The role of the Council of the Baltic Sea States in advocating national minority rights in the 1990s

Introduction

The radical transformation of the international relations system, characterized by the abandonment of the Cold war policy and the bipolar confrontation, the demise of the Soviet Union and the aspirations of the newly independent states to be integrated into the unified global space rooted in the Western European values determined the search for new formats of international cooperation in the 1990s. This objective gained particular importance in the Baltic Sea region and Northern Europe, where the interests of the Nordic Countries, the newly independent Baltic States, and Russia intersected. The states which for decades had had different models of political, socio-­cultural, and cultural development sought to develop common approaches and principles to the implementation of their domestic and foreign policies with the aim of harmonising interstate relations and establishing a unified regional space for development and security. The Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS), which was set up in 1992, has become the main tool for achieving the aim.

Within the framework of the regionalization processes, the CBSS was among the first to demonstrate efforts to develop unified approaches to ensuring equal rights and freedoms for vulnerable population groups. Notably, in 1994, at the initiative of Russia the position of the CBSS Commissioner for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Including the Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities (hereinafter the CBSS Commissioner) was established.

Due to the multifaceted nature of the research subject, its historiography comprises several strata of scientific literature. This study is based on the conceptualization of the regionalization processes in the Baltic Sea region. The authors identify the objective factors of these processes, dating back to the cultural and historic legacy of the Hanseatic League, a trade union of free Baltic Cities, which was established in the 12th century to ensure the trade security and expansion of economic contacts [1].

Some studies note that the driving force behind regional integration was the rise of new regionalism, namely the political will of the leadership of the countries in the region to create and strengthen regional unity for the protection of common interests that transcend national interests and for confronting global challenges and threats [1—3].

There are scholars who justifiably assert that the priority in developing the multilateral international cooperation in the region belongs to the CBSS, which was established in a dialogue format to overcome post-bipolar era confrontation in the region. The scholars recognize a significant role of the European Union in developing this type of cooperation in the region [4; 5]. In particular, it is noted that the Western partners regarded this platform as an additional mechanism of the democratization of public and political life on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea. At the same time the Baltic Sea region was meant to become a bridge for the interaction of Russia and the EU [6—8]. A number of foreign researchers view Russia’s participation in the CBSS as a tool for addressing the issue of the Russian-­speaking minority in Latvia and Estonia [9; 10].

Some scientific studies mention the activity of the CBSS Commissioner sole­ly as a step in developing the structure of the organization without appraising the Commissioner’s contribution to the development of the culture of human rights promotion in the Baltic Sea region [11; 12]. Hanne-­Margret Birckenbach empha­sises the role of the CBSS Commissioner, though. The researcher notes that the institution of the Commissioner was by no means a duplication of the High Com­missioner on National Minorities (HCNM). On the contrary, the Commissioner could take action in cases of targeted aid [12, p. 546]. The works by Ole Espersen, the first Commissioner of CBSS, are worth a separate mention. [13—15]. Ole Espersen analyzes the reasons for establishing the office of the CBSS Commis­sioner for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Including the Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities, explains the mandate, and highlights the spe­cificity and methods of his activity. His works demonstrate that while holding the office Ole Espersen tried to make his activity as efficient as possible by studying the experience of other institutions. For instance, he criticizes a law-enforcement activity of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe [15].

A number of Russian scholars address a pressing issue of the situation of the Russian-­speaking population in the newly independent states [16—19]. The scholars provide statistical analysis of the population of ethnic Russians, who, after the Baltic States had regained independence, became non-citizens in the country of permanent residence. The discussions centre mainly on Latvia and Estonia. The studies indicate violation of the fundamental principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to which “everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his/her nationality nor denied the right to change his/her nationality” [17]. Vadim Musaev notes in his works that ethnic conflicts with Russians flared up in every former Soviet republic, yet, as a rule, they were caused by some minor everyday reasons. In contrast to that, in the Baltic States legislative infringement of civil rights in case with the Russian-­speaking people took place [20].

