Skip to main content

“When they come for you”: How Lawyers Resist Authoritarianism in Russia

By Freek van der Vet, PhD. Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights, University of Helsinki, Finland
Honorary Research Associate, Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, Canada

Following Vladimir Putin’s return to the Presidency in 2012, the Russian State Duma (parliament) passed a string of repressive laws. The Duma installed fines for those participating in unauthorized demonstrations, amended extremism laws, and passed a law that curtailed the work of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) by cutting their ties with their foreign—primarily, North American—donors.

This “law on foreign agents” forces Russian NGOs to register as “foreign agents” (inostrannye agenty) with the Ministry of Justice when they receive foreign funding and engage into political activities. NGOs registered this way have to label all their publications with “foreign agent”. NGOs that fail to comply can expect a surprise inspection, often leading to fines between 300.000 and 500.000 Rubles. In January 2018, the foreign agent registry counts 85 foreign agents (Ministerstvo Yustitsii 2018), a drop since 2016, when the registry listed 156 organizations. A new law on “undesirable organizations”, passed in 2015, forced major international donors—the Open Society Foundation and MacArthur Foundation—out of the country.

On top of these restrictions, the Duma amended treason laws in 2012. Russians are now more likely to meet agents of the FSB (Federal Security Service, Federal’naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii), either for an interrogation or a chat on the streets. A growing number of Russians is put on trial for high treason for a call, sending an SMS, or sharing a post on Facebook. For instance, Svetlana Davydova, a housewife with seven children, was investigated for high treason after she had called the Embassy of Ukraine, informing them that she overheard Russian soldiers talking about military deployments in Ukraine.

While these laws were passed in rapidly, their execution is often random, inciting a climate of fear (Gel’man 2016). In this unpredictable environment, many NGOs and Russians now face the question: what to do, when the authorities come for you?[1]

Drawing on interviews with Russian lawyers, in the article ‘“When they Come for You”: Legal Mobilization in New Authoritarian Russia’ I examine how these lawyers continue their work when authorities resort to use the law as a tool of repression. How have they given legal aid to two groups of victims: Russians under investigation for treason and NGOs prosecuted under the foreign agent law? By examining how lawyers make strategic choices while coping with unfair courts, the random enforcement of laws, and shrinking financial resources, this article argues that state coercion does not deter lawyers from legal mobilization at domestic courts and at the European Court of Human Rights.

Repressive laws have pushed Russian human rights lawyers to reinvent their everyday practices, forcing them explore new strategies besides legal mobilization. For instance, they have given consultations to NGOs to circumvent the foreign agent law. Some NGOs dropped their registrations to work informally. For instance, Team 29, an informal collective of lawyers and journalists working on the freedom of information and the defense of treason suspects. Others have registered as a commercial organization, for example, the LGBTI film festival Side-by-Side (Bok-o-Bok).

Treason trials are often held in secret places, sometimes, in basements. Defense lawyers rarely have access to the full case files. Team 29, defending treason suspects, has, in response, used public outreach strategies in the media to put pressure on investigators. Because of very low acquittal ratings (around one percent), lawyers have, often with success, managed to stop treason cases from going to court.[2]


Gel’man, Vladimir. 2016. “The Politics of Fear: How Russia’s Rulers Counter Their Rivals.” Russian Politics 1 (1):27–45.

Ministerstvo Yustitsii. 2018. “Ministerstvo Yustitsii Rossiiskoi Federatsii, O Deyatel’nosti Nekommercheskikh Organizatsii.” O Deyatel’nosti Nekommercheskikh Organizatsii. 2018.

[1] Esli za Vami Prishli” (When they come for you) ( is an online guide of Team 29 (Komanda 29), a St. Petersburg informal collective of lawyers giving legal aid to Russians when they meet the security services.


Popular posts from this blog

What Courts do with Executive Privilege Claims

By Gbemende Johnson, Hamilton College

“Because Congress requires this material in order to perform our constitutionally-mandated responsibilities, I will issue a subpoena for the full report and the underlying materials.” This was the response of House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) after receiving the redacted 448-page Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.The battle over the Mueller Report is just one example of conflicts between Congress and the executive branch over executive privilege, where agency officials claim they can withhold documents. Many disputes land in federal court. The Obama Administration Department of Justice spent years in court defending its claim of executive privilege over documents related to the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” gunwalking operation. Federal courts have proven less likely to let cabinet level agencies like the Department of Justice withhold documents than they are with independent agencies li…

Inviting Papers for a Symposium on Immigration Detention

Law & Society Review Symposium: Facing Immigration Detention Revised Submission Deadline: February 15, 2020

Immigration detention is one of the most pressing civil and human rights issues of our time that affects millions of migrants around the world. The theme of this special symposium issue, Facing Immigration Detention, is understanding the causes, conditions, and consequences of immigration detention around the world. This Special Issue is dedicated to advancing public knowledge about how immigration detention has expanded, its role in immigration enforcement, its societal impacts, and its intersections with the criminal justice system. The Special Issue seeks to bring together innovative research that will guide the next generation of detention studies and inform policy debates in this area.  

To be considered, the work must engage with theory, offer empirical analysis, and make clear contributions to socio-legal studies. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:
Causes of…

Switching Up the Metaphor: from Baseball to Knitting

Susan M. Sterett, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Metaphors guide what we see. In studying law and courts, metaphors for the law have come from baseball: Justice Roberts famously said in his confirmation hearing that judges call balls and strikes. Justice Kavanaugh followed his lead. Although umpires argued the analogy misunderstands the creativity the job requires, it remains a common metaphor for judging. The valuable website Oyez asks on each Supreme Court justice’s biography which baseball player is most like the justice’s contribution to the law. It’s an incomprehensible question for those who don’t follow men’s professional baseball closely. It also points to justices, and individual achievement, as the key players in law. Others are spectators.

What would show up if instead an activity often dismissed as trivial, mechanistic and feminine—knitting (and I want to include crochet; for brevity I’ll sum up both with knitting)—were the metaphor for the law instead?