Trying to Make Law Matter: Legal Reform and Labor Law in the Soviet Union

Be the first to write a review

Overview

One of the most pressing issues of our time is the possibility of rebuilding the rule of law in former Leninist countries as a part of the transition to a market democracy. Despite formal changes in legislation and an increased attention to law in the rhetoric of policymakers, instituionalization of the rule of law has proven to be an immensely difficult challenge. Leninist regimes destroyed popular faith in law and legal institutions and, like other transitional regimes, contemporary post-communist Russia lacks ...

See more details below
Available through our Marketplace sellers.
See All Options
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (12) from $34.00   
  • New (3) from $125.00   
  • Used (9) from $34.00   
Close
Sort by
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Note: Marketplace items are not eligible for any BN.com coupons and promotions
$125.00
bluehouse
Seller since 2013

Feedback rating:

(39)

Condition:

New — never opened or used in original packaging.

Like New — packaging may have been opened. A "Like New" item is suitable to give as a gift.

Very Good — may have minor signs of wear on packaging but item works perfectly and has no damage.

Good — item is in good condition but packaging may have signs of shelf wear/aging or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Acceptable — item is in working order but may show signs of wear such as scratches or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Used — An item that has been opened and may show signs of wear. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Refurbished — A used item that has been renewed or updated and verified to be in proper working condition. Not necessarily completed by the original manufacturer.

New
Brand new.

Ships from: acton, MA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • •Standard, 48 States
$177.48
Books Revisited
Seller since 2013

Feedback rating:

(97)

Condition: New
Brand New Item.

Ships from: Chatham, NJ

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • •Canadian
  • •International
  • •Standard, 48 States
  • •Standard (AK, HI)
  • •Express, 48 States
$196.68
Lyric Vibes
Seller since 2010

Feedback rating:

(147)

Condition: New
Hardcover New 0472106058 New Condition ~~~ Right off the Shelf-BUY NOW & INCREASE IN KNOWLEDGE...

Ships from: Geneva, IL

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • •Canadian
  • •International
  • •Standard, 48 States
  • •Standard (AK, HI)
  • •Express, 48 States
  • •Express (AK, HI)
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Close
Sort by
Sending request ...

More About This Book

Overview

One of the most pressing issues of our time is the possibility of rebuilding the rule of law in former Leninist countries as a part of the transition to a market democracy. Despite formal changes in legislation and an increased attention to law in the rhetoric of policymakers, instituionalization of the rule of law has proven to be an immensely difficult challenge. Leninist regimes destroyed popular faith in law and legal institutions and, like other transitional regimes, contemporary post-communist Russia lacks the necessary institutional infrastructure to facilitate the growth of the rule of law.
Trying to Make Law Matter provides unique insight into the possibility of creating the rule of law. It is based on Kathryn Hendley's pathbreaking field research into the actual practices of Russian trial courts, lawyers, factory managers, and labor unions, contrasting the idealistic legal pronouncements of workers' rights during the Gorbachev era with tawdry reality of inadequate courts and dispirited workers.
Hendley frames her study of Russian law in action with a lively theoretical analysis of the fundamental prerequisites of the rule of law not only as a set of ideals but as a legal system that rests on the participation of rights-bearing citizens. This work will appeal to law, political science, and sociology scholars as well as area specialists and those who study transitions to market democracy.
Kathryn Hendley is Professor, Law and Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

