The counterterrorism legislation entitled ?On Counter-Terrorist Action? that has passed the lower house of Russia?s parliament is sweeping in its breadth of powers given to the Russian military, security forces, and law enforcement bodies to deal with unfolding terrorist situations and to prevent terrorist actions. It is widely expected to pass through the upper house of Parliament and be approved by President Vladimir Putin . This legislation is unanticipated. In addition to violent acts of terrorism increasing worldwide, Russia has seen increasing acts of violence take place on its own soil that are no longer contained to far off regions or war zones such as Chechnya. In the aftermath of the deadly school siege in Beslan in 2004 that occurred after a particularly violent summer of terrorism, Putin used the issue of security to consolidate power and remain unapologetic for Russian military actions in Chechnya. However, this legislation has not been rushed through, rather it has been under revision since it was first debated a year ago. It does, however, give the Russian government very strong powers in their counterterrorism capabilities.
First, this legislation lays out clearly the policy to shoot down a civilian hijacked airliner after the hijacking has been confirmed and if the flight path is a threat to a vital target or over an area with a high population density . This has been an issue that many countries have been grappling with in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which utilized the concept of hijacked airliners as aerial bombs that could be slammed into buildings. At issue is where authorities draw the line between sacrificing innocent civilians possibly to prevent more from being killed. Russia is now very clear about their policy in this matter. The remaining questions are: at what point will the Russian make such a serious determination, and how many chains of command and decision points need to be reached first? These concerns affect domestic airlines in domestic air space. One can only imagine the compounding crisis and the subsequent outcry and controversy if a foreign airliner were shot down in Russian air space.
Russia is reserving the right to use pre-emptive force against suspected international terrorist targets outside Russia with respect to international treaties and agreements to which Russia is a signatory. One can see how controversial this element of the legislation could be if Russia uses excessive force externally. The Russian government can easily claim actions in Chechnya are within their legal territorial borders and consequently internal, domestic business. Yet, Russia is codifying in law what other states are already doing to protect themselves or least justify protecting themselves against terrorism. Problems arise when external actors disagree with that justification, but this is not a Russia-specific problem.
Domestic powers to curtail communications are also part of the legislation. While the government has been accused of reverting to Soviet-style tactics of curtailing individual rights, freedom of expression, privacy and press freedoms , a section of the legislation on media restrictions during counterterrorism operations was removed from the final draft. However, for counterterrorism purposes, authorities can conduct phone wire taps, restrict communications, conduct random identity checks, and restrict means of transport. Russia is traditionally a closed society, and the government could take actions both on a justified and non-justified basis with very little opposition or from an opposition that can really do very little about it.
The Russian government, like many other European states, must have the legal tools to fight terrorism based on their perceived security needs. Often, governments are accused of being too soft or too hard on terrorism by various interested parties when, in reality, a middle ground is needed. Time will tell if these laws are put to the use they are intended for, make a difference in curtailing or reducing the damage of terrorist activities, or become an abuse of government authority.