When we talk about constitutional identity, we can not ignore the international, the role of International Law in the Russian legal system and in the Russian constitutional system. International Law bases generally on the universal requirements to the legal institutions, to the government institutions in all the countries. And if we make the openness a part, as a principle for any constitutional system, we make it more unified with other constitutional systems and it is more similar to the constitutional systems of other countries. So, sometimes openness to International Law is a part of constitutional Identity in meaning of making it very specific, exceptional system, or make it like a system in other countries. For the Russian constitutional system, the role of International Law was the matter for debates since early 1990's. And in the Russian Constitution of 1993, the basic principle was the openness of the Russian legal system to International Law. It was in that period when the constitution and the state itself tried to show the openness to general principles, to general standards. It was a period when Russia tried to show that here in Russia, the state should be organized and the society should be organized according to the same principles as they are organized in the Western democracies. And this openness was supported by the joining of Russia to many international agreements, many international treaties like the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. And it was the part of general movement of Russia to involvement in many international organizations, and involvement in the world politics to be a part of this politics. But later and in the beginning of 21st century, and maybe even later, Russian openness formally expressed in the text of the constitution started to be interpreted in a slightly different manner. Sometimes slightly, sometimes quite a radically different from that original principle of openness. This was a new development for the whole legal system, but this was kind of reaction to the political process rather than the internal legal development of interpretation of this principle. On the political situation, I would define the situation before that general crisis which occurred after the Ukraine war of 2014. And it was like the movement to more and more protection of constitutional identity as an instrument to protect national interests in front of the interests of international community or interests of some certain countries, some certain foreign countries. For the Russian Federation, it was quite important that International Law today is not based only on the wills of the states, and sometimes International Law is based on decisions made by international organizations. International organization can make the decisions which are binding the member states of international organization, and sometimes even all member states of the United Nations. So, this was a kind of a cause for Russia to be very caution about the development of International Law and to put some obstacles on direct influence of international law on the Russian legal system. In 1990's, Russia trying to become a Member of Council of Europe. And when in 1998 Russia became a member of European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it was a part of the general procedure of establishing democratic state in Russian Federation. But at that time, it was a principle decision. Later, European Court of Human Rights made a lot of decisions making conclusions that Russia violated that of those principles written down in the Convention. And more or less Russia tried to follow these decisions and tried to amend legislation, tried to make decisions according to those guiding principles which were defined by the European Court of Human Rights. This change of tendencies could be very obviously seen in the practice of the Russian Constitutional Court. For many years, it supported the practice of European Court of Human Rights insisting on execution of the decisions made by European Court. And probably the most important decision was taken in February of 2010 when the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation concluded that those rights which are written down in the Russian Constitution are in substance the same rights as in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. So, it means that the protection of those rights is the protection of the rights of the Russian Constitution. So, it means that if we protect rights on the level of the European Council, of the Council of Europe, on the level of European Court of Human Rights, it is also the support and protection of constitutional rights, constitutional rights inside Russia. But this approach of the Constitutional Court supported by legislature and other officials of the Russian organs, changed after 2010 case of Konstantin Markin heard by the European Court of Human Rights and later through those decisions which were taken after Markin case and were quite famous decisions, quite known decisions about very sensitive for the Russian politics questions on elections and etcetera. So, Konstantin Markin case was a case on parental leave for military male persons. And the Russian legislation did not grant this parental leave right to male militaries but to females only. And the European Court of Human Rights made a decision which opposes the position of the Russian Constitutional Court. Constitutional Court said that this is a privilege for the Russian female militaries and it could not be a kind of discrimination of men, of male militaries. But the European Court of Human Rights concluded that it is a discrimination and the gender ideas on which this decision was based is rather gender prejudices of the Russian society than legally argument that position on this very case. Later in 2015, the Constitutional Court of Russian Federation even decided that appealing to the Russian sovereignty, Russia could make a decision that a certain judgment of the European Court of Human Rights is in contrary to the principles of the Russian constitution, and basing on this conclusion, Russia can deny execution of a certain decision in that part when it contradicts to the constitution as the supreme law of the Russian Federation. This is the evolution of Russian judicial practice and this is the evolution of the Russian constitutional system, which today is based rather on closeness at least in that part which concern the general principles. But it is at least not that openness which was declared in the constitution in 1993.
