Authoritarian capture or strategic resistance? When judges use international human rights law

Worldwide, the supremacy of international law is contested – from a non-compliance with international courts’ judgments to a backlash against international institutions. However, judges are still bound by the law and can appeal to international treaties for additional legitimacy, either to justify state policies or protect themselves against domestic actors and enhance compliance. I examine this argument in relation to the Russian Constitutional Court and its citation practices to international law or precedent. Using an original dataset of the court's judgments between 1992 and 2019 (N = 629), I demonstrate that the RCC strategically grounds its judgments in international law to appeal to broader audiences and this relationship is more profound in more important cases. I also show that with the consolidation of an authoritarian regime in Russia, the RCC has shifted its citation patterns. Compared to the 2000s, in recent years, references to international law are used to justify the constitutionality of laws under consideration. This study contributes to our knowledge of authoritarian politics and the role of judges in autocracies but also has broader implications for other countries in times when international norms are contested. These findings point to the limits of international institutions on democratisation and illustrate how international law can be used as a weapon by authoritarian courts.