Some studies on ethno-­national policy of the Baltic States present analysis of the reasons and factors determining this policy. Among those reasons accession to the USSR is always mentioned. Mikhail Berendyaev and Evgenii Urazbayev note that in the 1990s “European identity construction in the Baltic States took place in the framework of the formation of counter-­identity to the Soviet heritage and everything Russian, which resulted in exploiting some historical themes and supporting negative relations with Russia” [21]. Some researchers mention other factors as well: inexperience of new political elite in the Baltic States [19], attempts to minimize Russia’s impact on the electoral processes [18], and an ever-present fear of the restoration of Russia’s political influence and rule [17]. Vadim Smirnov looks into the reasons for the Baltic States’ national policy through the lens of “the theory of small states” by Colomer [18]. According to this theory, small states are unable to fully secure their military and economic safety for the lack of resources and have to build asymmetrical relations with powerful states or join intergovernmental unions [22]. Nikolai Mezhevich’s viewpoint is worth mentioning. The scholar considers that the reason for the policy of discrimination against the Russian-­speaking population in the Baltic States is the doctrine of Soviet ‘occupation’, which is legally unsubstantiated under the international law [23, p. 64, 119—120].

The issue of Karelian national movement’s discussion in the framework of CBSS has not been reflected in the scientific literature. At the same time Karelian national movement has been analysed in the general context of the ethno-­political situation in Russia in the 1990s. The scholars, in particular, identify negative consequences of the Soviet Nationality policy, which sought to consolidate peoples under socialistic slogans but overlooked their ethno-­cultural needs. Moreover, the 1990s witnessed the acceleration of the politicisation of social life and ethnic mobilisation, a profound economic crisis, which necessitated the regions to search for additional external resources and sources of support [24—26]. Yurii Shabaev attributes the causes of the contemporary national movements to the Bolshevik Policy of the first years of power. The scholar considers that the aspiration of the Bolsheviks to secure political support of numerous national minorities resulted in the disintegration of the state’s territory into ethnic enclaves: union and auto­nomous republics, regions, districts, etc. Thereby, vast territories of the country were transferred as symbolic ‘ownership’ to separate ethnic groups [27].

The article aims to analyse and identify the results of the CBSS’ work on the protection of the rights of national minorities during the period from 1994 to 2000. This work was predominantly conducted pursuant to the Mandate of the Commissioner for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Including the Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities.

Methods and materials

The theoretical and methodological foundation of this research draws on the concept of neoliberal institutionalism. This concept emphasises the significance of international institutions which facilitate the relations among states by setting rules of liberal democracy and promoting values of cooperation to ease tensions [28, р. 1—3].

The choice of this concept for the research is explained by the fact that one of the basic tenets of neoliberalism is the development of international law, enshrining human rights and the rights of different groups of population. The CBSS case demonstrated progressive degradation and inability to address the issue of ensuring human rights of national minorities in the Baltic Sea region, which evidences the impossibility of implementing neoliberalism in the policy of the states with different historical background and development models despite the attempts they made in the 1990s.

Both general scientific and historical research methods have been employed to accomplish the research goals. The historical reconstruction method made it possible to reconstruct in detail the activity of the office of the Commissioner for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Including the Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities, as well as the role of Russia in addressing the issue of the Russian-­speaking population in the Baltic States. Applying the method of synthesis relying on the analysis results allowed us to make the general conclusions.

It is worth noting that no legal definition of the concept of national minorities has been developed in international law, nor have the criteria for their identification been established. The boundary between the concept of national minorities and the concept of indigenous people is not clearly defined. The ultimate decision on what groups qualify as national minorities falls within the domain of national constitutional legislation. The authors of this article apply the criteria, which were put forward by Francesco Capotorti in 1977, to define the concept of national minorities: these are the people in a non-dominant position, outnumbered by the rest of the population; they are the citizens of the state but exhibit ethnical, religious, and linguistic characteristics different from those of the majority; they demonstrate, including implicitly, a sense of solidarity aimed at the preservation of their culture, traditions, religion, and language [29].

The primary source of the research is comprised by the documents from the Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation. The article represents the first time these documents have been studied scientifically. The most important documents concerning the subject of the research are those from Fond 34 “General Office Fond” (since 1995 “General Department Fond”) covering the period from 1993 to 1999. The Fond contains extensive correspondence regarding the development of cooperation in the Baltic Sea region and Russia’s participation in this cooperation — contribution to establishing the position of the CBSS Commissioner, the formal correspondence of the officials of the Foreign Affairs Ministry of the Russian Federation and regional representatives of Russia with the Commissioner.

