Abstract
Three decades of constitutional law in the former non-Baltic Soviet republics reveal significant variation. Almost all post-Soviet states—whether autocracies or not—have established constitutional courts with judicial review powers to uphold their constitutions, but these tribunals operate differently: some are relatively invisible, while others are central to heated political disputes. We examine this variation across three areas. First, we consider the roles of constitutional courts in high politics, noting that in autocracies, pressured courts lack the authority to protect outgoing leaders. In freer regimes, courts face attacks from various political factions, leading to rulings based on temporary alliances rather than stable principles, complicating alignment with European democratic standards. Second, we analyze how these courts contribute to nation-building efforts, including decolonization and de-Sovietization. Some shape national identities through language, gender norms, and citizenship, displaying a range of judicial agency from autonomy to compliance with the regime. Finally, we explore how post-Soviet constitutional courts address fundamental rights disputes—encompassing social, criminal, and civil rights—which significantly influence the trajectories of constitutional law. While many tribunals still lack rigorous reasoning and broad public backing, a minority now serve as credible forums for constitutional debate and decision making—incrementally strengthening accountability and the protection of human rights.