Any reluctance on the part of ordinary Russian citizens to use the courts is driven primarily by their fear of the time and cost-measured in both financial and emotional terms-of the judicial process. Like their American counterparts, Russians grow more willing to pursue disputes as the social distance between them and their opponents increases; Russians are loath to sue friends and neighbors, but are less reluctant when it comes to strangers or acquaintances. Hendley concludes that the "rule of law" rubric is ill suited to Russia and other authoritarian polities where law matters most-but not all-of the time.