The Commissioner’s documents — his letters to Russian public officials and extracts from reports are of special interest. Partly the information on the Commissioner’s activity is presented on the CBSS official site,1 and on the site of the Foreign Affairs Ministry of the Russian Federation.2

The CBSS Commissioner:
the establishment of the position, the main directions of the activity,
and the reasons for the abolition of the position

It is rightly noted by some researchers that the geopolitical situation, which facilitated the construction of the Baltic Sea region, was based on the idea to create an area of intensive cooperation in the northeastern Europe with its subsequent inclusion in European integration processes. We agree with the view of Andrei Volodkin that “the implementation of the Baltic Sea region’s concept presupposed that the Northern countries would become the main transmitters of European values and development models in post-socialist states of the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea, thereby strengthening their political influence in Europe” [30]. “Assistance to new democratic institutions”3 was declared among the key objectives in the founding Declaration of the CBSS. In order to achieve the objective and due to the particular concern regarding the situation of the Russian-­speaking population in the Baltic States, Russia initiated the establishment of the position of the Commissioner for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Including the Rights of the Persons Belonging to Minorities.

The first time the idea was put forward in the proposals of the Russian Federation in a draft CBSS Communiqué, which was to be adopted at the second CBSS session on 16—17 March 1993, in Helsinki. The letter, dated 6 March 1993, addressed to Aleksandr Rannikh, the Russian Ambassador to the Republic of Latvia, for forwarding to Georgs Andrejev, the Foreign Minister of Latvia stated: “it is necessary as soon as possible to take a decision on establishing a position of the CBSS Commissioner for Human Rights and the Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities, as it has been repeatedly proposed. In our opinion, the fears that there will be overlapping with the functions of the CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities are unfounded. The scope of tasks is so different that there will be enough work for both Commissioners. We do not hide our concerns with the situation of national minorities in Latvia…”4 However, the issue of establishing the position of the CBSS Commissioner was finally resolved only at the meeting of the Committee of Senior Officials on 18—19 May 1994, in Tallinn. The position itself was officially established at the Third Ministerial Session of the CBSS in Tallinn on 24—25 May 1994.

According to the mandate, the main task of the CBSS Commissioner was to promote and consolidate a democratic development and the protection of human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, and to create favorable conditions for applying generally accepted human rights standards. The Commissioner’s functions included making recommendations to the member states of the CBSS; providing expert opinion on human rights; receiving communications from individuals, groups or organizations based on which the Commissioner could decide to make recommendations to governments.5

Ole Espersen held the office of the CBSS Commissioner during the period from 1994 to 2000. The replacement of the officeholder was accompanied by a fairly pointed diplomatic correspondence, and we would prefer to consider this separately. As early as November 1999, a year before the termination of the Commissioner’s mandate, the Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov received a letter from the Estonian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Toomas Hendrik Ilves. In the letter he suggested abolishing the position of Commissioner, justifying this by the fact that “a lot has changed in the region since establishing the office in 1994. Nowadays, all member states of the CBSS are the members of the Council of Europe or European Union. Besides, all member states of the CBSS have an established ombudsman institution”.6 The Estonian diplomat believed that issues of concern to the CBSS Commissioner could be addressed by the recently appointed Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, who was very experienced and held expertise in this area.7 However, the Russian Foreign Minister expressed a certain degree of dissatisfaction with the state of affairs: “Unfortunately, the human rights situation in the region is far from ideal. Some recommendations of the CBSS Commissioner and other human rights institutions, among them the Council of Europe, remain unimplemented. To be specific, in Estonia, the issue of large-­scale statelessness and so-called illegal immigrants remains necessary to be addressed, as well as reunification of separated families, easing language proficiency requirements during the naturalization process, repeal of the discriminatory provisions of the legislation on the language, education and elections, simplification of the visa extension procedure for foreigners”.8 Igor Ivanov explicitly articulated Russia’s stance that the proposal to abolish the Commissioner’s position was premature.