William Kitchin
Kathryn Hendley’s TRYING TO MAKE LAW MATTER: LEGAL REFORM AND LABOR LAW IN THE SOVIET UNION is an outstanding report of an impressive and informative research undertaking into certain statutory and empirical aspects of Soviet labor law in the 1980's. It is also a challenging model of how one might compare the law in theory and the law in practice in any legal system. And it is an essay into the prospect of Russia’s becoming a law-governed state. The book is at its strongest when it is comparing the theory and practice of Soviet labor law. Hendley has done a detailed study of that part of the Labor Code in effect in the Russian Republic in the 1980's dealing with the transferring and dismissing of workers in Soviet enterprises, but Hendley has not stopped there. She has analyzed the "guiding explanations" of the Labor Code handed down by the Supreme Court of the Russian Republic and the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union. These are the precedent-like opinions (in a non-precedent legal system!) issued by the supreme courts as guidance for lower courts. Already at this point in the book, Hendley has surpassed the great majority of book length treatments of Soviet law published since 1960, most of which went no farther than simply relaying the content of statutes, usually translating those statutes almost verbatim. Indeed, the articles and books of this period were essentially stripped of interpretation and uninformed by what was really happening in the Soviet legal arena. Hendley exceeds all previous treatments of Soviet law in that she bases much of this book on the extensive fieldwork and interviews which she conducted in 1989-90 with judges, procurators, people’s assessors, scholars, enterprise managers, and others, with the purpose of discovering just how wide the gap between Soviet legal theory and practice was. The gap which Hendley found is, as expected, wide. She found that Soviet (Russian) statutory law was clearly pro-worker. The Code specified reasons for which a worker could be dismissed, and management’s freedom to dismiss or transfer workers arbitrarily was subject to strict statutory boundaries. Ah, socialist law on the books indeed painted a picture of labor in paradise. Moreover, in their published decisions, appellate judges seemed consistently to hold management accountable to an especially high standard of proof and pronounced stern procedures governing dismissals and transfers of workers. Indeed, in paradise, the worker had a friend in court. At least that is what the unwitting observer would conclude. But all was not right in this paradise. The law in practice did not mirror the law on the books or appellate pronouncements on that law. The purpose of the labor statutes governing dismissals and transfers was to protect the worker from capricious and arbitrary management decisions. One thing definitely worked in the communist system --- practically everyone learned to "play the game." And the game was for management to create the illusion that its dismissals and transfers were in accordance with the Code. The Party-controlled "trade unions," coopted by management since both the unions and management had a higher interest in meeting or appearing to meet quotas, were in practice no friend of the worker. The unions routinely approved management’s dismissals and transfers. While the worker may have thought the worker had a friend in the rarified Soviet and Russian Supreme Courts (as reflected in those courts’ pro-worker opinions), the worker clearly knew there was no friend in the trial courts where almost all dismissal and transfer litigation occurred. The (Party) trial judges accepted management’s evidence and proof, formulated by the enterprise’s in-house (Party) counsel, with little question and actually subjected the unrepresented worker to a heightened standard of review, in spite of guiding explanations from the Supreme Court which in tone at least required the worker to receive no such treatment. Soviet trial judges could distinguish guiding explanations as easily as American trial judges can distinguish precedents. Hendley seems to attribute most of this huge gap between Soviet theory and practice to the general nature of the Soviet legal system as one of which the judicial mission was to serve the controlling elite. However, Hendley does not stop with published opinions and elite interviews. The most exceptional aspect of Hendley’s book is her analysis of the unpublished files of certain trial courts which handled litigated transfers and dismissals. She examined the case files of several hundred labor cases handled in two districts of Moscow from 1983 to 1989. The case files revealed that management’s "evidence" in support of its dismissal or transfer decisions was usually accepted without question. Hendley implies that this is partially because management was legally savvy and knew how to format and present its evidence and partially because the ideological bent of the trial judges was not to interfere with the enterprises’ internal affairs. In contrast to management, the legally unarmed worker either had no access to evidence or lacked the articulateness to take on the formidable team of management-trade union-judge. The evidentiary standard of the trial courts was apparently quite lax and to the detriment of the workers. The trial judges often ignored both the "guiding explanations" from the higher courts and also the worker’s evidence of