This chapter provides a general overview of the market and institutional environments existing in emerging economies. Despite the divergences existing across jurisdictions, this chapter shows that most emerging economies share some common features, including the existence of an institutional environment that generally comprises inefficient judicial systems, high levels of corruption, low levels of protection of property rights, and a weak rule of law. Other features commonly found in emerging economies include the existence of underdeveloped financial systems and the prevalence of micro- and small enterprises and large controlled firms. This chapter, and therefore the understanding of the market and institutional environments existing in emerging economies, will provide the basis for the understanding of the insolvency framework for emerging economies suggested in this book.

The laws of the countries that emerged on the territory of the former Soviet Union show profound similarities due to a number of shared historical experiences. They have all been parts of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union and have all gone, simultaneously albeit not uniformly, down the thorny path of post-socialist transition. The resulting common legacies concern deep-lying features of legal method as well as central structures of substantive law. The codification movement, institutional design, way of functioning and the role of the judiciary, and the extent of the professionalisation of law and the flaws of legal academia as well as the current state of property law and the law of legal persons provide prime examples. Disregarding these continuities results in distorted images based, in particular, on overemphasised formal similarities to the civil law family. Therefore, joint consideration of the formerly Soviet, but also formerly tsarist and formerly post-Soviet countries, remains an indispensable tool of legal comparison.

Multi-tier dispute resolution clauses are provisions in contracts that provide for distinct stages, involving separate procedures, for dealing with and seeking to resolve disputes. Multi-tier dispute resolution is used in Russian practice. But it must be recognised that Russian procedural legislation in support of ADR is still in the making. The rules of law governing pre-trial settlement of disputes have undergone many changes recently. Nonetheless, the legislature has been undecided for some time on the precise categories of dispute in respect of which a mandatory claim procedure or protocol should be established. The lawmaker has therefore revised the law in a disorderly fashion and that has generated caused intense criticism from the professional community. The main aim of pre-trial dispute regulation in Russia is to reduce the number of cases submitted to the courts. However, the backlog of cases before the courts continues to be as it was before the implementation of the most recent legislative amendments and the pre-trial settlement of disputes still remains mostly formal insofar as procedure is concerned (whether entered into as a result of mandatory requirements under the law or settled out of court by the parties). This article will start with an overview of the Russian judicial system. It will then review the institutions mentioned above, as well as analyse modern judicial practice in their application. It will conclude with practical recommendations for the improvement of pre-trial dispute resolution in Russia.

Chapter 4 introduces the case study of Rwanda, which offers a paradigmatic example of what happens when thousands of minors are accused of, and pursued for, committing acts of atrocity, in a post-conflict state that has been thoroughly decimated. The chapter first provides a synopsis of the civil war and genocide, describing in particular children’s involvement as perpetrators. It then turns to post-genocide Rwanda to explore the impact of the genocide on the social fabric (in particular the perception of the child and society’s demand for justice and accountability) and the judicial system, and outlines the involvement of international and domestic actors in the reconstruction process. Finally, it briefly examines the position of the child offender under Rwandan law, noting also Rwanda’s international obligations at the time covered by the book. In addition to setting the scene, the chapter draws out the challenges generated primarily by the genocide (recognising that some issues were latent) so as to contextualise both Rwanda’s responses to child perpetrators as well as the approach adopted by international actors, in particular UNICEF.