On 19 June 2000, the Embassy of Denmark in Moscow was informed that during the upcoming 9th CBSS session in Bergen on 21—22 June Denmark would propose Helle Degn as a candidate for the position of the Commissioner for Democratic Development.9 The First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Alexander Avdeev, clarified that although relations with Helle Degn were fairly good, she was not a lawyer by profession and did not have sufficient experience in the field of human rights protection.10

While reconstructing these events, we may refer to the article of the newspaper Kommersant dated 29 June 2000. According to the article “at the Ministerial meeting of the CBSS in Bergen, Norway, ministers for foreign affairs could not persuade their Estonian counterpart Toomas Ilves, who refused to vote in favour of prolonging the Mandate of the CBSS Commissioner Ole Espersen.11 As all decisions in this organization are taken only in case of the unanimous vote, the ministers had to search for another candidacy which could suit Tallinn. The Estonian representative’s position could be explained by the complicated situation with the human rights’ protection of the Russian-­speaking population in Estonia and Ole Espersen’s active involvement in the issue. Instead of Ole Espersen the Council appointed Helle Degn, the Chairperson of the Foreign Policy Committee of the Danish Parliament, as a new CBSS Commissioner. At this Council session, the decision was taken to revise the mandate of the CBSS Commissioner. The position became known as the CBSS Commissioner for Democratic Development. The attention of the CBSS Commissioner was redirected towards consumer protection, the development of local democracy, and civil society.

After the demise of the Soviet Union, within the framework of the first regional structure of the international cooperation in the Baltic Sea region a unique position of the CBSS Commissioner was established. Its creation initiated by Russia and Ole Espersen’s being in office from 1994 to 2000 laid the foundations of multilevel cooperation in the area of respecting human rights and freedoms in the region, including the rights of national minorities. The events regarding the replacement of the Commissioner in 2000, the revision of the Commissioner’s mandate, and the abolishing of this position demonstrated disagreements of the Member States of the CBSS on the issues of national minorities’ human rights. It was partly accompanied by the gradual alienation in relationships between Russia and the Baltic States.

The contribution of the CBSS to improving
and standardising legal and institutional framework
for the promotion of human rights of national minorities

The priority directions of the CBSS Commissioner’s activity were determined by a number of internal and external factors. One of the external factors was an increasing interest to the issue of national minorities on the global level, and in the framework of the UN. Thus, in 1992 “The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities” was adopted.12 On 25 June 1993, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights. The Declaration outlined the main steps and mechanisms of guaranteeing human rights and fundamental freedoms.13 The World Conference participants called on the General Assembly to establish the post of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which was established on 20 December 1993. Thus, the CBSS Commissioner was authorized to help implement the Programme in the Baltic Sea Region. Previously, in 1990 the concept of minority found reflection in the Recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which stated that minorities contribute significantly to cultural diversity of the Member States of the Council of Europe.14 For the regulation of interethnic disagreements and conflict prevention on the issue of national minorities the position of High Commissioner for National Minorities was established at Helsinki Summit meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, held on 9 and 10 July 1992.15 In this regard the necessity to align legal and institutional framework of promotion and protection of the human rights of different population groups was placed on the agenda.

The Baltic Sea region was an extremely diverse and heterogeneous territory in terms of cultural and historic traditions, political culture, and economic development. Almost half of the Member States of the CBSS used to be socialist states. In the wake of the Soviet Union collapse, these states experienced powerful processes of ethnic mobilisations and interethnic conflicts flared up. The former Soviet republics sought to break away from the Soviet legacy and strengthen their sovereignty, which brought about conflicts with the Russian-­speaking population. Obviously, both the three Baltic States and Russia aspired to integrate into the European community. Under these conditions the CBSS Commissioner faced a challenge to facilitate unification of the legal and institutional framework of the human rights protection, including the rights of national minorities. In his report for the period from 1994 to 1995 the Commissioner noted: “The Council of Europe places great emphasis when assessing whether applicant countries fulfill the conditions for full membership of the organization”.16 It is important to mention that by that time all Baltic States had become full members of the Council of Europe. Russia joined the Council of Europe only in 1996.

The analysis of the legal position of vulnerable groups of population (immigrants and stateless immigrants’ children; refugees; non-citizens, residing legally in the country), carried out by the CBSS Commissioner on the basis of the information provided by the Member States, questionnaires, personal appeals, and travels to the CBSS countries showed that the violation of international norms was a frequent occurrence not just in the Post-­Soviet countries but in some European states as well.

