This thesis analyses Russia's military, economic and diplomatic policies towards the newly independent states, particularly towards the members of the CIS, during Boris Yeltsin's first term as President of an independent Russia (December 1991 to July 1996). The objective is to determine whether after the collapse of the Soviet Union the new Russian state tried to restore a sphere of influence or informal empire over the former Soviet republics - as the French did in sub-Saharan Africa after decolonisation - or whether instead Russia's policies reflected a genuine desire to establish normal state-to-state relations with the new states. Chapter one analyses the underlying principles of Russia's foreign policy towards the former Soviet states and examines the debate on Russian foreign policy priorities which took place during the first years of Russia's independence. This section also overviews Russia's policies towards the Russian minorities that inhabit the Baltic states, in order to determine whether Russia attempted to use this diplomatic tool to further its own interests in the area. Chapter two analyses the peculiar structure of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the extent to which Russia used this political framework to achieve hegemony over the former Soviet republics. Chapter three looks at Russia's participation in the wars in Transdniestria, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabagh, and Tajikistan, and Chapter four analyses Russia's energy trade with Ukraine, Belarus, and the Caspian states. The thesis reaches the conclusion that during 1992- mid 1996 Russia's policies only partially reflected an attempt to reassert the country's influence over the republics of the former Soviet Union and create an informal empire in the post-Soviet space. Russia's behaviour was particularly assertive in the military field as well as in its attempts to build a Russian dominated CIS military infrastructure. However, Russia's policies were less aggressive in the economic sphere, except probably as far as energy policy is concerned, and regarding the fate of Russians living beyond the new borders. More often than not, though, Russia's policies followed an ambivalent and incoherent pattern, a result of the weak and fragmented character of the Russian state.

This thesis investigates the two major problems of poverty and corruption in post-Soviet Russia, by comparing Boris Yeltsin&rsquo / s and Vladimir Putin&rsquo / s terms of office. In order to do that, political and economic circumstances during these two presidents&rsquo / eras, the reasons of these two problems, and the consequences of certain policies adapted by these two presidents are focused on. The main argument of the thesis is to analyze interactively the certain conditions of poverty and corruption in the Russian Federation under the presidencies of both Yeltsin and Putin.

This thesis aims to examine the evolution of the discourse of Eurasianism and its impact on the formulation and implementation of post-Soviet Russian foreign policy. The thesis argues that both of Russia&rsquo / s post-Soviet leaders: Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin have used the discourse of neo-Eurasianism pragmatically whenever it suited Russia&rsquo / s interests. Moscow ignored this discourse when its foreign policy interests contradicted with the main tenets of this ideology. The thesis has five chapters. Following the introductory chapter, the second chapter explores the evolution of Eurasianism as a discourse and its main variants in post-Soviet era. The third chapter examines the relationship between the Eurasianist discourse and Russian foreign policy under Boris Yeltsin. The fourth chapter discusses the same relationship under Vladimir Putin. The concluding chapter evaluates the main findings of this thesis.

本文以葉爾欽時期的派系政治為分析中心，認為派系是延續了過去的政治菁英文化傳統，不但在新的俄羅斯民主制度下繼續存活下來，還進一步成為主導整個俄羅斯發展的重要行動者。本文的研究發現主要有三方面：第一項發現是派系政治是分析葉爾欽時期政治的一個具有解釋力的模式。第二項發現是建構一個分析葉爾欽派系互動規則與架構，在此架構中建立一個評估派系政治穩定程度的指標，運用這個指標來分析俄羅斯派系政治的發展與演進。第三項發現是派系政治的穩定程度與俄羅斯的政經發展具有密切的關係存在，亦即俄羅斯的派系互動愈不穩定，俄羅斯的政治也隨之愈不穩定、人事互動愈頻繁，政策產出更加不確定，尤其是經濟政策隨著派系勢力的上上下下而來回擺盪變動。

A comparative content analysis was conducted to determine whether the Russian (ITAR-TASS) and the American (UPI) wire service coverage of President Boris Yeltsin in the April 25, 1993, referendum was balanced and unbiased. Also, the amount of space dedicated to this topic was measured. Study results indicate that ITAR-TASS was more critical of Yeltsin prior to the referendum than UPI, and that there was no statistically important difference between the two wire services in their post referendum coverage. UPI articles were almost 30% longer than the ITAR-TASS articles. Each UPI article was on an average more than 220 words longer than were the ITAR-TASS articles.

No description available.

