The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe (CoE) and the European Union (EU) are all outspoken about their goal to see Russia developing into a democratic state that respects human rights. This thesis explores cooperation on human rights and democratisation between these organisations and Russia: how the organisations promote European norms in Russia, how the cooperation has developed over the years, and what kind of impact the interaction has had - first of all, on Russia but secondarily also on European norms and on European organisations - and why. These questions are examined through three empirical case studies on different sets of norms that the OSCE, CoE and the EU actively promote in Russia: the institution of a human rights ombudsman, the abolition of the death penalty and free and fair elections. European documents clearly define these norms, and Russia has explicitly declared its commitment to implement them. The thesis advances both the theoretical discussion on the interplay between international cooperation and domestic change, and our practical knowledge on how the policies of these organisations have influenced developments in Russia. As regards theory, the thesis argues that the theoretical democratisation and socialisation models reflect the universalistic optimism of the post-Cold War era. Developments in Russia do not support this optimism. Basing analysis on the three empirical cases, it is suggested that instead of viewing socialisation as a one-way transference of norms, greater attention should be accorded to the interaction that takes place between the actors, and that the clear-cut stages of development inherent in the socialisation and democratisation models do not always grasp the essence of the change and may, in fact, restrict our analysis. Policy-wise, it is argued that the European human rights and democratisation strategies towards Russia have by and large failed because they are based on similarly over-optimistic expectations, typical of the Zeitgeist of the post-Cold War years. The thesis warns that if an exception is granted to Russia with regard to once-agreed norms, the normative base for European cooperation will be weakened. In the long run, this could have a negative impact on the legitimacy of the European organisations.

This thesis is a socio-legal study of the politics of international law (i.e. the relationship between international law and international politics). There is not necessarily an accepted scope, or even direction, of this relationship but it is widely perceived to be important in international, as well as national, affairs. Still, this relationship needs to be better understood and articulated. This thesis offers a theoretical and empirical account of the phenomenon of the politics of international law, and its implications for the Chechen conflict by exploring how and to what extent one's understanding of the phenomenon is determined by culture, history, political and social context. Part One is an overview of the literature and theoretical approaches to studying the relationship between (international) law and (international) politics, as well as an analysis of sixteen face-to-face semi-structured interviews with practitioners of international law and international politics from different backgrounds and cultures. That leads to a theoretical model which is applied and verified in Part Two, a case study of the Chechen conflict. This focuses specifically on a socio-historical understanding of international law, the humanitarian and human rights movement in Russia, and the relationship between human rights law and international humanitarian law in the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights in the so-called Chechen cases. The findings of this study indicate that international politics is highly influenced by international law just as international law is affected by international politics. They both are integral parts of the international system, nevertheless, remain distinct from each other. It is therefore the politics of international law that allows international relations to take place, where politics provides the means by which the negotiations can take place and law creates specific language and provides a framework within which the debates can take place. It demonstrates that the challenges of modern times make that the two become increasingly influential on one another.