Yet, the highest level of non-compliance with the international and European legal systems was identified in the Baltic States. Most claims were on the position and the status of non-citizens (predominantly Russian-­speaking people), residing legally in these countries. Russia raised concerns about their rights protection.

The officials from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, both in correspondence and when meeting in person, repeatedly pointed out to Ole Espersen the violations of the international standards by the Baltic States regarding discrimination of non-indigenous population and emphasized inappropriateness of the attempts “to extend collective responsibility for the former USSR’s policy on the people who had lived in Estonia and Latvia for many years”.17

According to the archival sources, about 700 thousand Russian people resided in Latvia in 1997. Special quotas were introduced (about 40 a month) to pass exams in order to obtain citizenship: a language exam to determine proficiency in the state language and a legal exam. Yet, even these quotas were not met, as “the applicants are really afraid of these difficult exams because in the event of failing, the applicant is doomed to a waiting period of 10—15 years”.18

On 24 March 1997, during a private conversation with Alexander Avdeev, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Ole Espersen noted that the Council of Europe had endorsed the introduction of a special ‘window system’ for optation applications in the early 1990s, as there had been concern that Latvian officials might not be able to cope with the influx of applicants. He recognized that “improvements in Latvia are of superficial character only. The officials do not ‘offend’ Russian-­speaking population as often as it used to be. The staff of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs are tactful and polite. The programmes on the Latvian language are being developed to teach the Russian-­speaking population. But it is just the humane way of the rejection of citizenship”.19

The Russian side repeatedly addressed Ole Espersen regarding the rights violation cases, in particular, not granting non-citizens — permanent residents of Latvia the right to vote at local elections. As for Estonia, legislatively the right to vote was recognised there, but in reality, Russians were often impeded in exercising the right.20 It was noted: “the main reason for the situation may be the fact that Latvian officials are apprehensive about Russian voters and the prospect of the Russians being elected to the legislative bodies. Latvian authorities are ready to introduce only superficial changes into their political course, those regarding cultural rights extension, social support, but not provision of the civil rights”.21

It is noteworthy that these violations were marked by the CBSS Commissioner in his reports for the analyzed period. He repeatedly noted that according to the criteria of the Council of Europe the citizenship applicant must be able to cope with everyday language situations. The Commissioner recommended that language requirements on reading and writing proficiency be limited to a relatively modest level and special provisions be made for elderly people and for those with learning disabilities. The Commissioner also doubted the legitimacy of conditioning the acquisition of citizenship on passing a legal exam. He also recommended that the member states of the CBSS undertake the obligation to grant non-citizens the right to vote and run for public office in local authority elections, provided that they fulfill the same legal requirements as apply to citizens and furthermore have been lawful and habitual residents in the state concerned for a period not exceeding 2—3 years prior to the elections.22

During the period analyzed, in contrast to Russia, the issue of national minorities was not brought to the forefront in the states of Northern Europe and the Baltic States. In his annual report, the Commissioner referred to the ratification of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which had been open for signature since 1995. He noted that by June 1997, the Framework Convention had been signed by 34 countries, but only nine countries had ratified it, whereas twelve ratifications were required for entry into force.23 Among the countries’ counterarguments was the lack of the definition of a national minority in the Framework Convention, so every country interpreted the notion differently.

It is beyond any doubt that the Commissioner did not manage to completely resolve the issue of discrimination against the Russian-­speaking population in the Baltic States, because of the magnitude of emerging problems in the area of human rights promotion, recommendatory nature and consensus-­based character of the decisions of the institutions of the CBSS. The reluctance of the Baltic States to address the issue of the Russian-­speaking population was obvious. As rightly noted by Nikolai Mezhevich,24 the concept of ‘occupation’ served as the basis for national sovereignty in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, which relieved them of responsibility for “the conscious discrimination, based on the interpretation of the events of the period from 1939 to 1940, against the non-titular population” [22, p. 85].

At the same time, the Commissioner’s activity was very fruitful. In essence, he carried out very complicated ‘preparatory’ work and contributed greatly to forming the basis for aligning legal framework of the CBSS Member States with the international and European standards. A significant number of problems were gradually addressed, the scope of immigrants and refugees’ rights expanded. Over time all the Member States of the CBSS signed and ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Overall, the Commissioner’s activities helped create the conditions for the Baltic states to join the European Union in 2004.