violated statutory rights. Thus, while the Supreme Court’s guiding explanations and the Code itself sounded pro-worker, in practice, the system was clearly and consistently pro-management. Hendley has, therefore, provided a model of how to combine statutory and empirical analysis to provide an in-depth understanding of a particular area of law. Her achievement is really almost stunning, given the difficulties of access even in the atmosphere of reform in the late 1980's, the resistance among Soviet judicial officials to observation by outsiders, and the inevitable paradoxes one faces when trying to measure the gap between Soviet legal theory and Soviet legal practice. From all of this Hendley concludes that law did not "matter" during the Soviet period partly because the judiciary was not independent. Indeed, the Soviet judiciary was completely within the grip of the iron hand even during the reforms of juris perestroika. (The only exception to this is the Soviet Committee on Constitutional Oversight under the astute leadership of Sergei Alekseev, but this institution is outside of the scope of Hendley’s book and never addressed the Soviet code provisions regulating transfers and dismissals.) Law did not matter also because law was rightly regarded by management as no more than a procedural hoop which could be successfully negotiated and by skeptical workers, conditioned by decades of malignant neglect, as but yet another means of control from above and of little relevance to trying to fight an "illegal" transfer. If Hendley is at her best when describing the divergence between the statutory promises and the practical deeds of Soviet transfer and dismissal law, she is less convincing in discussing the obstacles which must be overcome before law can "matter" in Russia. Her basic answer is one readily familiar to comparativist political scientists since the 1960's --- the major obstacle is the development of a political culture in which law is trusted as a means by which conflicts can be resolved fairly even in litigated situations where the state might lose. What this means, however, is that law will matter when it matters, and that is not much of an answer. Hendley does allow that in post-Soviet Russia, economic developments can occur which might help create the social and attitudinal conditions in which law can matter. For example, unions, freed of the Party leash, might actually become pro-worker, and management, driven by market forces, will need law as a means of enforcing contracts and solving conflicts. But beyond this, we are not given the benefit of Hendley’s insights about how a legal culture can be created in which law matters. How can an ethos of judicial independence be created? Can judicial role perceptions amenable to a law-governed state be engineered? How can workers who have been conditioned by Soviet decades and czarist centuries to perceive of law as an instrument of elite control now be reconditioned to perceive of law as a means of fair conflict resolution? How can Russia undo the damage done to the concept of law by the Soviet decades? Hendley’s handling of how Russia can rescue its legal self is not much more convincing than other treatments of this same topic by others. She freely admits that there are a number of scenarios of possible futures for Russian law and that how this issue will play out will depend on the attitudes towards law developed by the various segments of Russian society. Political scientists will admire the empirical-statutory methodology of Hendley’s book and will find few efforts equal to it. More traditional legal scholars might resist Hendley’s approach because it is admittedly difficult, gobbles up resources, and is hostile to easier, conventional explanations of non-American legal systems. My own impression is that comparative law courses in American law schools are still structured á la Blackstone, as statutory, black letter approaches whenever they dare actually to touch on the substance of other legal systems. I hope this book can make its way to the desks of persons associated with those courses in order to bring those courses into the twentieth century while that is still possible. The book is well-documented, clearly written, and will be used in aggressive comparative law courses. Though less useful for courses on comparative judicial behavior, the book still offers some valuable insights into the behavior of Soviet trial judges and should be an optional source for those courses. In sum, this is the best book on Soviet law out there and, though the prose is not electric, it is a "must read" for anyone interested in this subject.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780472106059
  • Publisher: University of Michigan Press
  • Publication date: 5/15/1996
  • Pages: 280

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments
Ch. 1 Introduction 3
Ch. 2 Law under Capitalism and Leninism: A Comparative Analysis 11
Ch. 3 The Law on the Books: Soviet Labor Law through the Prism of Published Materials 49
Ch. 4 The Law in Practice: Implementing Labor Law in Soviet Enterprises and Courts 77
Ch. 5 The Courts 113
Ch. 6 Economic Incentives, Labor Unions, and Legal Culture 141
Ch. 7 Summary and Speculations 167
Notes 191
Selected Bibliography 237
Index 257
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(0)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Review Guidelines
Add Recommendations
Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)