Annex



Annex Annex 1Annex 22.1. Stop words used in the Consultant.ru data base searchIn the field “Vid dokumenta” (“Type of document”) I inserted “zakon“ (“law”) and ukaz “decree,” respectively. For “Data” (“time”) I selected the time range from 01.01.1994 until 07.05.2012, in the field “Tekst dokumenta” (“text of the document”) I subsequently entered the following combination of words in inverted commas which was based on Krasnov’s search words and was then further expanded in a reiterative process to capture the maximum amount of relevant documents: ?определяет Президент Российской Федерации? (opredelyaet Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii/ the President of the Russian Federation determines); ?осуществляет Президент Российской Федерации? (osushchestvlyaet Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii/ the President of the Russian Federation exercises); ?Президент Российской Федерации вправе? (Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii vprave/ the President of the Russian Federation is entitled); ?Президент Российской Федерации имеет право? (Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii imeet pravo/the President of the Russian Federation has the right), ?утверждается Президентом Российской Федерации? (utverzhdaetsya Prezidentom Rossiiskoi Federatsii/is approved by the President of the Russian Federation); ?Президент Российской Федерации утверждает? (Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii utverzhdaet/ the President of the Russian Federation approves); ?с согласия Президента Российской Федерации? (s soglasiya Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii/ with the consent of the President of the Russian Federation); ?Президент Российской Федерации решает вопросы? (Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii reshaet voprosy/ the President of the Russian Federation decides upon issues); ?Президент Российской Федерации обеспечивает? (Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii obespechivaet/ the President of the Russian Federation guarantees); ?Президент Российской Федерации издает? (Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii izdaet/ the President of the Russian Federation issues), ?решениями Президента Российской Федерации? (resheniyami Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii/by means of decicions of the President of the Russian Federation). The settings were insensitive to word endings and cases, i.e. ?определяет Президент Российской Федерации? (opredelyaet Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii/the President of the Russian Federation determines) would also return decrees containing phrases such as ?определяется Президентом Российской Федерации? (opredelyaetsya Prezidentom Rossiiskoi Federatsii/is determined by the President of the Russian Federation). The results of this search were then downloaded and saved in .rtf format. Each document containing one law was then transferred into an Excel data base and manually coded. The information on the laws was broken down into the following attributes: Stop word that produced the law from consultant.ru; date when the bill was signed into law (and of the date when the law came into force if these dates differed); the name of the law (in Russian); the date when the law lost force or when it was replaced by another law; the policy sphere (see Annex 2.2.); the “degree of expansion” which reflects a weighting process in the course of which for each law a score was assigned, that is the higher the score the more prerogatives the law assigned to the president; and finally a short justification for each score in the weighting process. The weighting scheme necessarily has some drawbacks, some of which have also been brought forward with regard to Presidential Power Indices, namely that not every prerogative is equal and that these scores do not adequately reflect the varying importance of these power expansions. Nevertheless, we believe that the weighting scheme employed here offers a reasonable solution and compromise between parsimony and differentiation. The extraction and coding procedure for decrees was identical for presidential decrees. The data base search included all decrees, that is both normative (with the force of law) others as the basic assumption was that the search words would produce the relevant decrees automatically. The weighting process, however, was slightly different. Instead of scores, decrees were only coded as 1 and 2 for simple and more extensive expansion. 2.2. Policy domains for laws and decreesLaws and decrees in the data base were manually coded and assigned to policy domains or spheres. Several potential options were available for coding: The Duma itself assigns bills to a total of 21 “legislative spheres.” Thomas Remington offers a more parsimonious set of six policy domains (Remington 2014, 110-111). While these two approaches were helpful as a starting point, it proved to be useful to come up with an own scheme which was gradually adapted during the iterative coding process. It comprises 13 policy domains, in rare cases when no clear-cut attribution was possible, laws and decrees were assigned to two categories. Table 2.1. summarizes the coding categories, briefly explains the coding rules and lists the total number for the whole period of investigation between 1994 and 2012 these categories were attributed to laws or bills. Table 2.1. Policy domainCoding RulesTotal Frequency in LawsTotal Frequency in DecreesMilitary Armed forces; Ministry of Defense; nuclear issues; airspace program; Ministry of Emergency Situations; Federal Security Service; General Staff; railway troops; domestic troops; military courts; military service; mobilization; martial law; military pay; military and security doctrines; information security; state protection and guard; military-industrial complex; military procurement; construction of closed objects; military reform; foreign arms trade and export cooperation; civil defense; Cossacks; state borders; international arms treaties; foreign peacekeeping; veterans; prisoners of war and missed in action; counter-terrorism; military symbols such as coat of arms, flags, holidays; military cemetery awards; 41104StateState property; state (civil) service; public administration; state theaters; heraldry; state awards; state certificates; rewards; state competitions; salary and pension of state servants; (anti-corruption); income declarations; state media; regional and local-self-administration; holidays; citizenship; culture policy; Russian (former) citizens abroad; Cossack societies; presidential grants and scholarships; state educational and research institutions, think tanks; party system and societal organizations; federal postal service; public rallies; autonomous agencies; 2669EconomyPrecious metals and stones; stock/bond market; shareholders; privatization; state budget; customs; telecommunication market; real property and mortgage; family policy; labor market; taxes; energy; export control and foreign trade restrictions; alcohol; state corporations; regional economic development; international economic summits; nuclear economic policy; ecological expertise; strategic enterprises; aviation industry; special economic measures; development bank; innovation policy; 2130SecurityEncryption/ internal public administration communication; courier service; state secrets; Federal Security Service; Foreign Intelligence