Russia’s activity in promoting the human rights
of national minorities within the framework of the CBSS

The national question was extremely acute in Russia in the 1990s. Dramatic social transformations of the 1990s, the dissolution of the USSR, “the parade of sovereignties” in the Russian Federation’s republics aggravated ethno-­political situation in the country and threatened its integrity. The crisis of the inter-­ethnic relations was determined by a number of reasons, some of them dated back to the history, others were generated by the current events. Among those the miscalculations and mistakes of the Soviet national policy, escalation of the socio-­economic crisis in the country, and rapid decline in the living standards could be mentioned. All these were accompanied by increasingly upward centrifugal tendency especially in those ethnic regions, where there were enough resources for the independent development, and the aspirations of the regional elite, exploiting ethnic mottoes to gain more autonomy and power. The brightest case of suchlike situation in the north-west of Russia became the subject of the discussion in the CBSS.

Archival sources indicate that the representatives of Estonia, a member state of the CBSS, submitted the text of a joint request from the Executive Committee of the National Congress of Karelians, Finns, and Vepsians to the CBSS, the UN, and the CSCE, dated 24 April 1993, at the meeting of the CBSS Committee of Senior Officials held in Tallinn on 24 September 1993. The joint request stated that Finno-­Ugric peoples, residing in the Eastern Karelia and on the Karelian Isthmus underwent the acts of political repressions, and persecutions, deportation, and forceful Russification. The authorities of the Russian Federation and the Karelian Republic were accused of ignoring the rights of these indigenous peoples to participate in socio-­political and economic life on equal footing with other nations residing on these territories. The delegation of Lithuania offered to investigate this joint request and make a concrete decision, that is, ask the CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, Max van der Stoel, to take an inspection trip to Karelia to check facts. In their turn the Russian delegation asked the colleagues to take the investigation of this joint request unbiasedly and objectively, taking into consideration the position of the authorities of the Republic of Karelia.25

Indeed, similarly to other national-­territorial entities in the 1990s, the national movement was really developing in Karelia in the context of the reasons outlined above. In June 1991, the first Congress of Karelian representatives took place. Yet, the Karelian national movement split into two wings — the moderate and the radical one. The moderate wing was represented by the Karelian Culture Society (later it transformed into the Union of the Karelian People), which advocated the extensions of cultural and linguistic rights of the Karelian people. The radical wing headed by Anatolii Grigoriev was represented by “The Karelian Movement” organization. They promoted the slogan “Karelia for the Karelian people” and maintained that Karelians, Vepsians, and Finns residing in the republic should hold at least one third of the seats in the Parliament of Karelia, while the government, as the highest executive body of the republic, should be headed by a representative of the “Karelo-­Finnish people.”. The radicals believed that the Russian and the Finnish languages were to become the state languages, as Karelian dialects could not possibly function as the state language. The authorities were warned that in case these proposals were ignored the Republic of Karelia would join Finland. However, as the result of the heated discussion a compromise Declaration was adopted, which recognised the fact that the Republic of Karelia remained an autonomous region as part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialistic Republic. The Russian language and the Karelian language were recognised as state languages of the republic. It was decided to establish the State Committee on National Affairs under the Government of the Republic. The necessity to set up a bicameral parliament of the republic analogous to the structure of the former Supreme Soviet of the USSR was pointed out, so that there was the House of the Republic and the House of National Entities to protect the interests of the indigenous peoples.26

The decisions of the first Congress contributed greatly to solving some inter-­ethnic issues, and helped develop a constructive dialogue between ethnic movements and the authorities. As early as on 4 December 1991, the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Karelia adopted a resolution on the establishment of the Committee on National Policy and Inter-­Ethnic Relations under the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Karelia from 1January 1992. On 22 November 1991, the Law of the Republic of Karelia “On Legal Status of the National Districts, National Settlement, and Rural Councils in the Republic of Karelia” was adopted. The Law entitled the local Councils of People’s Deputies to make decisions on equal use of the native and the Russian languages by the local authorities, in educational institutions, and childcare facilities.27 In 1992 the Centre of National Cultures was established in Petrozavodsk, where in December 1992 a National Congress of Karelians, Finns, and Vepsians took place. The same period of the early 1990s witnessed appearance of the elementary school textbooks in the Karelian and the Vepsian languages.28