L’objet de cette thèse est de replacer la Constitution de la Fédération de Russie, adoptée par référendum le 12 décembre 1993, dans ses différents contextes de production. En effet, ce texte juridique est à la fois le produit d’une Histoire courte et d’une Histoire longue, d’un conflit intra-élite et d’une somme de représentations héritées des périodes précédentes et reconstruites à la fin des années 80 et au début des années 90. Ainsi, il ne semblait pas suffisamment pertinent de limiter notre étude au processus rédactionnel proprement dit, entamé à l’été 1990. Nous avons pris le parti de tenter de reconstituer ce que pouvait être l’« épistémè », les représentations politico-juridiques, des acteurs ayant joué un rôle décisif dans la discussion de la Constitution. Ce parti nécessitait de retracer les occurrences les plus significatives de l’Histoire du droit et des institutions en Russie tsariste et en Union Soviétique. Cette démarche fait l’objet de la première partie de la Thèse, « La Péréstroïka comme réceptacle, révolution et modèle ». Il ressort de l’analyse que malgré la présence de traditions intellectuelles libérales et d’institutions proto-parlementaires, la tradition dominante, et acceptée comme telle par les rédacteurs de la Constitution russe, est largement antijuridique et autoritaire. C’est dans ce contexte que les acteurs de la Ière République russe ont cherché à puiser dans les modèles étrangers (américain et français en particulier) et les modèles théoriques du Droit constitutionnel (régime parlementaire et régime présidentiel) pour créer le nouvel agencement institutionnel. La seconde partie de la thèse, « Le processus de rédaction de la Constitution de 1993 », porte sur l’Histoire courte, c’est-à-dire sur les années 1990-1993 qui ont vu s’affronter deux camps, tant sur le plan politique que constitutionnel. Le camp du Congrès des députés du peuple emmené par son Président Rouslan Khasboulatov défendait un projet permettant d’assurer la domination du Parlement, alors que le camp du Président de la Fédération, emmené par Boris Eltsine, cherchait à imposer un projet assurant à la présidence une position dominante. De part et d’autre, les modèles empiriques et théoriques du Droit constitutionnel furent instrumentalisés et largement trahis. Entre ces deux camps, la Commission constitutionnelle crée au sein du Congrès des députés du peuple cherchait, à travers ses différents projets, à trouver un agencement équilibré nourri des expériences étrangères et de la science du Droit constitutionnel. Le camp de la présidence réussit finalement à faire prévaloir ses vues, dans le cadre d’une Conférence constitutionnelle organisée en juin 1993, mais surtout par sa victoire politique sur le camp du Congrès suite à la crise d’octobre 1993. Le texte adopté par référendum le 12 décembre 1993, très favorable à la Présidence, peut être considéré comme l’héritier de ce conflit, mais également en partie comme l’héritier des traditions politiques russes et soviétiques. / The aim of this dissertation is to analyse the Constitution of the Russian Federation passed by referendum on 12 December 1993, in its various contexts of production. Indeed, this legal text is both the result of a short history and of a long history, of an intra-elite conflict and of an amount of representations, inherited from the past and rebuilt at the end of the 80’s and at the beginning of the 90’s. We chose to attempt to reconstruct what has been the « épistémè », the legal and political representations of the key actors of the constitutional discussions. This choice made it necessary to recount the most significant facts and conceptions of the legal and institutional history of Tsarist Russia and Soviet Union. This approach is found in the first part of this dissertation, « Perestroika as a recipient, a revolution and a model ». It appears that despite the existence of liberal traditions and proto-parliamentary institutions, the dominant tradition, granted as such by the drafters of the Russian Constitution, is basically anti-juridical and authoritarian. It is in this context that the actors of the first Russian Republic tried to use foreign patterns (mostly American and French) and the theoretical patterns of Constitutional law (parliamentary regime and presidential regime) in order to create the new institutional design. The second part of the dissertation, « The redaction process of the Constitution of 1993 », deals with short history, that is years the 1990-1993 during which two sides challenged each other, both on a political and on constitutional grounds. The side of the Congress of People’s Deputies led by its President, Ruslan Khasbulatov, promoted a project of Parliament domination, while the side of the President of the Federation promoted a project of President domination. On both sides, empirical and theoretical patterns of constitutional law were exploited and their true meanings betrayed. Between these two sides, the Constitutional Commission created by the Congress of People’s Deputies, through its several drafts, tried to find a balanced design on the basis of foreign patterns and of the science of constitutional law. Finally, on the side of the President there was success in making its conceptions prevail, within a Constitutional Conference organized in June 1993, but mainly through its political victory of October 1993. The text passed on 12 December 1993, very much in favor of the Presidency, can be considered as the heir of this conflict, but as well partly as the heir of Russian and Soviet political traditions.