Service; counterintelligence; presidential security; Federal Guards Service; Security Council; state of emergency; nuclear waste; technical regulations in extraordinary circumstances; terrorism; radio and television communication operators; continental shelf; information by state organs published on the internet; travel restrictions for foreigners; special economic measures; economic security strategy; protection of state borders; heraldry; Kremlin territory; food security doctrine; mega sports events; anti-narcotics policy doctrine; meteorology; extremism; 2145ExecutiveFederal government; ministries and other organs of the federal and regional executive; reform of the executive; federal treaties; federal relations; local self-administration; normative acts of the president, the government and other executive organs; overall structure ('system') of the executive; foreign dependencies of executive organs; state council; state property department (upravlenie delami); Rossotrudnichestvo; Central Election Commission; 1627Law EnforcementMinistry of internal affairs; tax police; drug authority; migration service; penitentiary/prison authority; investigative committee; audit chamber; prosecution/prosecutor's office; money laundering authority; anti-corruption; monitoring of real estate declarations; police reform; 1416ExpertiseCommissions, councils and other advisory/academic bodies attached to the president (pri Prezidente); coordination commissions convened by the president to deal with matters in various policy fields; 751Judiciary Judicial chamber for information disputes; judicial reform; court system; funding of courts; identification documents and licensing of judges; amnesty; plenipotentiary at the European Court for Human Rights; Criminal Code; pardon; bailiffs; 46AccountabilityPublic Councils; Public discussion of legislation; Public Chamber; 35Presidential AdministrationOrganization, structure, internal regulation (polozheniia) of the presidential administration (PA); departments and other units of the PA; presidential representatives and plenipotentiaries; 0101CoordinationInter-agency commissions; Councils attached to the presidency; 05Foreign AffairsCommission on international treaties; Committees for the preparation of international summits and events; 03LegislationRules on publication and coming into force of legislation; code of laws; classification of legal acts; 032.3. Rulings on the merit (postanovleniya) of the Constitutional CourtThe Constitutional Court (CC) has a wide range of competences with regard to constitutional supervision and dispute resolution involving state organs, economic actors or citizens. For these purposes, the CC has three main decision mechanisms at its disposal: postanovlenie (rulings on the merit), zaklyuchenie (determination), and opredelenie (delimitation). While the first two are final decisions of the CC, delimitations can be considered preliminary rulings marking the end or transition of a judicial stadium. Determinations are only used in cases when the president has committed a severe crime. Although there are exceptions when delimitations are final decisions - for example in an explanation of previous CC decisions, in rulings with “positive content,” i.e. when the CC refers to its previous binding decisions, when petitions are declined or proceedings of a case are terminated – the postanovlenie, or ruling on the merit, is the main CC judgment relevant for our research question ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"aog973pgou","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Blokhin and Kriazhkova, 2015; Kriazhkova, 2016)","plainCitation":"(Blokhin and Kriazhkova, 2015; Kriazhkova, 2016)"},"citationItems":[{"id":113,"uris":[""],"uri":[""],"itemData":{"id":113,"type":"book","title":"Kak zashchitit' svoi prava v Konstitutsionnom Sude: Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo po obrashcheniiu s zhaloboi v Konstitutsionnyi Sud Rossii","publisher":"Institut Prava i Publichnoi Politiki","publisher-place":"Moscow","event-place":"Moscow","author":[{"family":"Blokhin","given":"Pavel"},{"family":"Kriazhkova","given":"Olga"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2015"]]}}},{"id":112,"uris":[""],"uri":[""],"itemData":{"id":112,"type":"article","title":"The Russian Constitutional Court and presidential powers. Email interview with author.","author":[{"family":"Kriazhkova","given":"Olga"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2016",4,18]]}}}],"schema":""} (Blokhin and Kryazhkova, 2015; Kryazhkova, 2016). The rulings were downloaded from the search mask of the CC's website under the address and saved in PDF format. After an initial screening round, some of the rulings were dropped from the sample as the president fulfilled neither of the three main functions of the president in the process of constitutional review (plaintiff, defendant, guarantor of the constitution). This left 175 rulings for analysis which were then manually coded. The Excel data base contains the following entries: ascending number of the rulings in the respective year; date of the ruling; unique signature used by the CC for each ruling (e.g. 13-П/1995 indicating the number of the ruling, the type of ruling, here П = P for postanovlenie or ruling on the merit and the year); a category which includes the degree of presidential involvement (mere presence of the presidential representative, a hearing including a statement of the representative, the presence and statements of other presidential envoys such as members of presidential commissions, the presidential administration; if the compliance of a presidential decree was the object of the hearing); the plaintiff(s); the defendant(s); the subject of the hearing, that is the respective article of the constitution or other normative acts under review; a brief description of the content of the case; a summary of the decision made by the court; the score for presidential success and expansion of presidential power from +2 to –2; and a short explanation with a justification for the coding decision. Table 2.2. Rules for coding rulings on the merit of the Russian Constitutional CourtScoreCoding rule+2The outcome of the ruling corresponded to the preference of the president (presidential success) and the ruling was expansive, i.e. the interpretation of the CC significantly went beyond presidential power as stipulated in the constitution. +1The outcome of the ruling corresponded to the preference of the president (presidential success), but the ruling was not expansive and remained within the understanding of presidential powers as stipulated in the constitution. 0Neutral outcome: the ruling did not directly refer to presidential powers as understood in this paper, and the outcome could not be directly related to presidential preferences based only on the text of the ruling without considering other sources such as media reports. -1The outcome of the ruling was contrary to presidential preferences (presidential loss), but the CC did not curtail constitutional presidential powers by a narrow interpretation. -2The outcome of the ruling was contrary to presidential preferences (presidential loss), and the CC interpreted constitutional presidential powers narrowly and therefore reduced and further delimited them. This outcome, however has not occurred so far in empirical reality. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download