The project on reforming the state power in the Republic by establishing a bicameral parliament was rejected at the second Congress of Karelian representatives (1994), which took place against the backdrop of the adoption of the RF Constitution in 1993. The Resolution of the second Congress recommended that the legislative Assembly of the Republic of Karelia consider establishing the Parliament of Indigenous Peoples on a pro bono basis.29

In fact, ‘the Karelian question’ was resolved in 1991 two years before the position of the CBSS Commissioner was established. While trying to accuse Russia of illegitimate, undemocratic actions against national minorities, the Baltic States artificially exacerbated the issue in 1993. In response to the incoming requests the CBSS Commissioner monitored the situation on a regular basis and took inspection trips to the Republic of Karelia on repeated occasions.

While visiting the Republic of Karelia in 1995, the Commissioner expressed his wish to establish the position of the regional ombudsman, which, to his mind, could be an impetus for the democratic transformations in other regions of the CBSS.30 However, Russia doubted the relevance of this proposal before the Federal Law “On Human Rights Commissioner” entered into force.31 The Law was adopted on 26 February 1997; it provided establishing regional Commissioners in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.32

In general, it raises no questions that close collaboration of Russia with the CBSS Commissioner facilitated the formation of fundamentally new democratic legal and institutional framework for the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms of national minorities. Thus, on 15 June 1996, the President of the RF approved the Concept of the State National Policy of the Russian Federation.33 The main aim of the state national policy of the country proclaimed in the concept was ensuring conditions for the full-fledged social and ethno-­cultural development of all the nations of Russia, strengthening all-­Russian civil, spiritual and moral integrity on the basis of the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms, and recognizing a person as the highest value. The same year the law “On National and Cultural Autonomy” was adopted, according to which national minorities received the right to establish national-­cultural associations on the basis of voluntary self-organization with the aim of preserving and developing their language and culture.34 The Federal Law “On the Languages of the Russian Federation” of 24 July 1998, created conditions for the preservation and equal development of the languages of the peoples living in the Russian Federation.35 The series of following regulations guaranteed the rights of indigenous small-­numbered peoples of the Russian Federation: the Federal Law “On Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Small-­Numbered Peoples of the Russian Federation”; the Federal Law “On the General Principles of Organization of Communities of Indigenous Small-­Numbered Peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far East of the Russian Federation”; the Federal Law “On the Territories of Traditional Nature Use of Indigenous Small-­Numbered Peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far East of the Russian Federation”.36 Obviously, a lot of legislative acts, which were adopted within short periods of time, afterwards underwent modifications. At the same time, these efforts laid the groundwork for a new type of legislative framework in Russia. The CBSS Commissioner commended Russia’s initiatives and, as noted in the documents of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “actively promoted Russia’s inclusion in the Council of Europe through personal communications on this issue with officials of the Council of Europe and the CBSS”.37

Conclusion

The CBSS became a radically new format of the international cooperation in Northern Europe with the participation of post-­Soviet countries. It was founded on the basis of mutual interests and united countries different from each other in historic and political traditions, cultures, and models of socio-­economic development.

The activity of the CBSS Commissioner was aimed at forming regional solidarity and identity by standardisation of the legal and institutional framework of the promotion of human rights of different groups of population.

It should be acknowledged that the activity, carried out by the CBSS Commissioner in the period from 1994 to 2000, contributed greatly to developing democratic processes in the Baltic Sea region and addressing particular issues in the field of the human rights promotion. Thus, Russia’s cooperation with the CBSS Commissioner became one of the reasons why a series of laws, aimed at regulating inter-­ethnic relations, were adopted. The conditions were prepared for the Baltic States and Russia to enter the Council of Europe. By 2000 all Member States of the CBSS had ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. To a large extent, the CBSS Commissioner’s activity laid the groundwork for the formation of the institution of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe in 1999.

Nonetheless, the goals and objectives, declared while establishing the office of the Commissioner for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Including the Rights of Persons Belonging to Minorities, were not accomplished for a number of reasons. Among those: heterogeneous composition of the Member States, political tensions between them, as the states pursued their national interests, and the imperfection of the international and regional legal and regulatory framework — there was no uniform definition of national minority both in “The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities” and in the Framework Convention of the Council of Europe for the Protection of National Minorities.38