Russland

In Russia, the history of conflict resolution is an area of ​​responsibility for legal scholars and lawyers who mainly focus on current issues. There are three approaches that have been developed chronologically by scientists. The pre-1917 revolutionary scholars offered an initial analysis of the criminal justice system and conflict resolution, often in the context of ongoing reforms, to show that the early modern (especially pre-Petrine) system was corrupt and ineffective, as Peter I (1682-1725 ) to reform it in order to ensure more “justice” and effectiveness from an institutional point of view (Vladimirskii-Budanov 1900). Post-1917 jurisprudence (especially Soviet researchers) insisted, continuing the criticism of the pre-Petrine era and the imperial judicial system, that criminal justice served the interests of the state and the leadership classes in accordance with the nature of the state at that time and was thus by definition unlawful (Romashkin 1947 ; Man'kov 1998). Post-Soviet scholars first tried to revert to the pre-revolutionary tradition, but since both the pre-revolutionary and post-Soviet traditions criticized the early modern conflict resolution and criminal justice systems, the post-Soviet scholars continued to view these systems as corrupt, unnecessarily complicated and jumbled, ineffective and due to extensive bureaucracy they assumed that these mainly served the absolute state rather than the local communities (Serov 2009). Current science, however, usually uses institutionally established laws as sources and rarely resorts to legal proceedings as the starting point for everyday conflict resolution practice. Therefore, their position with regard to early modern conflict resolution and criminal justice is defined by the state, because the main source of their materials is produced by the central authorities.